Don't underestimate the will of the American people

Saturday, August 29, 2009 Comments

This aired on Glenn Beck's program last night, very inspiring.

In the clip, he said this was based on a clip he rec'd from a mother and son, I think this may be the one he was talking about. Also well worth watching, this was done by a high school student:

Read full post >>

"It ain't [America] no more, OK?"

Friday, August 28, 2009 Comments

What the @%&#?!?

I respect our police officers and the fact that they have difficult jobs. I believe the vast majority of officers are hard-working people who strive to do the right thing.

That being said, I find this encounter disturbing. The officer in question can't offer an actual reason for his request to remove the sign, except to finally say it's because it has a picture on it (huh?). Then he threatens to "charge you with whatever I wanna charge you with." And when the person videotaping says, "this used to be America" the officer answers with "It ain't no more, ok?"

Again, what the @%&#?!?

Read full post >>



"Some of the things you're about to hear are both shocking and hilarious."

Read full post >>

Freedom of speech an "exaggeration"?

Thursday, August 27, 2009 Comments

H/T kHat43 and RightKlik

Disturbing views from Obama's diversity czar, Mark Lloyd.

From CNS News:

Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.


“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

"Democratic governance" is a nice euphemism for "government control." And who exactly count as "real people"? If some people are "real," are others "fake"?

Last time I checked, between the internet, television (cable / satellite), radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. anyone and everyone who wants to have a voice has that opportunity. Likewise anyone can find what they want to watch / read / listen to from all over the spectrum of ideas. The last thing we need is the government stepping in to control what Americans see and hear. Constitutional rights are not an "exaggeration" for the government to curtail, they are the rights of every citizen. It is becoming more clear to me every day that there are significant forces in government that would like nothing more than to take all our freedoms and control every aspect of our lives. Each of needs to keep standing up for our freedoms or we will lose them.

Read the whole article here.

More from the Examiner here.

Read full post >>

Reagan on socialized medicine

Sunday, August 23, 2009 Comments


Read full post >>

Health Reform & Wait Times - Lego illustration

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 Comments

From 10000Pennies

"In 2006, Massachusetts passed health care reform that implemented a number of policies that are now being mirrored in the Obama health reform plan. The president has repeatedly claimed that his plan will lower health care costs but not decrease health care quality. This visualization looks at how the Massachusetts plan has panned out in terms of cost and wait times."

Read full post >>

Project 2,996

Monday, August 17, 2009 Comments

From the Project 2,996 website:

Project 2,996 is a tribute to the victims of 9/11.

On September 11, 2006, more than 3,000 bloggers joined together to remember the victims of 9/11.

Each year we will honor them by remembering their lives, and not by remembering their murderers.

If you would like to help out, by pledging to post a tribute on your own blog on 9/11 of this year, click the button at the top of the sidebar. Then, use the web to learn something about the life of the name you are given, and on 9/11, post your tribute your blog or website.

But, and this is critical, the tributes should celebrate the lives of these people–kind of like a wake. Over the last 5 years we’ve heard the names of the killers, and all about the victim’s deaths. This is a chance to learn about and celebrate those who died. Forget the murderers, they don’t deserve to be remembered. But some people who died that day deserve to be remembered––2,996 people.

Please consider signing up to write a tribute. So far there are 365 names assigned out of 2,996. Click here to sign up.

Read full post >>

Should we treat them differently?


H/T: Jill Stanek

Read full post >>

The worth of children

Saturday, August 15, 2009 Comments

It's bad enough that many do not consider unborn children to be persons with human rights (and in fact our current law holds that view). But Obama's science czar, John Holdren, believes that children are not "human beings" until many years after birth.

From CNS News, via John Lott:

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being." (emphasis added)

When, exactly, does Holdren believe children become "human"?

Another Obama czar, regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, is a big believer in the ideas of Peter Singer. According to David Martosko, that includes the idea that "animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people." Peter Singer also advocates "making it legal to kill disabled infants up to 28 days after birth as well as older 'non-persons with disabilities.'" Some quotes:
"[K]illing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

"No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time."

"Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct."

Sources: Princeton University
Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
The Sanctity of Life, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2005

And then there's Ezekiel Emanuel's opinions on the lives of infants and young children, as well as individuals with disabilities, deserving less consideration than those of older children and adults (well, before they become elderly, anyway).

All of these people are entitled to their opinions and have the 1st amendment right to express their beliefs. But I find it disturbing that our President would surround himself with not one but several people who hold such views on the intrinsic value of children.

Then again, our President himself has expressed opinions against the notion of the sanctity of life.

To be fair, I do not doubt his devotion as a father to his own daughters. Certainly he loves them very much and wants only the best for them, as any father would.

And yet during the 2008 presidential campaign, he said that if his daughters made a "mistake," he wouldn't want them, "punished with a baby." He also argued against a bill that would have required medical care be provided to babies who survived botched abortions, claiming that such a law would "burden" doctors and women who had intended to abort their babies. The theme running through both of those statements is that he seems to see children, at least those not "wanted" by their parents for whatever reason, as "burdens" not worth protecting.

Does the president agree with the views of his advisors on the worth of children? I really don't know, and I certainly hope not. But if he doesn't, I can't help but ask - why has he chosen so many advisors with such views? And how might those views come to influence public policy in his administration?

Read full post >>

Disproportionate Response



"angry mobs" of "right-wing extremists"

"brown-shirts" ... "carrying swastikas" (aka Nazi's)


"political terrorists"

"reminiscent of... Timothy McVeigh"

and when the existing lexicon just wasn't enough to convey their contempt, they made up a new term: "evil-mongers"

Wow. These mobsters that members of the United States House and Senate, along with the Obama administration, and the MSM keep warning us about sound truly terrifying don't they?

Dana Loesch shared some pictures of them on her blog.

*** Warning - GRAPHIC photos ***
You've been warned. I am not responsible for any nightmares that result from witnessing these frightening photos of mobs in action.

You can see more photos here.

It's more than a little ridiculous, isn't it? The disproportionate response from the left only underscores how desperate they must be to ram this monstrosity of Obamacare down our throats. But now that people have seen what is in the bill they aren't happy with it, and are being denigrated and maligned for nothing more - and nothing less - than exercising their right of free speech under the Constitution.

And as much as they'd like us to believe this is a "fringe" response, not indicative of the country at large - the polls say otherwise. The latest Rasmussen polls show that 53% of Americans are opposed to the healthcare bill. And really, this is about a lot more than healthcare - it's about freedom. It's about not having to worry about a government-induced scarcity of care in which the opinions of Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren may influence decisions on whether our families are "worth" getting medical care.

Interestingly enough (though hardly surprising), the response of the left to Americans voicing concerns about healthcare is fraught with blatant hypocrisy.

For example, Nancy Pelosi only thinks you're "un-American" if you disagree with her. She's "a fan of disruptors" if she agrees with them:

More here, here, and here. (Warning - for real this time - some of the pictures in that last link contain offensive language and nudity but hopefully won't give you nightmares).

Read full post >>

Be a voice for the unborn

Friday, August 7, 2009 Comments

This is a very well-done video about being a voice for the unborn, by 12-yr-old Anthony Matzke. This video is the 12-and-under winner of Lia's Challenge: Pro-Life video contest.

Please take a moment to watch:

H/T: Mommy

Read full post >>

Opposing views and free speech


"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley, Jr.

The left can't get their heads around the concept that Americans all over the country oppose their plans for a government takeover of healthcare, so they respond with name-calling and ridicule while the Obama administration goes further and asks supporters to report any "fishy" emails or even casual conversation opposing the president's healthcare reform to the White House. Spy on your friends and neighbors and report anyone who isn't falling in line behind the president's plans to implement a plan that would limit choices, reduce quality, significantly increase debt and healthcare costs, and necessarily result in rationing by a central governmental board.

What exactly does the White House plan to do with all these reports? If they're putting together some kind of "enemies list," it's going to be a very, very long list considering that 53% of Americans oppose the health care bill.


If I can add one more thought:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." ~Hillary Clinton

I agreed with Hillary then, and I agree with her now. Unfortunately, those of us opposed to Obama's policies are being called much worse than "unpatriotic," we are being called extremists and dangerous. We are maligned as "angry mobs" simply for asking questions and wanting to have our voices heard. And these things aren't coming from just people on the left who disagree with us, which would be fine. These misrepresentations and attempts at intimidation are coming from the president and his administration, as well as our elected representatives in Congress, and they are attempting to shut down our voices through intimidation. Personally, I don't think it's going to work (thank goodness).

Folks, we have a president who goes out of his way to support and engage with terrorists and tyrants, enemies of our nation, and yet his administration is actively attacking everyday Americans simply for exercising their 1st amendment rights of free speech to question and debate his policies.

Keep standing up, America.

And if your elected officials are planning to oppose the healthcare bill, don't think you're off the hook! Attend their town halls to express your support. They need to know that we are behind them, because they will be under tremendous pressure to change their votes.

Read full post >>

Imagine the Potential #3



H/T: Mommy

Read full post >>

This is for the soldiers

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 Comments

Another great tribute from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and Drowning Pool. Visit to read and sign the petition.

Read full post >>

Healthcare Plan B: Next worst thing

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 Comments

Earlier I wrote about the dangers of the "public option" in Obama's plan. Even without a so-called "public option," Obama's Plan B isn't much better, as it would still bring about massive government control - essentially still a gov't takeover of the health insurance industry but with the facade of a free-market system.

From The Weekly Standard:

Plan B is no day at the beach for health insurers. By imposing an exhaustive array of regulations and installing a powerful national health commissioner, it would turn health insurers into public utilities. They'd be assured a small profit, but competition among insurers would be gone and bureaucrats would be in charge.


As you might expect, there are many, many problems with Plan B. Its first impact would be on health insurers. All but the largest five or six of 1,300 insurers across the country would be out of luck. Since Plan B would reduce the profits for insurance companies, and those with smaller margins--namely, regional, state, and local insurers--probably wouldn't be able to compete.

"It's another chapter in the book on crony capitalism," says Republican representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who first described Obamacare 2.0 as "Plan B." "The government erects barriers to entry against the smaller and most innovative insurance companies and leaves the big, established firms in place."

Insurers would be allowed to offer new policies after 2013 only if they joined a government-operated "exchange." And the policies would have to include a minimum--and more extensive and expensive--set of benefits. This would deny smaller firms their competitive advantage of offering insurance packages with fewer benefits, specially tailored for a client's needs.

Ryan raised this point recently during a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee, asking about a small Milwaukee insurer. The answer he got was unequivocal. The firm couldn't offer new policies outside the exchange.

The biggest impact of Plan B would be on all of us, assuming it retains most or all of the regulatory requirements and details of Obamacare. There would be victims and beneficiaries. As insurers go out of business, people would lose the coverage they've chosen. Young people, the healthy ones, would suffer even more. They'd have to pay far more for their coverage. Cheap catastrophic plans and cost-saving health savings accounts would be unavailable. By paying more, those in their 20s and 30s would subsidize the old and sick.

With all the new benefits--for mental health treatment and "professional services" and "well baby/child" services--the total cost of health insurance is bound to soar. The poor and uninsured will need a subsidy. Caps on out-of-pocket expenses will increase the cost of insurance. And so on. The price will have to be paid through higher premiums and tax hikes.

Read the whole article here.

Read full post >>

John Stossel on healthcare reform


One of the saddest parts is at the end when they reveal who does have access to top-notch medical care in Canada...

Read full post >>

Obama in his own words: his plan will eliminate private insurance

Monday, August 3, 2009 Comments

"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process." - Barack Obama, 2007

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare plan... That's what I'd like to see." - Barack Obama, 2003

"If we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer and that's the best way to reach single-payer." - Barney Frank, 7/27/09

"... a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete, that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer... He was right. The man was right." - Jan Schakowsky, 4/18/09

And yet Obama has the audacity to say:

"Let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a trojan horse for a single-payer system." - Barack Obama, 6/15/09

"Illegitimate" concern? Seems pretty clear to me that the so-called "public option" is, in fact, intended to be a gateway to a single-payer system.

Although I suppose based on the video below, perhaps the term "trojan horse" is inaccurate, since the intention is not exactly hidden, but out in plain sight for anyone who cares to see it:

"Someone once said to me this is a trojan horse for single-payer and I said, 'well, it's not a 'trojan horse,' right? It's just right there! I'm telling you. We're going to get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should. But we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance. We're going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they're in the pool and we're going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it. - Dr. Jacob Hacker, 7/21/08 (emphasis added)

Read full post >>

A tribute to our military


This is absolutely beautiful. Watch it, share it.

Visit Operation Gratitude at for ways to support our troops.

Read full post >>

Milton Friedman on capitalism


I came across this via @Mom4Freedom on Twitter and Carpe Diem. Milton Friedman on why capitalism and free markets are far better than any other system:

Read full post >>

10 million watchdogs

Saturday, August 1, 2009 Comments

If you've been listening to or watching Glenn Beck lately you've already heard about this, but in case you haven't (where have you been? hehe), thought I'd post this to spread the word.

Personally I love the idea because there is so much going on, everyday it's something else. It's easy to feel overwhelmed, almost to the point of wanting to just shut it all out and go hide under the bed or something, but we can't do that because we owe it to our children to STAND UP and fight back to preserve freedom.

From Glenn Beck:

be a constitutional watchdog because we need to stop these people in their tracks, and the one thing I learned is while there is one thing about one watchdog, there's something more than twice as powerful in two watchdogs. Now imagine with the radio audience and the television audience, imagine ten million watchdogs. I need you in the next couple of days to help me. This is like a 100 front war. He is overwhelming the system. It is right out of the playbook from Saul Alinsky. It is what a community organizer does: Overwhelm the system.


We don't need the mainstream media anymore. The paradigm is about to shift. Don't worry about the media. The media will find themselves in the dustbin of history. We have each other.


help me define what the fronts are. What are the lines that they are moving in and pushing on. For instance, healthcare cannot be passed. No form of universal healthcare. Because it is not about the healthcare. It is about the structure, and I will outline this in the next few days. Structure is what matters. Nothing else matters. Structure is what matters. We need to watch the czars. We need to watch cap and trade, structure on cap and trade. We need to watch ‑‑ quite honestly we need to guard, as much as I hate every member of congress, we need to guard congress because the executive branch is devouring all other branches. They are devouring it, and the people in congress are so stupid, so insipid or so in on the game, they are going to find themselves irrelevant wildly fast [ed note: I blogged about this recently in reference to the czars]. We must guard all three branches of government. It is a shell game. It is a transformation. And what I said to you over a year ago, you will wake up someday and your country will not be the same. It's happening, and it's happening right now. But one person can't watch it all. No media source can even do it.


here's the great thing. You don't have to watch them on all fronts. There are 10 million listeners. Pick the thing that interests you. Are you into guns? Are you into healthcare? Do you know it? Do you feel it? Do you watch something on TV and say, "I know this, I know what they're doing!" Follow it! Don't pay attention to all of it. You'll get lost. That's what they want us to do. So don't follow all of it. Follow the thing that your gut says "This is important and I understand this and I get this." Just follow that one thing and alert me. We will put the gears into at least neutral. Eventually we will jam that back into reverse. And if we don't, we'll strip all the damn gears because it will be time to get out of the car and rebuild it the American way. So I ask you, will you be a constitutional watchdog. The time has come to bark and to bark loudly. Understand what this means. What this means is you may be called a racist, a homophobe, a hate monger, you want to starve children. Whatever it is, whatever your category is, they will find a way to ridicule you because that's what Saul Alinsky taught them to do: Have no fear. No fear no more! Stand up! You know the truth. Stand for the truth because only the truth will set us free.

Read the whole thing here.

Read full post >>

Obama advisor: care should be reserved for non-disabled "participating" citizens


More on rationing from the ever-creepy Ezekiel Emanuel (BO health policy advisor). H/T Gateway Pundit

The New York Post writes:

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

And who decides what constitutes a "participating" citizen? People like Emanuel? Scary, scary thought.

Read the whole NYP article here

Related post: Obama health policy advisor on rationing

UPDATE (7/7/09)

More on this in the following speech from Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Read full post >>