TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Richard Larsen: Beware of Manipulations of Perception

September 28th, 2009 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

What is most disgusting about what former president Jimmy Carter said this week is not so much that he said it, but that those of Carter’s mentality consistently engage in such reprehensible specious reasoning.

In an NBC interview, Carter declared, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American. Racism…still exists, and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.”

As long as there are idiots who judge people by the color of the skin as opposed to the content of their character, there will be racism. But to put this in perspective, consider that in 1958 only 35% of whites said they would vote for a black president. But in 2006, a scant 3% of Americans indicated they would not vote for a black president. If used as a barometer of racist tendencies, this progress speaks volumes for the dissolution of a racist mentality and dispels the notion that this is a racist country.

What Carter engaged in is a logical ad hominem fallacy, which is literally an “argument against the person.” This tactic is employed frequently by those who, in order to discredit their adversaries, seek to minimize their argument by making unsubstantiated accusations or allegations against them in order to redirect attention to the adversaries themselves, rather than the argument. By making the adversaries the focus with an accusation, the validity of their claim or premise is discredited since their argument is inextricably linked to them. The construct of the argument looks like this. Person A makes claim X. Regardless of veracity, an objection is made against Person A. Therefore claim X is false.

Even more precisely, this version of the ad hominem fallacy is argumentum ad personam. This device is intentionally used to belittle or insult an opponent in order to retake the offensive and place the opponent on the defensive. Hence, it becomes a verbal misdirection to make the opponent the center of the argument, rather than the issue at hand; something akin to a magicians’ trick.

Enter Carter center stage. In order to mitigate the disastrous polling for “Obamacare,” and the spectacle of Congressman Joe Wilson’s shout at the President, “You Lie!” and the massive demonstration in Washington on September 12 against totalitarian government, Carter makes an accusation “against the person.” The supposition is that the voices of dissent and the strength of the valid arguments against the White House agenda, are negated by the accusation.

Not only is this logically fallacious, but it displays both the arrogance and ignorance of those who engage in such behavior. Ignorance, for it presumes stupidity on the part of the American people, and arrogance because by so engaging, they simply sidestep the real issues underlying dissent. It usually is employed when logic fails. I have always maintained that the first person to call the other a name in a debate has lost the debate, and that’s what comes naturally to those with no ammo left, for they need to misdirect the argument.

The practice also constitutes an attempt to emotionalize an issue and remove it from the purely logical realm, which is crucial especially when their own logical arguments are inferior to their detractors.

It’s not a new tactic, but seems to be used with increasing frequency, not just by the politicians in control today, but by the media. They suppose due to our presumed ignorance, we’ll discount the claims of dissenters while aspersions like “mob,” (NBC & MSNBC), “evil” (Harry Reid), and “Nazis” (Nancy Pelosi) are hurled at them. We see it regarding other issues as well, like the appellation of “homophobic” to those who oppose homosexual marriage regardless of their logical reasons for opposition.

In this caustic political environment, it’s crucial to not only be aware of the ideology employed in transforming America, but to be wary and alert to the methodology they employ to manipulate public perception. With perspicacity, we can see through arrogant facades of those of intellectual vacuity who, like Carter, claim “racism” is behind everything that is anti-Obama.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: Open Letter to Pres. Obama

September 23rd, 2009 by Halli

Dear Mr. Obama,

I was disappointed that you did not have some type of service at the White House for the National Day of Prayer in April. Now to hear that you are welcoming the Muslims and celebrating a Prayer Day with them or even recognizing their prayer Day is UNACCEPTABLE.

AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION! AMERICA IS NOT A MUSLIM NATION.

Continuing to pander to this group just brings more solidarity and determination to the group of “American God Fearing sleeper cells” in this country who are waking up and ready to stand to take back their country.

Remember you work for us….not the rest of the world. Over 2 million of us came to Washington and you left…you can run but you cannot hide. We will follow you!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

September 23rd, 2009 by Halli

The following is a letter from Andi Elliott to Roger Plothow, publisher of the Post Register. At this date, Sept. 23, no response has been received. See this earlier post.

18 September 2009

Dear Mr. Plothow:

Thank you for printing the story about me on 9/10. I was very surprised and delighted. I was, however, puzzled by a couple of the comments made by Steve Zeman and yourself.

Please find enclosed copies of some of my editorials… political in nature. I have not enclosed my “animal editorials” as I assume the Post Register has had no problem with those.

It would be appreciated if you would highlight any “ugly language” contained in them to illustrate your comment in the 9/10 article.

Also, I am wondering if my “animal” editorials are still acceptable to the PR. As always, I try and spread the word about humane treatment of those who cannot speak for themselves and your newspaper has always been supportive of those efforts.

Thank you for your time.

Andi Elliott

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Guest Posts, Idaho Falls Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Government Spending Does Not Grow the Economy

September 23rd, 2009 by Halli


By Richard Larsen

Although current governmental efforts are directed at “transforming” the nation, there are laws of economics and common sense that can’t be evaded. They can only be obfuscated, hoping that we, the ignorant masses, don’t know any better. For example, government spending does not grow an economy, massive government debt does not stimulate an economy, and increased governmental control over the private sector does not improve service or efficiency. Since history has proven time after time the validity of these simple economic verities, why do those in power incessantly try to dupe us to the contrary?

Over 70% of the U.S. economy is retail driven. Over 95% of jobs in the private sector are with small businesses. Those small businesses are facing the prospect of higher taxes, increased fines from the government if they don’t comply with the “public option” for health-insurance, and diminishing sales and revenue because of a weak economic climate. That climate, especially for retail, is unlikely to improve as long as unemployment increases and those still with jobs fear theirs might be on the chopping block next.

The August Labor Department report revealed a spike in unemployment to 9.7%, from 9.4% in July. This is the worst job environment the nation has had in nearly 30 years. In January we were sold the $787 billion “stimulus” bill based on the premise that if they didn’t pass it, unemployment would surpass 9% from the 7.2% jobless rate in January. Well here we are at 9.7% unemployment, having passed the “porkulus” bill, and we’re undoubtedly headed to over 10%. In spite of all this spending the economy is still projected to shrink by 3% this year. At what point are our elected leaders required to be honest with us?

The White House continues to claim that the stimulus is working. Joe Biden last week had the audacity to claim that the stimulus is “doing more, faster, more efficiently and more effectively than most expected.” With that statement, the charade is perpetuated, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Even more perplexing was his follow-up comment that it “was the right thing to do morally.” In order to eventually pay for that massive spending bill, over a trillion dollars in taxes will have to be collected from tax-payers. How can it possibly be a moral thing to take from the producers and workers of America to fund those congressional pet projects? As we detailed when the bill was passed earlier in the year, there was very little in that legislation that was actually stimulative to the economy, and almost none of it in the private sector. But to have the audacity and mendacity to claim not only that it’s working but that it was morally the right thing to do is blatant prevarication.

Not only hasn’t it worked, though only about 15% of the funds have actually been spent, history teaches us that it will not work. During the Depression era, we know that even with a tripling of federal government spending from 1931 through 1939, the U.S. was still in a dire depression, and unemployment was still over 17%.

FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said that “we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!” Well, Obama said he wanted to be like Roosevelt.

A statement released earlier this year by 200 economists affirms these principles. The statement said in part, “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

If government spending was stimulative to the economy, it should be overheating now after the record $1.6 trillion spent this fiscal year, nearly all of it borrowed, adding to our deficit. Our economy will eventually rebound, but it will be in spite of what government policy is doing now, not because of it. Washington can spin their tale, but it’s fiction, as the facts tell a very different story.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: We Can No Longer Be the Silent Majority

September 15th, 2009 by Halli


By Richard Larsen

August Recess for the nations’ lawmakers was certainly not business as usual this year. With headlines and debate centered on the controversial overhaul of our health-care system, it could be fair to say many of them ran into constituent buzz-saws in their town hall meetings across the country. While the exchanges at these meetings were sometimes confrontational, the freedom behind such truly grassroots response to a proposed totalitarian health-care system was inspiring. It would seem that those objecting to “Obamacare” had learned Thomas Jefferson’s truism, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” And silent they were not.

Some of the statements and exchanges between lawmakers and their constituents were memorable, and many provide lasting lessons and imagery that should not be lost on an informed and attentive electorate.

For example, it was not that long ago that Speaker Nancy Pelosi encouraged and praised dissent, and said it was courageous to “speak truth to power.” It may have come as a shock to some, then, to hear from the Speaker that it’s now “un-American,” and that by so engaging, one must be part of a “dangerous, angry mob.” We might rhetorically ask what has changed from then to now?

Speaking of the Speaker, who is exceeded only by Joe Biden for making glib, nonsensical remarks, one of her best accusations against the town hall protestors was that they were “astroturf.” As Astroturf is to real grass, so likewise “astroturf” is to genuine grassroots level politics. Without question, what we witnessed in August was a legitimate grassroots response from concerned citizens about pending health-care legislation and dizzying expansion of government and the federal debt. The only real “astroturfing” we saw was when the health-care overhaul supporters began to show up en masse in buses. Wonder where they came from? I’ll bet the Speaker knows.

Illustrating what I said a few weeks ago that “Nazi” references really have no place in American political dialogue, the Speaker ignominiously called the protestors “Nazis.” She is obviously oblivious to the fact that Nazis are socialists, and that quite to the contrary, the protestors were standing up for their individual right to choose, which is anathema to socialism. If such ignorance was not so scary coming from the third-in-line from the President, it would be humorous. That accusation led to one of the best one-liners from a town hall attendee. Marine veteran David Hedrick at a West Virginia town hall declared, “If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika maybe the first place she should look is on the sleeve of her own arm.” Marines don’t take kindly to pejorative characterizations.

Speaking of good lines, perhaps leading the “best of” collection from August town halls was one delivered by Dan Jeror, addressing Steny Hoyer, Pelosi’s second in command in the House. Jeror, after emphasizing that he was a registered Democrat, asked Hoyer, “Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throats in three to four weeks when the President took six months to pick a dog for his kids?”

Carol Shea Porter of New Hampshire thought it was below her dignity to answer a question from one of her constituents, and had the audacious retired policeman removed for doing so. How dare these lowly constituents question the omniscience of their puissant elected officials!

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee took a cell phone call in the middle of a constituent’s question about health-care reform. That sure goes a long way to dispelling the notion that our elected officials aren’t listening to us!

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC referred to the protestors as “worse than racists,” while comedienne Janeane Garofalo called them “racist rednecks who hate blacks.” But in an interesting twist of such typical radical characterization, Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was beaten up at a Missouri town hall by local Service Employees International Union members, one of them shouting racial epithets. So really, who were the racist rednecks? They obviously were following the White House directive to “punch back twice as hard.” Unfortunately for Mr. Gladney, they took the directive as literal. Not surprisingly, the event received scant coverage from the mainstream media.

For the “silent majority” that typically sits reticently on the sidelines waiting for the political dust to settle, the “Tea Party” protestors and outspoken dissidents to the transformation of America are the only semblance of a check and balance we have. With the legislative and executive branches under single-party control, and the mainstream media acting as their guard-dog, all we have is our individual and collective voices of disapprobation. It’s time to no longer be the “silent majority.” This is a fight for the soul and future of America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: Response to the Post Register

September 13th, 2009 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

You can imagine my surprise when Nick Draper, of the Post Register, called me for an interview after having been “banned” from having my opinions published. I have worked with Nick on animal cruelty situations before. I found him to be fair and am always eager to spread the word about my two passions…my love of animals and my country.

The comments from Steve Zeman in no way corresponded to the police report I filed just days after the Health Care Rally naming Bob and two women in it. I was cursed at, shoved, flipped off, and told to leave, as was another one of the 8 Conservatives there. I am faxing a copy to the Post Register.

Naturally, I must address Roger Plothow’s comments about my “ugly language”. Really??? I have copies of editorials spanning decades and have found no such language. I did, however, use the word “hell” once when quoting my father.

So, I am one of two people “banned”? At the Tea Party on 9/11, a fifth person told me that HE was the other person AND all of us are Conservatives…I guess content DOES matter!

When Mr. Plothow receives copes of my editorials this week I hope he has time to highlight (highlighter enclosed) my “ugly language”. I’m betting that he doesn’t even have to remove the cap.

Thank you to the five other newspapers that publish my opinions in support of our First Amendment Rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Andi Elliott
Hamer, ID
celliottt@yahoo.com

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

David Ripley: The Truth is Out There

September 11th, 2009 by Halli

David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

With all the speeches, commercials and op-ed pieces, no doubt many Americans are confused about just how dangerous ObamaCare will turn out to be. After all, at some important level it really is hard to believe that the left-wing machine controlling Washington would really deny treatment to the elderly and infirm or re-direct “health care” dollars into killing babies.

Be encouraged. As Fox Moulder might say when facing similarly weird circumstances, “The truth is out there”.

This leftist plan to take over health care is not experimental: It may be a new concept for Americans – but Canada and Europe have long ago swallowed the blue pill. We can look at those nations to see how government-controlled health care really works.

Just two days ago, an outrageous story surfaced from England which coldly demonstrates the inherent evil of such a system. Miss Sara Capewell gave birth to a premature son in a government controlled hospital. When doctors learned that her baby was just 21 weeks old, they refused him any medical care.

His mother begged doctors to help the tiny baby – who was able to breathe on his own and was born with a strong heartbeat. But the doctors refused to admit him to the special care baby unit because government guidelines forbid medical care for babies born before 23 weeks’ gestation.
The government guidelines advise doctors that medical care for premature babies is “not in the best interests of the baby” and is not “standard practice”.

Little Jayden died in his mother’s arms some two hours after birth.

Welcome to the future.

President Obama took some denigrating shots at Sarah Palin the other night, but the truth is, Mrs. Palin is due some real credit for forcing America to face some very uncomfortable truths about ObamaCare.

Mrs. Palin authored a guest opinion for the Wall Street Journal this week entitled, “Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care”. In her piece she warns, “Common sense tells us that government’s attempts to solve large problems often create new ones.” Indeed.

Palin specifically challenges us to consider the ramifications of Obama’s proposal to cut “waste” from the Medicare program – through creation of an “Independent Medicare Advisory Council”. This unelected council of bureaucrats would work outside “normal political channels” to develop new guidelines for the treatment of the elderly and infirm. (And, we should correctly understand Obama’s “new-speak” to mean that these bureaucrats would be protected from citizens’ outrage and public accountability; put another way – this council will protect your congressman from responsibility when you call his office begging for your mother’s life).

And how will these bureaucrats identify medical treatments or practices which are “wasteful”? Palin quotes from an interview Mr. Obama gave the New York Times in April of this year, in which he specifically stated that this council would focus on containing the biggest problem – that “huge driver of cost… the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….”

Mr. Obama would have easily added the “wasteful cost” of treating premature babies to his list.

We know that Obama, Pelosi and their army of policy czars have long shunned the principle that all human life is priceless. Therefore, the only standard by which government will judge the value of a human life is utilitarian. Human beings who fit into the right bureaucratic grid will probably receive reasonable health care under the new system; but for those who do not – the picture is grim. It is likely they will be told their greatest social contribution is to be made through accepting a quiet death.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: The President’s Big Speech

September 10th, 2009 by Halli

By David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, we all have to admit that the guy can give a heckuva speech. His voice is soothing, manners smooth; you find yourself wanting to believe him. And, after all, he is The President of the United States.

Yet the disturbing truth is that President Obama is a practiced and stylized “messenger of misinformation.” (Calling him a ‘liar’ is just rude).

President Obama turned to the American people, looked us straight in the eye from the most honored podium in American history … and tried selling us one more time on the wonders of his plan to remake American society through his health care “reform”. Here are some of the more obvious lies he tried selling us:

1. Mr. Obama said that his plan would be paid for through a massive cut in expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan”. Yet, just two paragraphs earlier, Mr. Obama said, “That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.” So which is it? Are America’s elderly going to suffer if Congress whacks some $500 billion from the Medicare program to create a whole new entitlement program? While there is no doubt there are the time-honored “waste, fraud and abuse” in this program (like everything the government touches) – it is pretty darn hard to believe that a half-trillion dollars can be shifted out of the program without impacting some old woman’s ability to get the treatment she needs. You can decide for yourself whether the President’s claims that he will not raise taxes or deficits to finance his $900 billion expansion are at all credible; but please do so with a cold eye toward the historical record of Congressional fiscal irresponsibility.

And please bear in mind that there are grave moral consequences to an apparent ponzi-scheme approach to financing this whole fantastic project: Without adequate funding, this nationalizing of health care threatens the health and lives of those most dependent upon health care. The elderly and infirm will almost certainly face rationed health care as the federal government necessarily makes wholesale decisions about how to allocate insufficient public resources.

Given President Obama’s value system, there is every reason for the public to be scared about giving the federal government such incredible power.

End-of-Life care is one of the crucial issues at stake here. But there are two other vital deceptions launched by the President last night:

2. The President claimed that, under ObamaCare, “federal conscience protections will remain in place.” That statement demonstrates some amazing contempt for the intelligence of American voters. The fact is, President Obama has used his executive power to repeal the conscience protections enacted by President Bush; Obama has NOT replaced them and the current legislation does nothing to restore protections for America’s health care professionals.

3. Mr. Obama claimed, again, that his revolution would not include “federal funds to pay for abortions.” In this story line, Obama follows Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Idaho’s own Walt Minnick. These folks are happily arguing that ObamaCare will not allow tax funding for abortions because of the Hyde Amendment.

Anticipating such deceptions, Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee issued a public statement last night, explaining that the Hyde Amendment has nothing to do with ObamaCare:

“In reality, the Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide law – it applies only to funds appropriated through the annual appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services….[None] of the funds that would be expended by the public plan, and none of the funds that will subsidize the purchase of private insurance plans, will ever flow through an HHS appropriation bill. Therefore, none of the funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment.”

You may be tempted to just shake your head at the complexity, the confusion. Who is telling the truth?

If you are tempted to take the easy path, why not pay critical attention to the motives of this president? His politics and values? He has advocated public funding of abortions throughout his public career. In soliciting the backing of Planned Parenthood, Mr. Obama pledged:

“[I]n my mind, reproductive health care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan I propose.”

We submit to you that Mr. Obama is working very hard to deliver on his dark promise.

The content and implications of ObamaCare are patently troubling to (almost) anyone armed with the facts . But it is perhaps even more disturbing that we apparently have a man in the White House with a conscience so coarsened that he can intentionally mislead Americans on matters so crucial; one can’t avoid being a bit scared at the display of such overweening self-confidence in his ability to pull it off.

It is obvious that our nation is in desperate need of God’s help.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Andy Richardson: Cracking the Healthcare Code

September 9th, 2009 by Halli

By Andy Richardson of Richmond, VA

Something had been bothering me about the numbers in the health care
graphs I have seen from our representatives. (I majored in
Mathematics, so I have a bit of experience looking at numbers.)

I recently attended a town hall meeting by Representative Bobby Scott
and he showed a comparative graph of total health care costs. On it
was Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance.
The graph clearly showed private insurance costing a lot more than the others.
This bothered me a lot, because, what I know of the medical system
tells me that what he showed cannot possibly be the whole truth. As it
turned out, I was right, VERY right.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and of Management and
Budget, Executive Office of the President we spend around $3,961.55
per person on Medicaid/Medicare.
According to the Milliman Medical Index we spend $4,192.75 per person
on private insurance.

Now, these numbers are pretty close and it seems like socialized
medicine isn’t such a bad idea until you keep reading. The study also
shows that the government UNDERPAYS doctors and hospitals to the tune
of 88.8 BILLION dollars a year.

When the government underpays doctors and hospitals they are forced to
get the money from somewhere else and you guessed it – they take it
from private insurers. They take it to the tune of $447 per person.
So, remember that $4,192.75? Well, make it $3,745.75 – which is
clearly lower than the $3,961.55 of Medicaid. But, wait, we are not
finished. That $447 per person has to go somewhere – so add it back to
the Medicaid costs, because that is just what it is, a cost. Public
health care suddenly costs $4,408.55 per person.
Not good at all compared to the actual cost of $3,745.75 per person on
private insurance.

But wait! We are not finished yet. We have all been told that the
“uninsured” cost us an extra $1,100.00 a year because they simply
can’t pay their bills and the costs are deferred to us.
So, inside that $3,745.75 per person for private insurance there
already exists a hidden tax of $1,100.00 ($275.00 per person) to cover
the uninsured already. I call it a tax because hospitals MUST treat
everyone by law and because hospitals must also cover their costs
somehow – thus they have no choice but to pass that cost onto us.
Therefore, this is a tax as surely as if the IRS took it out of your
paycheck directly.

SO… the actual cost of health care, per person under private insurance
now becomes $3470.75 per person per year. Compare that to $4,408.55
for Medicaid.

But Wait! We are STILL not finished.
People on Medicare don’t actually pay for Medicare. Those people who
are working pay for it – working people generally don’t qualify for
Medicare because they make too much money. Does anyone think this will
change under a nationalized health care system? Nobody? Yeah, neither
do I.

To find out just how much a working family will have to pay for
socialized medicine can be calculated as follows: ((Cost per person) x
(number of people))/(number of working people)
If nothing changes, right NOW we are looking at $4,408.55 per person,
and there are about 300 million people in the USA. That would be
1,322,565,000,000 or, 1.3 trillion dollars.

Now, divide that number by the number of working people not on
Medicaid. Assuming we are talking about a family of 4 the cost per
working family of 4 is $26,451.30 per year.
$26,451.30 per year… I can’t afford that, not by a long shot.

So, what are the options?
Well, we could force doctors to charge less – which means fewer
doctors and long lines.
We could tax lower income families and try to spread the burden across
more people. (Higher taxes)
Or we could raise taxes on those already working through taxing
business and stick the whole $26,451.30 to me and others like me.
“But wait!” You say, “Isn’t that what we are doing already?”

Close, but no.

Right now we are sending this cost on to our children.
Per person our “Unfunded medical liability” Is $132,398.61.
That is the amount our kids are going to be expected to pay for what
we are doing now with medicine.
Does anyone think this is right or just, or are we just not thinking
about it too hard?

It is time to start thinking about it.
Ask yourself, “When is the last time the government took over
something and made it BETTER?”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Obama Hijacking 9/11 Commemoration

September 9th, 2009 by Halli


By Richard Larsen

For a brief moment in recent history we were united as a nation. We were not divided by ideology, color or creed. We were all Americans. That fateful day nearly eight years ago united us as a nation as did the similarly horrific Pearl Harbor attack. Collectively we mourned the human toll, over 3000 dead. We acknowledged the heroism of those who sought to save lives and mitigate the destruction. And we recognized as never before the growing extremist threat targeting western civilization and our way of life, and America as the pinnacle of that way of life.

That threat has not been eradicated. Estimates are that up to 10% of Muslims adhere to the Sunni extremist Wahhabi ideology which decries democracy, other religions including People of the Book (Jews and Christians), and foments actionable destruction against them.

Our 9/11 commemorations have been a concatenation of eulogies for the fallen, praise and adulation for the heroes of the day, and a recommitment to prevention of such acts being perpetrated against us again.

Apparently that is to be no more. We no longer have a “War on Terror” seeking out those who have or are trying to attack us, but we have “Overseas Contingency Operations,” the administration’s new term. And the initial objective in Afghanistan is apparently no longer to defeat the Taliban and secure peace for a troubled nation, and reducing the risk of another despicable attack from being planned there. Victory over our enemies is no longer the aim, as Obama said last month, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” Aside from the historical ignorance displayed by the comment, most troublesome is his admission that we aren’t there to win. If we’re not there to win, what on earth are we doing there?

As if that’s not enough, it’s now becoming increasingly clear that our 9/11 commemorations are about to be hijacked as well. As Mathew Vadum of the American Spectator recently wrote, “The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.”

This was initiated in April with legislation establishing 9/11 as a National Day of Service. They did add the words “And Remembrance” to the bill, but that was undoubtedly an afterthought. I’m sure not many of us gave much heed to the declaration at the time, but a recent conference call between the White House and over sixty radical leftist groups clarified the intent behind the declaration. Among those on the August 11 conference call were Color of Change, ACORN, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Friends of the Earth, Mobilize.org, and the RainbowPUSH Coalition.

According to a source that participated on the call, as quoted in the American Spectator, “They [the Obama administration] think it needs to be taken back from the right. They’re taking that day and they’re breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day because it focuses the public on supposedly ‘Republican’ issues like patriotism, national security, and terrorism.” That’s very strange that 9/11 is a “Republican” day of remembrance. For some reason I’ve never thought of Pearl Harbor remembrance as a “Democrat” day.

So rather than commemorating those who died on that day, and our military personnel who have sacrificed so much to vanquish the terrorist threat, the day will be transformed into a day for “green” activism, community action, tree hugging, and sundry leftist pet activities.

A week earlier on Aug. 4, controversial “Green Jobs Csar” Van Jones outlined the expectations for Sept. 11 events. In a White House blog video he declared that they will provide, “for people to connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America.” Perhaps a noble venture, but in lieu of 9/11 commemorations? I don’t think so.

Perhaps they should have chosen May Day, or Lenin’s Birthday (which is noncoincidentally also Earth Day), rather than desicrate the memory of 9/11. September 11 will always be to me a sober reminder, not a day to “green up” the neighborhood.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting