The ACORN sting

Young creative conservatives James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles posed as a pimp and prostitute trying to get housing assistance at ACORN and traffic in underage prostitutes, the result was:

In the footage, workers at various ACORN offices advise Giles to list her
occupation on financial documents as "freelancer,""performance artist" or
"entertainer" instead of prostitute, offer tips on how to claim the underage
girls - who were to be trafficked in from Central America - as dependents on her
tax return, and give their opinion on the best place to illegally cross the
U.S.-Mexico border.

While the media has been forced to cover the story, they seem to be overly concerned that the pair had recieved funding from a larger conservative organization or Fox News. Who cares? I think that since the left cannot defend the responses in the videos, they need to distract from the story. While the pair claim to have done the reporting on their own, it doesn't matter. Would ACORN's response be less reprehensible if they did?

Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into Watergate is legendary, but they got full backing from the Washington Post. Why should O'Keefe and Giles be any different?

Liberal Catholic Bishop Disappoints

It is highly disheartening to hear a speech by an Catholic Bishop that is so disappointing that you feel compelled to blog about it, late at night. I wondered outloud whether I could give the rebuttal. The subject of the talk was about Caritas in Veritate, which is Pope Benedict XVI's third encyclical.

The Bishop said that the encyclical, which I have not read, focused on providing for the common good and social justice. His talk focused on for things: the common good, healthcare, illegal immigrants, and the death penalty (the latter topic is not covered in Caritas in Veritate). (A quick read of Caritas in Veritate seems to indicate a focus on individual charity)

While seeking to better the common good and provide charity is noble, the Bishop seemed to indicate that the government should play a large role. What the Bishop didn't really mention was that charity comes from the individual. It is not chartible vote for someone who promises to give other people's money away, while doing nothing to help others. Charity involves the sacrifice of your time, your money, or your effort for betterment of others. You can't outsource charity.

Next, the Bishop contended that people have a right to healthcare and that "healthcare reform" should have some government plan. The Church actually states that people have the right to access to basic healthcare, which I don't disagree with. However, "access to basic healthcare" and "universal insurance" are not the same thing. People in Britian have paid taxes to have universal healthcare, but when they need healthcare the most, they routinely have to wait exceeding long for care. Is that access? Everyone in Cuba officially has health insurance, but no one can get even minimal care. Is that access? Conversely, I can go to the doctor without insurance. Because I have a high deductible plan, I essentially do. I pay for the full doctors visit. Even if I didn't have health insurance, I still have access to care.

Now, what effect does government healthcare have on the goal of seeking to better the common good? If a government healthcare plans have not succeed in anywhere it has been implemented, has the common good been benefited? Is it right for someone to advocate for a plan that has been proven to do harm to the common good?

To his credit, the Bishop did mention that any government healthcare should not provide for funding for abortion and doctors should have conscious clauses. Sadly, he seemed to take Obama at his word that the government healthcare plan wouldn't have abortion funding and would allow for conscious clauses. Let's play a game: Name the time that Obama voted against abortion. Unfortunately, the Bishop spent very little time on the subject of abortion (maybe 20 seconds) in comparison to the 5-10 minutes he spent on each other topic.

Illegal immigration was the next topic for which the Bishop advocated. Extoling the virtues and hard work of illegal immigrants, he said that they should get be made legal, and reference all the sales taxes and social security taxes they have been paying. He delved deeply into policy saying that illegals should pay a fine and then be on the path to citizenship. Finally, he essentially said that there should be no limit to immigration. If asked, I am certain at least two billion of the worlds' six billion people would love to come to the United States. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the U.S. couldn't support increasing its population 7 fold overnight. So that means there has to be a limit at some point. Additionally, his facts were either fuzzy or he is invalidating his own arguements. Supposedly the 13 million illegals contributed $1.8 trillion to the economy. Having conquered division, that means the average illegal earned $138,461. Either the illegals contribution is overstated or they should not be pitied so much!

Lastly the Bishop spoke against the death penalty. The Church does not advocate for the abolition of the death penaly, but, of course, would not want an innocent person to be executed. Neither would I, but I also believe that the death penalty should be punishment on the table. Considering that in 2006, there were 14,900 homicides and yet 53 executions , I don't think were are at a rate of alarm.

The overall speech lasted at least 30 minutes, and the Bishop wasted a good opportunity to remind people that charity is up to the individual efforts, not outsourcing it to the governmentm which has proven that it is inept at actually providing the charity. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ praised the Samaritan who took the man in the road to an inn and provided him with aid and government. He didn't saying, "And the Samaritan saw the man in the road and was indigant that the government wasn't helping him."

I don't think the Bishop is a bad man. He is not advocating government intervention because he wants more power. I'm sure there are many people he himself has individually helped. However, I think he is applying the wrong "solutions" to current societal deficiencies.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

When Obama says he plans to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse" he is banking on people's interpretation of the word "waste." Most people's interpreation of the word waste begets the question of what aren't you doing it now.

However, Obama's definition of the word, waste, is likely very different. He probably considers giving an 75 year old a heart transplant so he could live another few years, waste. Giving care so that a terminal patient with 6 months to live, can live for a year, is likely considered waste. Perhaps schooling for the mentally handicapped is also waste.

Liberal Media Delusions

Yahoo thinks that a Republican congressmen yelling, "You Lie" when Obama said his healthcare plan won't cover illegal is going to be the Stalingrad of the healthcare debate. I find it hard to believe.


Update: This is turning into the next Valerie Plame, a non-story that is made out to be more than it is. Rep Wilson yelled, "you lie" because amendments to the bill to exclude illegals were voted down. Of course, when Dems booed Bush, there was no "uproar".

