Tag Archives: health care reform

Life Lessons from Chávez’s Cancer

Originally posted at American Thinker

On many levels, thanks to Venezuelan president Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, Americans are in the midst of a teachable moment.  If President of the United States Barack Obama pays attention, maybe he can learn a thing or two from the experiences of a man whose politics mirrors his own.

Just last summer, Hugo Chávez revealed that “Cuban doctors had removed a cancerous tumor from his abdominal region.”  The socialist, totalitarian tyrant has had three operations in less than one year and recently spent time receiving treatment in Cuba, a country other than the one whose health care system imprisons the 29 million people he leads.

Unlike their leader, if Venezuelans get sick, they don’t have the luxury of choosing the quality and quantity of treatment.  Statistics show that only 4% of the Venezuelan population is aged 65 or older — for the 4%, that’s indicative of good genes, not good medicine.  At 57 years old, apparently Mr. Chávez is part of the unfortunate 96% because as it stands, it appears unlikely that he’ll see his 58th birthday.

Like all mortal flesh, Hugo Chávez is desperate to survive…so much so that rather than receive treatment in Venezuela — a country that, thanks to him, provides shoddy “free” health care to its citizens — the socialist leader is availing himself of Fidel Castro’s high-quality medical services, where, for lack of ambulances, people are sometimes transported to the hospital in wheelbarrows.

Venezuela’s “youthful state government has criticized Chávez for choosing to be treated abroad, saying it sends a bad message to ordinary Venezuelans if he does not trust local doctors.”  But why should he?  Does anyone recall Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams circumventing the Canadian health care system and coming to the U.S. for open-heart surgery?

It was just last year, after being treated in Cuba, when Hugo Chávez expressed that the goal of Venezuelan government to provide a free and comprehensive health care system to ensure the “lives” and “happiness” of the Venezuelan people.  He reminded his country’s citizens that “this is what the socialist motherland is about.”

Failing to find a remedy for his cancer in Cuba, rather than receiving treatment at home, Chávez now heads toward Brazil, which is a hint that in the “socialist motherland … [the] free and comprehensive healthcare system” must be pretty darn scary.

Thus, the share-the-wealth crowd should pay heed.  All those here in America who think they’ll be getting something of value for nothing may one day find it costly after all.  Just like in Venezuela, it will be too late to change things if one day Barack Obama chooses to go elsewhere for medical care rather than chance his survival on the shoddy medical system he’s imposed on everyone else.

Chávez’s opponent in the upcoming October election, right-wing rival 39-year-old Henrique Capriles Radonski, in a recent interview expressed the opinion the ailing leader, also known as Esteban de Jesús, believes he cannot lose the election, because “[Chávez] believes he is God.”

Riddled with cancer, Esteban de Jesús is finding out that he’s not God and appears to slowly be grasping the reality that “[a]ll men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall.”  And despite the best that Cuban medicine has to offer, Hugo Chávez’s grass is apparently withering.

Even still, Henrique Capriles refrains from expressing his opinion about the president’s health.  However, what he does take issue with is Chávez’s belief that “Jesus must have been a fellow leftist radical,” a view similar to that of President Barack Obama.  Something America’s self-proclaimed Christian president, baptized by Reverend Jeremiah Wright should also take to heart is Caprile’s assertion that “Christ was neither socialist nor capitalist.”  And, contrary to Democrat opinion, He does not hail from Chicago.

Nonetheless, Chávez may not fully realize it just yet, but the inescapable principle of sowing and reaping is a harsh one.  Arinda Cuellar, 65, a Capriles supporter, said of Mr. Chávez that “this man has me suffocated…we have nothing. There has to be a change.”

The reality is that over the years, Hugo Chávez has made all kinds of promises he failed to deliver on to the destitute people of Venezuela.  Now, after having “faith that his cancer would not return after his first two operations last year — which removed a baseball sized tumor from his pelvis,” it’s his own expectations that are not being realized.

Appearing at a church service in his hometown of Barinas, Venezuela, humbled by the frailty of his own mortal frame, Chávez, whom some call the “mastermind of mimesis,” seemed as confused as ever.

The Venezuelan despot “cried and his voice broke as he eulogized Jesus, revolutionary fighter Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and South American South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.”  Chávez’s skewed mixture was as odd as Barack Obama choosing one day to cite the trio of Jesus, Black Panther founder Huey Newton, and General GeorgeWashington of the Continental Army.

Standing underneath an image of the crucifix — because, unlike Barack Obama, ironically Chávez chooses to display religious icons when speaking — the Venezuelan president compared his sickness and suffering with the suffering of Christ, and prayed out loud, “Give me your crown, Jesus. Give me your cross, your thorns so that I may bleed. But give me life, because I have more to do for this country and these people. Do not take me yet.”

Publicly begging God for a level of mercy, he failed to extend to the violent, impoverished nation he leads, Hugo Chávez professed that “[t]oday, I have more faith than yesterday. Life has been a hurricane … but a couple of years ago my life began to become not my own anymore.”

Whoa, now that’s a switch!  Control freak El Commandante now finds himself at the mercy of a force he cannot command, with an outcome that will surely be determined by a power greater than his own.

Chávez’s ongoing battle with illness shows that dictators forcefully promote socialized health care until it’s their own lives hanging in the balance, at which point, rather than take a pain pill, they seek medical help elsewhere.  But mainly, watching Dictator Hugo Chávez struggle with his mortality reminds us that even tyrants eventually find out what it feels like to be forced to surrender control of their lives.

‘Hermaneutics’ Cain-Style

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Herman Cain winning the Florida straw poll is encouraging.  It means an honest, straight-talking non-politician can cut through the flowery rhetoric and be taken seriously.  While all eyes are on Rick and Romney, Herman is busy transforming “grass-roots popularity into strong showings in national polls.”

In the end, it’s more than a long shot that the ‘Hermanator,’ a Baptist minister who enjoys singing the occasional Gospel hymn and whose favorite dish is the “Godfather’s combo with extra cheese, sausage, ham, onions and peppers, [washed down] with an icy Coke,” would actually have a chance to win the Republican nomination.

Still, if one were to fantasize about such a scenario, many pleasant ideas come to mind which, if they were to materialize, could inject some humor into a nation that Mr. Cain says needs to “lighten up” and have a few laughs.

Right out of the gate, the first thing that would be striking about a Herman Cain vs. Barack Obama presidential race would be the comparison between Barry dragging out and setting up two Teleprompters to answer a few questions and Herman standing next to him, hands in his pockets, pithy retort at the ready.

On jobs, the President’s usual approach is to attempt to razzle-dazzle with flowery rhetorical proposals that sound good on the campaign trail but, in practice, don’t work.  Herman’s method is to listen to his opponents, look at the crowd, smile, and off-the-cuff respond to half-baked ideas with: “It’s time to get real, folks. Hope and change ain’t working. Hope and change is not a solution. Hope and change is not a job.”

After watching Bobble Head Barack turn from right to left reading what someone tells him he believes off a scrolling Teleprompter, oh, to be able to watch Herman Cain lean over a debate podium and hear him say, “We need a leader, not a reader.”

A “Yes We Cain” versus a “We thought we could, but then we didn’t” run-off for the White House between the man from Georgia and the man from God-knows-where would certainly create mass liberal confusion, because instantaneously the race card would have to be moved to the bottom of the deck.

Oh, but wait! Obama had better not remove the race card too fast. Herman identifies with racists in a way, because as a black man he knows the racism issue isn’t about skin color.  On the left, racism is defined as: “People who oppose Obama,” and in the past Mr. Cain has in fact admitted, “I guess I’m a racist.”

The confusion surrounding having two black candidates for president would make for interesting theatre.  Take for instance Black Panther poll watchers standing guard for racial equality.  How would they know whom to wave their clubs at on Election Day?  Do the Panthers intimidate whites voting for Obama or blacks voting for Cain? How would they figure out who is voting for who?  What a quandary.

Prior to winning the Florida CPAC straw poll, Mr. Cain articulated his intent to replace the tax code with a 999-tax plan where, across the board, he would implement “9 percent tax on businesses, personal income and sales.” If, in the aforementioned fantasy, Herman and Barry get to debate taxes, when it’s the President’s turn to articulate his views on taxes Herman could hold a “999” poster board upside down in front of the camera and America will instantly know where and from whom Barack’s tax philosophy gathers its inspiration.

A perfect retort to Obama touting, blaming and refusing to accept responsibility for failed policies would be for Cain to pose a question to America: “How’s this guy workin’ out for you?”

Who can forget the first lady opining on Obama’s ‘share the wealth’ view of the world, saying, “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Oh, what sweet irony it would be to watch Obama grapple with Godfather’s Pizza’s successful CEO who saw pie as a symbol of success, not an emblem of imposed sacrificial socialism. A person who, since leaving what he calls “that Democrat plantation” a long time ago, found out that if an individual refuses to adopt the usual liberal victim status, miraculously there’s more than enough for everyone to have a whole pie – if a person is willing to work for it.