This is a manufactured non-story in order to spin the issue away from the fact that Obama's speech provided nothing to the debate.

Obama's Speech: Nothing New

Nothing new in his speech. He promises a utopia. His plan will cover and cure everyone at no extra cost. He repeats that "You get to keep your plan if you like it", but he's going to impose all sorts of requirements on the insurance companies in order to prevent them from being able to do business.

He plans to finance this with savings from "waste and fraud." He plans a committee to determine and eliminate. Waste is old people and the disabled getting care.

Fear is the only way to push socialism through. It was the fear of the crashing financial markets that lead to the bailouts and the "stimulus." Thus Obama tries to spread fear by saying "more will die" if nothing is done. Of course, his plan that "must be passed now" doesn't take effect until 2013 (after the election)

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. [I'm in the middle... and my middle plan is the only way]
....

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. [Then many people won't sign up for insurance until they get sick] As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. [They can't now just drop you. This is a scare tactic.] They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. [Make the insurance companies go broke by making their business unsustainable]. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan - more security and stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves. [This will never happen because of the "temporary plan" that he proposes before this is set up will become permanent]

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. [Right after the next election. Don't want disgruntled voters preventing his re-election] In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill [This "meantime" will last forever]....

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. [I don't believe it],...................

Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment - it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate..........

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies - subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. [When he says "waste" he means giving medical care to the very elderly.]

Election Free Speech

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is being heard today by SCOTUS, and it could overturn McCain-Feingold, which blatantly abridged free speech.

WSJ’s headline: The Chance for a Free Speech Do-Over

NY Times’ headline: A Threat to Fair Elections

Obama's message to kids

Obama's defense now proclaims his planned message to students was completely non-partisan. "Conservatives thought it would be partisan and it wasn't.... blah blah blah"

Well, of course, Obama changed the message after the pre-emptive criticism. What did the first draft say?

Levi Johnston - Use and Discard

So Levi Johnston, the baby daddy, of Bristol Palin, had made the talk show circuit trashing Sarah Palin & the family. Now he's in Vanity Fair doing the same thing.

I partially feel sorry for him and partially feel that he's an idiot. He likely doesn't realize he is being used. He probably had some disagreements with the Palin family but when he starting complaining about them, he got a lot of liberal listeners.

Now, Johnston has dreams of being an actor. I bet the talk show producers would say, "Oh I think you have great potential to be an actor. I'm going to put you in contact with someone who can help your career. What else bad do you have to say about the Palin family?" Johnston then spills his guts because he thinks it'll lead to a future career.

Little does Levi Johnston know, is that he's being used by the liberal establishment to destroy Sarah Palin. Once his use as mouthpiece is up, he'll be tossed aside. He'll call back the producers who flattered him or told him that they would put him in contact with someone. His calls will go unanswered.

Just like Cindy Sheehan. Liberals loved her when she protested the war in Iraq when Bush was President. They got her to camp outside his Texas ranch. She was on the news frequently. Obama won and now liberals need Iraq to succeeed to make Obama look good. (A US pullout followed by sectarian war ala Kosovo would make Obama look foolish). So the same Obama who likewise demanded an Iraq pullout has abandoned those plans. Cindy Sheehan hasn't, but how does the once adoring media now treat her?

“And you look at somebody like that (note: me) and you think here’s somebody who’s just trying to find some meaning in her son’s death. And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already.” — ABC Nightly News Anchor, Charles Gibson August 18, 2009

Lybia: Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit

Last week, Scotland decided to release the bomber of Pam Am Flight 103, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. His release, on "compassionate grounds" due to his "terminal" cancer was widely criticized, and that critcism was amplified because he received a hero's welcome in Lybia. Now Lybia is saying he's in critical condition, knocking on death's door.

I smell bullshit. Lybia is trying to provide some cover to the morons in the UK government for releasing him, and to themselves for throwing him the welcome home party.

TRIPOLI, Libya – The health of the Lockerbie bomber, who has terminal prostate
cancer, has swiftly deteriorated since his release from a Scottish prison less
than two weeks ago, a senior Libyan official said Tuesday.

The head of the Libyan State Information Agency, Majid al-Dursi, said Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is in the hospital and described him as "very sick."

"His health is deteriorating fast since he arrived," al-Dursi said. Asked how long al-Megrahi could still have to live, he answered: "Only God knows when it will be over. But he is dying now."

There was no way to independently verify his health, and it was not clear how long he has to live. Scottish officials released him from prison Aug. 20 on compassionate grounds due to his cancer, sparking an international uproar. At the time, Scottish officials said doctors had determined al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.

Television footage on Britain's Channel 4 that aired Sunday showed al-Megrahi in the hospital, breathing through an oxygen mask and propped up by pillows. Al-Megrahi was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board the plane and 11 people on the ground.

His release and return to Libya where he was greeted warmly at the airport by hundreds of cheering supporters has led to outrage from many of the Lockerbie victims and questions about whether his release was secured in order to facilitate lucrative oil trade with Libya.

Both Britain and Scotland have denied that business had anything to do
with allowing al-Megrahi to leave prison after completing only eight years of
his life sentence. They have said they plan to publish correspondence on
al-Megrahi's release Tuesday in an effort to fight those allegations.

The British media claimed over the weekend that the British government
struck a deal with Libyan authorities to include al-Megrahi in a prisoner
transfer agreement because it was considered to be in Britain's interests at a
time when a major oil deal was being negotiated.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown denied that report, telling the Financial Times on Tuesday that the decision to release al-Megrahi rested with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. He also said he told Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at the Group of 8 meetings in Italy in July that his administration had no role in the matter.....