Sweeter still would be to hear how cancer survivor Herman Cain would respond to Barack laying on the Obamacare user-friendly insurance language, heartstring-manipulation banter about 32 million+ uninsured, talk of $980 billion in 10-year costs, mandates, and everything else included in Obama’s gargantuan government power grab.

At a recent Republican debate, the potential presidential nominee succinctly boiled down all the healthcare drivel to one concise and grateful sentence when he said: “If Obamacare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.”

Mr. Cain has repeatedly proven that when truth is in the mix there is no need for theatrics, or Hermanator hysterics. Cain’s legendary “I’d be dead” comment not only applies to himself as a cancer survivor, but regrettably also predicts America’s future if Barack Obama manages to somehow slickly speechify himself into a second term.

Herman Cain may not be the perfect candidate but, then again, who is? Moreover, Mr. Cain getting the Republican nomination, unfortunately, is doubtful.

However, reality does not diminish the fact that this patriotic man is the master of a unique style of political “Hermaneutics.” In few words, Herman Cain clearly articulates the extent of death, doom and destruction a second term would impose on a nation already reeling from three years of Barack Obama’s perverted brand of “Hope and Change.”

Single Square Now, Single Payer Later

If you live in Brooklyn and it’s a hot summer day, do yourself a favor and don’t bother going to Coney Island for a dip in the ocean or a stroll on the boardwalk, because if you’re a well-hydrated woman you could run into a pesky problem inside the ladies’ restroom.

The state of New York has such a budget shortfall that park administrators at Coney Island have decided to cut corners by leaving toilet paper dispensers empty.  Park attendants are herding people with full bladders onto “ration lines” where one sheet of single-ply, Sheryl Crow-friendly toilet paper is meted out to women dying to get into a stall.  Men don’t even get a solitary square.

Word to the wise – toting along adult-sized baby wipes is especially important if Coney Island patrons plan to drink large quantities of cold soft drinks on warm summer nights while riding the Cyclone.  Park-goers are left with two choices: bring an extra fanny-pack full of Charmin® for a stroll on the boardwalk, or wear a bathing suit and plan to intermittently break for a quick dip in the salty foam, saying “I’ll be right back, I need to cool off.”

One woman, shocked that toilet paper was being rationed, said “Never in my life have I experienced anything like this. I walked toward a stall, and a bathroom attendant stopped me by shouting, ‘Hey, mami! There’s no toilet paper here,’ and she whipped out a big roll for me to grab some.”

A New York City Parks and Recreation spokesperson insists that toilet paper is stocked daily: “There’s no need to ration, and we’ll make certain our staff does not do so” – another tepid denial coming from another bureaucratic apologist.

Despite the budgetary crisis, the bathroom attendants still on the payroll maintain that the taxpayer-funded Parks Department isn’t adequately stocking the Coney Island public boardwalk with enough toilet paper, thus the bathroom attendant-controlled single-ply quotas.

New Yorkers pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. Their reward for doing so is having government spend more while they’re hung out to dry, having to BYOTP to the beach, boardwalk, and amusement park. Not only are New Yorkers being deprived of basic hygienic provisions, but now when patrons really have to use extra care washing up after using the facilities, the hot water is also turned off.

Even so, there is a larger issue which all Americans had best take heed of that has nothing to do with toilet paper and everything to do with the government’s inability to manage even a single stall in a public bathroom.  Although still a few years off, a similar scenario is likely with government managing America’s health care.

Both state and federal governments cost too much and provide little. Vulnerable Americans needing to use the bathroom at the mercy of an attendant dictating to them what they can and cannot have for the most basic of human needs is a foreshadowing of what lies ahead if a single-payer system is implemented. Americans are destined, in a time of crisis, to find themselves paying a very high price for single-ply/single-sheet health care, doled out by a government employee who’ll be told to leave the dispenser empty and watch over how much everybody gets.

Like the shocked woman in the Coney Island lavatory who marveled, “Never in my life have I experienced anything like this,” just wait until nervous mothers across America whose children have ear infections are told by their neighborhood drugstore that the weekly allotment of penicillin is gone and the next shipment doesn’t arrive for 48 hours.

Similar to walking into a restroom for the first time to find toilet paper being rationed, there will also be a first time when Americans, accustomed to easy access and high quality, will “walk toward a doctor’s office or emergency room” like a beachgoer rushing toward a restroom, only to have a bureaucrat inform them: “‘Hey, mami!’ There’s no room at this hospital.” And then traumatized Americans will be placed on ration lines where government workers will dole out certain healthcare procedures like sheets of cheap bathroom tissue.

In the words of a Coney Island tourist from Denmark named Benedikte Friis, after being handed a whisper-thin sheet of toilet tissue the consistency of crepe paper: “It’s very weird that someone decides how much paper you get because they don’t know what situation you’re in. You might need more!”

Precisely! And who better than Benedikte would know that you get what they give you, and ‘they’ could care less ‘what situation you’re in’ or if ‘you might need more,’ a situation similar to how it is in highly-taxed, government-munificent Denmark. Only here it will be worse, because Americans live in a country with 295 million more people than Denmark, run by a government far too similar to the one that runs the toilet paper-deprived park in Coney Island.

With bureaucrats on a par with bathroom attendants set to manage the nation’s health system, Americans are destined to endure a future full of such poor-quality medical care that even tourists from socialist Scandinavia will be shaking their heads and thinking that what’s going on here is more than a little “weird.”

Loose Bolts and a Boeing 737

Posted at Renew America

Everyone knows even a small mistake can cost a human life, which is one reason to avoid amusement parks and must be why only 32% of America favors government-controlled health care.  One loose bolt and the chances for survival are slim.   Speaking of loose bolts, it’s been proven time and again that when government employees are on the job, quality is not paramount, anything is possible, and no one is safe.

Case in point: The First Lady of the United States “returning from a television appearance and other events with Jill Biden in New York …was aboard a Boeing 737 that [was] part of the presidential fleet of jets” when “controllers at Andrews feared the cargo jet would not clear the runway in time.”

As a “result of an air traffic controller’s mistake…a White House plane carrying First Lady Michelle Obama came dangerously close to a 200-ton military cargo jet and had to abort its landing.”

A little closer, give or take a mile or two, and budget and birth certificate discussions wouldn’t be the lead story on cable news networks right now.

The incident is important, not only because Michelle came uncomfortably close to a 200-ton disaster, but because Barack Obama plans to place the lives of every American into the hands of equally inept government employees.  With that harrowing thought in mind and now that the presidential fleet of jets have safely taxied to a stop, maybe a lesson can be learned from Mrs. Obama’s narrow escape.

Air traffic controllers are thought to be the cream of the crop amongst trained government employees.  Viewed as elite professionals, they work for a federal agency called the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Controllers are highly paid and in charge of the well-being of individuals whose lives depend on alert men and women in the tower paying attention and guiding planes on and off the runway safely.

“These jobs are demanding and require candidates who can think clearly and act rationally under pressure.”  Air traffic controllers are supposed to be landing strip experts, and “During busy times, controllers must work rapidly and efficiently. Total concentration is required to keep track of several planes at the same time and to make certain that all pilots receive correct instructions. The mental stress of being responsible for the safety of several aircraft and their passengers can be exhausting.”

So when it was revealed that controllers had been caught sleeping and watching movies on the job, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was “shocked” and appalled, vowing to address nap time and contemplate extended time between shifts.  However if, God forbid, the airplane transporting the First Lady had tragically collided with a cargo plane while an air traffic controller was watching “Cleaner,” it would have been too little, too late for the First Lady to address the issue of inefficient incompetence.

After disembarking from the Boeing 737, if I were Michelle Obama I would have dropped to my knees, kissed the ground and thanked God an FAA mistake didn’t end my life, a story’s end many baby boomers may be unable to share in regards to Health and Human Services workers determining how and where millions of them land.

If the brush-with-death adrenaline still hasn’t subsided fully, one would venture to guess that even Michelle would agree that the last group of individuals America needs making life-and-death decisions is yawning, distracted government employees, where mediocrity is the norm and apathy is poised, on or off a 737, to threaten everyone’s life.

The moral of the story is that regardless of the occupation, from the Department of Motor Vehicles to the Federal Aviation Administration, government trained employees are notorious for indifference and messing up.

It’s disconcerting, because with health care reform on the horizon, the same guy who still supports a group of government workers that nearly made him a widower has plans to dispatch battalions of bureaucratic health care worker buffoons.  Which means, whether Americans are lying helpless in hospital beds or seat-belted into an airplane, we’re all defenseless, because midway through surgery or while monitoring takeoff or touchdown, it’s guaranteed that if a government employee is on the job, someone is bound to either fall asleep or break for lunch, whether Michelle Obama is onboard or not.


Why Carter dissed Kennedy

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Jimmy Carter is so mad he’s spitting peanut shells. In an effort to buoy a dismal legacy, Carter resurrected the “Lion of the Senate” from a saintly sarcophagus to blame the dead senator for delaying comprehensive health coverage for three decades.

In a “60 Minutes” interview with Leslie Stahl Jimmy claimed, “The fact is that we would have had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy’s deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed.” Carter asserts that if it wasn’t for Kennedy, who is viewed as the “champion of the recent health care legislation,” Americans would already have comprehensive care and Carter policy would be the reason why.

Imagine how a failed ex-president must feel seeing Ted Kennedy, who Carter says “deliberately blocked” health care legislation, receiving kudos for being “a lifelong champion for universal health care.” Jimmy Carter obviously feels the need to set the record straight, to thwart a dead Kennedy from getting credit for a policy he prevented from passing while Carter was in office.

In the “60 Minutes” interview, Jimmy Carter exhibits unbridled disdain for the late Senator, claiming that 30 years ago, “Ted Kennedy killed the bill” and that the Massachusetts senator’s suppressing health care was a mean political tactic.

At the time, Kennedy and Carter were both vying for the Democratic presidential nomination so, according to Carter, Kennedy blocked health care “out of spite.” During the post-mortem assault, Jimmy accuses Teddy of not wanting to see him have “a major success in that realm of life.”

Pretty nasty stuff! Carter claims Kennedy undermined people-friendly policy to further his presidential aspirations. Jimmy should have insisted the Stahl interview be conducted while strolling across Dike’s Bridge, where Carter could have explained how “Kennedy killed the bill,” driving home an observable point.

Carter reveals that while liberals lit votives at the altar of St. Teddy, he was keeping a journal chronicling the Massachusetts senator’s unflattering behavior. Carter penned in his diary, “Kennedy continuing his irresponsible and abusive attitude, immediately condemning our health plan.”

Is a peanut farmer from Georgia daring to accuse Hyannis Port royalty of “abusive…irresponsible…spiteful” behavior? Doesn’t Jimmy know that dearly departed Ted was a consummate gentleman, always ready to transport young women safely to any destination? To suggest Teddy Kennedy quashed health care reform fails to credit the deceased senator as a “people friendly person” who always put the well being of others ahead of his own welfare.

The interview proved that Carter is desperate to be credited with something – anything, be it health care reform, or as the architect of a never adopted, money-saving energy conservation program. For many reasons, Jimmy Carter’s presidency was, and is still, considered abysmal. Yet at this late date a departed senator could redeem Jimmy’s forlorn legacy.

President Carter’s truthful “60 Minutes” expose of Kennedy’s willingness to “kill” to advance a political career has shed new light on Mr. Poucha Pond’s malicious nature and could turn out to be the most glorious political achievement of Carter’s fifty-year career.

Healthcare Camaraderie Centers – American Thinker – July 3, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Obamacare has actually found a way to inject the friend factor into health care reform.  In fact, community organizer Barack Obama may ultimately be responsible for advancing neighborhood camaraderie through government altruism.  It seems that as an added benefit of “free” medical care, crowded emergency rooms have the potential to be transformed into social gathering places where patients wheeled in on stretchers leave with a whole new group of friends.

How, you ask?  Well, one change the Obamacare overhaul is poised to deliver is extended ER wait times.  After bleeding for 4 hours before receiving triage evaluation, ER patients will be directed toward MRSA-infested waiting rooms jammed with people who, when forced to spend 72 hours together, could become lifetime friends.

Obama’s much touted nothing-is-free health care promises to cost the duped both quality and access.  An added bonus is the opportunity to fritter away precious time sitting in the ER perfecting Sudoku skills.

Savvy ER patients who used to pack a snack, afghan and a change of socks should now also pack a toothbrush. If predictions are on target, patients waiting for a butterfly stitch may find themselves eating stale Sun Chips® out of a vending machine for days on end.

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that Obama led Americans to believe, along with many other fabrications, that “getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease the persistent problem of ER crowding?” The argument presented was that, thanks to Obamacare, patients that typically use the ER for minor issues like sore throats would have access to “routine health care by visiting a doctor’s office, as most of the insured do.”

One problem: there’s “already a shortage of front-line family physicians…and experts think that will get worse.” Fewer doctors coupled with 32 million additional people glutting the government dole translates into ER rooms perpetually resembling JFK’s terminal 4 during the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull.

American College of Emergency Physicians president Dr. Angela Gardner says, “We’re starting out with crowded conditions and anticipating things will only get worse.”

If Obama gets his way, add to the 32 million the conservative figure of another 11 million illegals receiving amnesty and health care, and ERs across the nation will be forced to provide collapsible cots to accommodate overnight guests waiting for ice packs and ace bandages.

According to experts like Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, “More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they’re sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.”

Seems as though Yes We Can just became “No we can’t!”

Perfect! Deluge the system before the means to accommodate the influx is in place.  Sounds like a recipe for government hope and change disaster. Overcrowd the lifeboat. Escape a burning building by cramming the elevator with more weight than the cable can handle. Jump out of the aircraft, worry about the parachute later.

Obamacare is about to be foisted upon America.  So as the world’s best health care is overwhelmed by official procedures, systemic inefficiency, and bureaucratic oversight, if – God forbid – you should happen to visit an emergency room, get geared up to meet lots of new and interesting friends and make sure to bring an overnight bag.

Partisan Blood Sport – American Thinker – April 2, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

While running for president, one central campaign promise Barack Obama focused on was the eradication of the type of political vitriol rampant within two-party systems. Candidate Obama vowed to singlehandedly rid the nation of the spirit of discord. When newly elected, the president’s victory speech elevated the rhetoric above partisanship and condemned the type of separation responsible for “crippl[ing] Washington and turn[ing] national politics into a blood sport.”

Obama appeared intent on bringing the nation together, saying, “In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that have poisoned our politics for so long.” Disguised as a herald of unanimity, one year later, the president has emerged as an extreme partisan guilty of the type of combative political activity he originally condemned. Ascending to power, Barack Obama espoused ardent desire for bipartisan cooperation. What America failed to take seriously was a liberal senatorial voting record predisposing Barry to implement the agenda of “fundamental transformation” by way of strident partisan rule.

Maybe the nation’s confusion is rooted in Barack Obama failing to adequately clarify his unique definition for bipartisanship as unanimous submission, unswerving obedience, and complete concurrence?

Over the past few months, the president’s adverse reaction to the slightest hint of resistance has been telling. Continual exposure to adversarial nonconformity by the opposing party to his liberal, left-wing policy edicts has transformed the Nobel Peace Prizewinner into a ferocious competitor.

It seems that America’s new president is not timid about engaging in “blood sport.” Immediately following the “historic” inauguration, Obama stepped into the ring touting a highly divisive stimulus bill and then passed the budget-buster package strictly along party lines.

Despite all the talk by the US President, Barack Obama, of post-partisan politics, and a personal appeal to Republicans on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, today’s vote on the $US 850 billion ($1.2 trillion) stimulus package looks set to go along party lines.

Following Obama’s first fiscal conquest, rather than extend a hand of amity, like a swaggering rooster, the victor took the first of many campaign-style struts before supporters while haughtily mocking the challenging party. After pledging to enforce a new tone in politics, the president instead infused life into the political arena with unprecedented cynicism and unmatched condescension.

Reaffirming once again who holds sway over the last word, Obama, together with a Democrat Congress, recently rammed through an unpopular health care reform bill. Prior to the bill being passed into law, and throughout the conflict-ridden negotiations, the president demonstrated a palpable, deep-seated attitude that political survival requires a public persona void of mutual respect.

Immediately following passing the legislation and amidst upheaval and public turmoil, rather than fostering a short season of bipartisan conciliation, Obama decided to set out on a triumphant health care march, mocking Republicans like a juvenile punk after prevailing in a schoolyard brawl.

President Barack Obama dared Republicans to try to repeal his new health care law, telling them to “Go for it…Be my guest,” Obama said in the first of many planned appearances to sell the revamp before fall congressional elections. “If they want to have that fight, we can have it.”

When polls indicated a vast majority of Americans aligned with Republicans against the health care reform law, Obama responded by thumbing his nose at the opposition and making a recess appointment of a controversial lawyer. In doing so, the president rejected the opportunity to extend healing in the throes of political unrest. Instead, the purported post-partisan president chose to willfully and “immediately deepen the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care.”

Opposition to the nomination of Craig Becker was not because the appointment was made during recess, which is standard presidential protocol, but rather because the former SEIU lawyer’s “radical pro-union agenda” should have no place on the National Labor Relations Board. Yet Obama disregarded conflict of interest concerns as well as wise bipartisan counsel, which advised against the dubious appointment.

In a standard Obama show of defiance, the president “went ahead anyway.”

Fitted with ideological gaffes, Barack Obama appears to savor participating in frequent partisan power plays. As a result, during Obama’s term, “[t]he hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington … remains as entrenched as ever, if not worse.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the Becker debate is “another episode of [Obama] choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition.”

After publicly censuring the national pastime of political blood sport, Barack Obama continues to willfully and gleefully agitate political adversaries on any given day and in every conceivable way. By installing another in-your-face, conflict-ridden appointee, Obama again exercised contentious clout in defiance of Republican resistance.

Becker, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, has spoken favorably on “card check” legislation that would take away the right of employers to demand secret ballot union representation elections. Some of his legal writings suggest that its goals could be accomplished by the NLRB without Congress having to pass the legislation.

After pledging to curtail division, Barack Obama purposely made another disruptive political decision by appointing a lawyer whose curriculum vitae also includes representing ACORN, and Obama then argued the decision as crucial to advance post-partisan ability to lead.

Defying logic, the president defended the divisive, highly partisan selection of Becker by saying, “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic function of government.”

As a result, the president of the “United” States has instigated a new level of partisanship and breathed dissension into a political fight poised to extend far beyond the arena where blood sport once was safely confined.

Stupak’s Last Stand – American Thinker Blog – March 19, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

When Jesus retreated to the Garden of Gethsemane He went there alone to pray for strength to endure the trial that lay before Him.  Gethsemane literally means “oil press” where fruit is crushed and the valuable endures. Such is the situation that Bart Stupak (D-Mich) finds himself in as he leads a revolt against the controversial issue of abortion funding included in Obama’s healthcare legislation.

True character isn’t revealed in the utterance of words–talk is cheap.  Jesus’ true test came when what He preached cost His life. Over the years, Bart Stupak has quietly worked with Democrats “behind the scenes” concerning the issue of abortion. Suddenly, the stalwart Congressman finds himself crushed beneath a millstone whose pressure insists abortion be funded with federal monies.

What began as healthcare negotiations, between pro-abortion and pro-life Democrats has transformed for Stupak into a”living hell.”Threatened with being spit upon and exposed to obscenity and violence Stupak impressively refuses to bend a knee to Molech, regardless the price.

Supporters of Obamacare view Stupak as the “one Democrat standing between the party and the achievement of [government run healthcare] one of its most coveted accomplishments.” Stupak’s pro-life stance has singled him out when,in reality,he and his dozen lack the power to block passage of the bill. According to the Michigan Congressman, “There are 39 other people who didn’t vote for it.”

So what made Stupak a “household name?” Something Bart claims he didn’t anticipate, which was “…how big the abortion issue would become during the health care reform debate.”

Stupak’s admission that he’s”a little surprised,” was over due.  It was bound to happen though because a Democrat stepping forth to defend the unborn brings out the worst in a political party determined to kill innocent babies. In militant pro-choice circles demanding “tough language in healthcare legislation to prevent any federal subsidies from being used for abortion services,” could inspire a crucifixion.

The night that Jesus knelt alone in the Garden of Gethsemane some of His followers abandoned Him just as “Democratic leaders [have] peeled off a few of [Stupak’s] group.” Pro-life Democrats like Michigan’s Dale Kildee’s capitulation has added to Stupak’s healthcare reform “hell.” But unlike opponents to the bill, whose resolve was diluted by back room deals, kickbacks and amusement park rides on Air Force One, “the intensity of the resistance to Stupak’s position has, if anything, stiffened his resolve.”

Bart Stupak shows “no sign of voting for the Senate healthcare bill” if the abortion language doesn’t change.  For the pro-life Democrat maybe “The ideal outcome might be for the House Democratic leadership to get the votes they need without him and for the bill to pass.”

A resolution?  The health care bill funding abortion is passed without Bart’s bloody fingerprints on the legislation. Resigned to the inevitable, Stupak, squeezed like an olive in a press said, “You know, maybe for me that’s the best; I stay true to my principles and beliefs and vote no on this bill and then it passes anyways. Maybe for me is the best thing to do.”

No Congressman, the better thing would be lily-livered legislators looking to you as a leader after acknowledging the character deficit in Washington DC.  What could be better than a “living hell” producing the oil to grease an insurgency within the Democrat Party that would save the United States from a legislative fate far worse than a federally funded full term abortion?

Go Ahead, Barry Make our Day – American Thinker Blog – March 18, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Obama has warned Democrats who vote “No” for health care reform that he will not campaign for them in the upcoming election. The President “refuse[s] to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill…Mr. Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.”

Oddly enough, Obama’s intimidation may be the very impetus wavering Democrats need to help them make a final decision to side with the people and vote against a bill most Americans reject.

Back in the Obama hay day, “A one-night presidential appearance [could] bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.” That was before early last summer when the independent support that delivered Obama the White House began bleeding out.

“In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama’s job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.”By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents, a collapse during the health care debate that reflects independents’ dislike of deficit spending, the growth of big government and one-party control of Washington.

In fact, prior to Obama’s childish admonition to withhold campaign support for votes, some congressional candidates were already making the decision to distance themselves from the President. “Reporting from Washington – As President Obama’s approval ratings sag and the mood of voters sours, some Democratic congressional candidates are distancing themselves from the White House, with the back-channel blessing of party officials.”

Even those in his own party realize Obama’s support for a candidate is likely a reelection death knell. But, as usual, Obama appears clueless.

What planet does Obama live on? The President appears to believe campaigning for his own party would leverage votes from skittish Democrats.  Hasn’t David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel gingerly informed the President of his most recent historic milestone? As of December, Obama’s job approval rating was 47 percent in a Gallup poll the “lowest ever recorded for any president at [that] point in his term?”

The President undermines his own effort by continuing to threaten withholding campaign support in hopes of goading moderate Blue Dogs to support a bill everyone knows blatantly defies the will of the people.  Astute Democrats under pressure are well aware voting with the President is greater assurance of losing the election than signing on and having Barry and his traveling teleprompter show up on a candidate’s behalf.

The best thing politicians fighting to protect the future of America could do, would be to advise Democrat colleagues to vote “Yes” with Obama.  In doing so, Obama’s Hope and Change campaign bus will set out across America, delivering landslide victories to Republicans and guaranteeing not one Democrat, up for reelection, will have the opportunity to return to Washington DC after the November election.

Stupak and his dozen getting ‘both arms twisted’ – American Thinker Blog – March 13, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Robert Costa of National Review Online interviewed pro-life Bart Stupak by phone while the Democrat sat in an airport awaiting a flight to Michigan.  Apparently the “Stupak dozen” has dwindled. “At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve,” Stupak told Costa.

Though fatigued, thus far Stupak remains loyal to the pro-life debate “I am a definite ‘no’ vote. I didn’t cave.” However, those who agreed privately to stand for life and vote “no on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language” -are now falling like dominoes under “enormous political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

Stupak claims, pro-life Democrats are “having both of their arms twisted, and …getting pounded by… traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.” Stupak told Costa what is going on is  “a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

Bart maintains Nancy Pelosi is so committed to funding being available that the Speaker refuses to entertain the Stupak Amendment, which imposes  “tight restrictions on abortion language.” Regardless of whether House Democrats believe the bill can pass with or without pro-life Democrats, for Pelosi votes are worth losing to make an ideological statement in support of killing the unborn.

While nursing two twisted arms, Stupak experienced quite an epiphany.  The Michigan representative told NRO, “I really believe the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance. Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.”

Even more dramatic was Stupak’s confession to Costa that Democrat leadership views abortion as a cost saving necessity.  Expressing aversion Stupak said, “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue – come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.” With all due respect Mr. Stupak, is this news to you?

The Michigan Congressman rhetorically mused on. “What are Democratic leaders saying? If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing.”

Quite an illuminating statement–a Democrat admits left-wing congressional colleagues support butchering the unborn to benefit the bottom line.  Wait until Bart grasps Democrats rationing treatment to the elderly to justify achieving similar fiscal goals.

Stupefied, Stupak said, “Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it’s always been in a backhanded way.”  Stupak told Costa, “If Obama care passes it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party.” Yes, as well as “signaling the end” for children in utero, the terminally ill and Americans 65-years or older.

Stupak’s intonation hinted of resignation for intervention from the right side of the aisle,  “We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.” Yet Stupak “won’t leave the party?”  Why?  Because, he’s “more comfortable [there] and still believe[s] in a role within it for the right-to-life cause.” The Congressman is at ease in a party that never seriously entertained the abortion debate, unleashes union thugs, twists arms, kills babies and marginalizes pro-life Democrats?

A disillusioned Stupak said, “It’s almost like some right-to-life members don’t want to be bothered. They just want this over.” Sounds like weak-kneed pro-life Democrats identify with women seeking federally funded abortions that “just want it get it over with” and could care less who pays the price.

%d bloggers like this: