Karmic justice smacks Harry Reid in the face

August 9, 2010

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, spent roughly a year shoving nationalized health care down the throats of a nation that clearly did not want it, disregarding both the People’s wishes and the harmful effects it will have on the country.

Thus we savor the irony and schadenfreude tonight as we read that Senator Reid (D-Bitter Old Man) has suddenly discovered that he doesn’t like the health care bill he fought so hard to enact:

John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute details a few fun facts in this video about HealthCare.gov, but the one that sticks out is this, a letter from Majority Leader Harry Reid to HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius sent on July 21st. The letter seems to indicate that Reid has finally read the health care bill, and after discovering it hurts Nevada hospitals more than it helps them, is complaining to the administration. You can read the full Reid letter here:

  • In a July 21 letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius, the Senate Majority Leader complains that ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare will “result in a net reduction in payment to Nevada’s hospitals when they are unable to absorb such a cut.” Furthermore, he questions the method used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to calculate the payments to hospitals, and is “very concerned about potential effects on beneficiary access if this regulation is finalized without adjustment.”

As Ben Domenech points out, what Reid is complaining about is the point of the whole danged bill! Half the costs of ObamaCare are (supposedly) paid for by cuts to Medicare. It was at the core of the bill, and yet it only now dawns on Harry that Nevada hospitals and patients will get the shaft?

We are truly lead by idiots, and November can’t come fast enough.

Meanwhile, consider donating to the woman who would like to replace him.


When even Sweden runs away from socialism

May 16, 2010

Here’s an interesting video from Reason.TV, in which Swedish economist Andreas Bergh talks about how Sweden owes its success not to social democracy, but lowered tax rates and deregulation. Of special interest is what he has to say about Sweden’s health care and educational systems. Washington, take note:


Barack Obama stars in “Talking Crap”

April 9, 2010

Andrew Klavan presents another episode of that thrilling series, “Talking Crap,” featuring none other than the Lightworker himself, Barack Obama. This time, it’s all about health care and taxes:


We’ll learn to love it over time, I’m sure

March 23, 2010

Now that Congress and the White House have finished spending over a year doing what’s good for us whether we want it or not, they’re sure to bask in public approval, right? Now that they’ve passed health-care reform and we can learn what’s in Santa’s bag Pandora’s box the bill, we’re all going to be grateful in the end, right?

Er… Maybe not.

A majority of Americans have a dim view of the sweeping health care bill passed by the House, saying it gives Washington too much clout and won’t do much to reduce their own health care costs or federal deficits, according to a new poll released Monday.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

Note that this poll is from CNN, an organization not known for being critical or even objective about Obama and the progressive agenda.

I wonder how many Democrats will be holding townhall meetings to bask in the accolades of their grateful constituents over the Easter recess?

Yeah, me too.

UPDATE: We’re so happy with this bill that 49% of likely voters want their states to sue to stop it.


Levin: Expel Louise Slaughter from the House

March 12, 2010

For background, see the earlier post on Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s efforts to find a way to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare without actually voting on it. Radio host Mark Levin is… well, “pissed off” is the only way to describe it and he calls for Slaughter’s expulsion from the House, even though he knows the effort will fail. Tito’s queued up the tape; here’s Levin:

Frankly, I agree with him. Even though she will never be expelled, the Republicans have to do this to make the public aware of just what a naked, unconstitutional power-grab is underway here. This isn’t just fudging a bit here and there to get past some parliamentary inconveniences. No, this is nothing less than usurpation on the part of the legislative majority and an act of tyranny. As Jim Geraghty observed this morning in his Morning Jolt newsletter:

Are they out of their minds? What, the town hall meetings of last summer were too genteel and conciliatory for House Democrats’ tastes? Trying some sort of stunt like this in order to pass a bill without actually making members vote for it — that’s the sort of thing that takes “armed insurrection” talk out of the realm of chat rooms. We’ve long suspected that the Constitution means nothing to our counterparts on the left, but the idea of working around the requirement that bills be passed by the House strikes a new and disturbing we’ve-lost-democracy note.

Levin in his rant claims that the Slaughter Rule violates Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. For reference, here’s the clause in question:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The highlighted portions are what I believe Levin has specifically in mind. A bill cannot be considered passed and ready for presentation to the President unless it has been voted on and the Yeas and Nays recorded in the House ledger with the name of each person voting and how they voted.

Can the Democrats be sued for false advertising for using the word “democratic” in their name?

(via Hot Air)


They wouldn’t give him a drink of water…

March 7, 2010

Life (and death) under socialized medicine: a patient at a London hospital was so badly neglected by nurses that his death was referred to the police for criminal investigation:

A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital.

Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help.

They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control.

The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.

She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. ‘He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.’

A coroner has such grave concerns about the case that it has been referred to police.

This is just one of many scandals at National Health Service hospitals that are being reported almost, it seems, daily in the British press. The situation is so appalling, the Mail Online reports, that a government commission has called on nurses to sign a public pledge that they will give everyone decent care.

Take a good look at Britain’s NHS; that’s our likely future under ObamaCare.

Comforting, isn’t it?

(via Dan Collins)


A gigantic hypocrite, eh?

March 6, 2010

About a month ago, we reported on Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada who suddenly fled the Canadian single-payer health-care system to seek treatment for a heart ailment in the United States. We wondered at the time was his reason was.

It’s simple, he’s an elitist hypocrite:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a “minimally invasive” surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

“This was my heart, my choice and my health,” Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

Good for you, Danny. I’m sure your constituents will understand while they have to languish on a wait-list for needed treatment or even participate in a lottery to get an appointment with a doctor, because the Canadian system you vehemently defend rations care for those who can’t jet off to Miami.

But don’t think it’s a reflection on Canadian health care:

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province’s health care system.

“I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people,” he said.

“We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done and I went to somebody who’s doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week.”

Danny, buddy. Do you notice something off here? If your system didn’t ration care, you wouldn’t have had to flee across the border! Don’t you think it somewhat telling that the free-market system to the south had just the guy you needed available right away?

Wouldn’t it be nice if all Canadians could enjoy that level of service?

I guess Newfie pols are more important than Average Joe Canuck.

Oh, folks, lest I forget: Danny plans to get the Canadian health service to pay for his medical vacation in Miami:

Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.

“If I’m entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would,” he said.

Jerk.  Waiting

(via International Liberty)

LINKS: More at Sister Toldjah.


That was then, this is now

March 6, 2010

Before he became President, Barack Obama felt one couldn’t govern by ramming through legislation with just 51 votes in the Senate:

Unless, of course, he actually becomes President and there’s something he really, really wants … even if most of us don’t.

It’s different now. Somehow.


The Machiavellian Clintons?

February 28, 2010

Are Bill and Hillary (and their vassals) deliberately trying to bring down Barack Obama and the Left wing of the Democratic Party? Tom Bowler at Pajamas Media thinks so, and he presents an interesting argument based on an odd inconsistency in the behavior of Bill, himself, and the writings and urgings former (?) Clintonistas:

It’s bizarre. Why does President Obama insist upon driving public option health care legislation through Congress when voter opposition to it is at an all-time high?

Unhappiness with Obama and the other leading Democrats is so high that a national tea party movement has virtually brought the Republicans back from the electoral grave. The president’s job approval numbers have been in a year-long slide. In almost every election since he took office, Democrats have gotten trounced.

Yet he continues to push extraordinarily unpopular policies. Could it be the advice he’s been getting?

In the face of this disastrous performance by President Obama and the Democrats, the Clinton team has been actively advising that they keep doing what they’re doing. It’s as if Bill Clinton has just discovered that his beloved party is firmly in the clutches of the extreme left, and he’s decided to encourage their leaders to drive themselves into the proverbial ditch.

First there’s the behavior of the former President himself: in 1994, in the wake of a crushing defeat in the midterm elections grounded largely in the public’s rejection of his own administration’ statist health care plan, Bill tacked to the Right and became a moderately successful centrist president. Yet, when the public is again rejecting a statist takeover of health care, Clinton pushes his party’s now far-Left leaders to go to ramming speed.

Then there are the actions of former top aides to the Clintons. Lanny Davis, the former President’s “fixer” during his sex scandals, has laid the groundwork for attacking the Progressives and a return toward centrism. James Carville pushes the administration and the congressional leadership to continue blaming George W. Bush for everything, a tactic the public has grown tired of and something that diminishes the credibility of those who use it. Meanwhile, others echo Bill Clinton by urging the Democrats to pass the health-care bill, even by using reconciliation, even though all polls show the public hates the idea.

Cui bono? To whose benefit is this? Bowler argues that the Clintons are baiting their rivals into a trap, paving the way for Hillary to run for President in 2012, when she can present herself as the moderate, pragmatic savior of the party, rescuing it from the demagogic clutches of Obama, Pelosi, and the hard Left.

Bowler may be right, though it sounds like something out of a political thriller novel. But there’s no doubting that Lady Macbeth Hillary wants desperately to be President, and that Bill himself wants to return to the center of power. He is one of the great players of Survivor: Politics Island, and this could be his way of getting back into the game. And don’t forget the revenge angle: during the last campaign, Team Obama beat Bill Clinton, effectively playing the race card against him and neutralizing his efforts for Hillary. Encouraging the progressives’ worst instincts as they head for that cliff might well be his form of payback.


Obama’s Nanny Care Insults the American Spirit

February 25, 2010

That’s the title of a great article at Townhall by Michael Barone. Here’s an excerpt:

You are victims. You are helpless against the wiles of big corporations and insurance companies, and you need protection. You need the government to take over and do things you cannot do for yourself.

That is the thinking of what David Brooks calls “the educated class” that favors the Democrats’ health care bills. Members of this elite spout tales of woe of people denied coverage or care with the implication that there but for the grace of government go you. So sign on, and the government will take care of everything.

He then goes on to point out that Americans have traditionally rejected big government programs that provided no link between work and reward, because Americans see themselves as active agents, not dependent victims:

Bill Clinton recognized this when he signed welfare reform in 1996. Clinton worked his way up in Arkansas, a state with a highly unequal income distribution, with a few very rich families — the Waltons, Tysons, Stephenses — and many people with modest incomes. But polling shows that the Democrats’ health care plans are overwhelmingly unpopular in Arkansas, even more than nationally.

Barack Obama, who has chosen to live his adult life in university precincts, sees Arkansans and Americans generally as victims who need his help, people who would be better off dependent on government than on their own. Most American voters don’t want to see themselves that way and resent this condescension.

And that’s why this health care reform has been stalled: not because of Republican obstructionism, but because a vast and growing majority of Americans reject nationalized health care and don’t want the government as their caretaker.

Well-worth reading in full.


Green Eggs and Bam

February 19, 2010

I do not like your health care plan, Bam I Am:

This is from the same group that made the Jack Webb schools Obama videos that were such a hit.

Well done!  Applause


Private health care me, not for thee

February 3, 2010

From the Department of Hypocrisy: the Premier of Canada’s Newfoundland and Labrador province, Danny Williams, has run screaming from Canada’s vaunted universal health-care system to seek treatment in the US:

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

“He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done,” said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

“In consultation with his own doctors, he’s decided to go that route.”

Mr. Williams’ decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada’s health-care system.

I’ll say. So, the single-payer wonder that is Canada’s health-care system couldn’t provide the needed specialist, whereas the free-market system in the US could? Or was it that the rationing that is inevitable in such systems wouldn’t allow him access fast enough? That would perhaps be ironic, and certainly hypocritical, since Williams has been a fervid defender of Canada’s system.

These are interesting questions, and the answers may well be relevant to the health-care debate here in the United States. We want to wish Premier Williams well with his surgery and hope he has a speedy recovery (and, if this is heart trouble, perhaps he should lay off the poutine?); we’ll be very interested in what he has to say on his return.

LINKS: More from Neo-neocon, The Jawa Report, Big Government, and Fausta.


The Bizarro legislature

January 30, 2010

Remember Bizarro World? The planet on which every Earthman had a weird duplicate, and these duplicates would do the opposite of whatever was the intelligent, sensible thing to do? A people for whom doing the dumb thing was doing the right thing?

That’s the California legislature.

Driving pedal-to-the-metal for that cliff, the state senate voted to approve legislation earlier passed by the Appropriations Committee to create a single-payer universal health-care system:

The 22-14 vote was nearly party-line, with one Democrat, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, voting no. It now moves to the Assembly.

The proposal would create the California Health System, which would be funded by pooling all federal and state money California currently spends on health care and a yet-to-be-determined payroll tax. It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year. All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan.

Why do I describe this as something out of Bizarro World? Because the state will run out of cash in less than three months:

State Controller John Chiang issued a stern warning Friday about California’s cash reserves, telling legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger they must act on nearly $9 billion in budget cuts the governor is seeking by March — or the state will run out of cash to pay its bills.

Without making those cuts — which Chiang says will pump $1.3 billion into the state’s checking account — California would be broke by April 1, no fooling.

So, in a time of severe recession with unemployment and under-employment pushing 20%, state revenues crashing, and the treasury almost empty, Senate Democrats want to create a $200 billion entitlement (and we know that’s the low end) and tax even more an already over-taxed population.

Only in Bizarro World could this be considered a bright idea.

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)


California aims for the cliff

January 23, 2010

Remember that final scene in Thelma & Louise, when Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon drive their car over the cliff in an act of suicide? The camera freezes with the car in mid-air, and we’re treated to a series of the two women’s happiest moments on their road to death:

That’s the California Legislature, which, in the midst of a severe recession, high unemployment, and budget deficits the size of the Central Valley, wants to revive plans for a state universal health-care plan:

Democrats resurrect single-payer health care bill

With federal health care reform on life support, California Democrats on Thursday resurrected a $200 billion-a-year state-based single-payer health insurance bill.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 6-3 on party lines and without comment to lift from suspense the dead file, Senate Bill 810 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

It calls for merging the state’s public and private health insurance systems into a single California-run agency. All Californians would be eligible for insurance coverage with the poor receiving subsidized benefits.

The bill does not spell out how California would pay for a program that would cost more than twice the state’s $85 billion general fund. That would be left up to an appointed panel and ultimately, voters.

(Summary article from which the headline was taken here.)

Of course the bill doesn’t specify how this mess would be paid for; if Senator Leno and his social-democratic colleagues were honest with the public, they would admit that the only way to pay for this plan would be through new taxes and borrowing. But they can’t, because the mood of the California public is dead-set against any new taxes and debt: just last year, Propositions 1A-1F, which would have imposed a raft of new taxes in a vain attempt to plug our budget deficit, were rejected by overwhelming majorities of the voters. There’s no way the public would agree to the astronomical and economy-killing costs attendant on a single-payer “Cal-Care plan.”

And don’t think the costs the costs wouldn’t skyrocket from the “mere” $170 billion estimated in the article. Three states already have universal-coverage plans: Maine, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. All three are train wrecks. Failures. They do not control costs, because capping price is not the same as controlling costs. In Maine’s case, the program became so expensive that they had to limit enrollment, undercutting the whole raison d’etre of a single-payer system. Massachusetts is considering capping reimbursements to providers, which will inevitably lead to fewer providers taking “public” patients and longer waiting times to see doctors who do. Tennessee experienced companies ending their private health programs and putting their people on TennCare because it cost them less, but it had the unintended consequence of vastly increasing the burden on the state budget.

Leno’s plan is bizarre as a matter of politics, too. Survey after survey shows that nationalized health care is unpopular with the public, and that majority is growing. Once people realize what single-payer care means in terms of increased government interference in and control over their health care choices, most don’t want it. Surveys of Bay Staters who voted for Scott Brown in the recent special election revealed that opposition to ObamaCare was the single most important issue for most of them. And that was in a state even more liberal than California.

Think about the so-called tea-party protests of the spring and summer. Recall the angry town hall meetings when citizens told their lords and masters public servants they didn’t want ObamaCare. Witness how the Democrats have been killed in three straight elections since then, all because of opposition to nationalized health care and fiscal lunacy.

And yet the progressives in the legislature think that, somehow, California Democrats’ experience will be different?

Go ahead, Louise. Hit the gas. Just don’t take us over the cliff with you.


Palin stands up for union workers against union bosses

January 15, 2010

I think quite a few people don’t realize that her husband and several family members are lifelong union members. From her Facebook page, today:

Union Brothers and Sisters: Your Leadership Doesn’t Get It – You Deserve Better

In the latest to come out of D.C.’s backroom health care deals, President Obama yesterday cut a doozy of a deal with labor union bosses. The fed’s health care plan must be so bad that even union bosses had to go to D.C. to say they wanted out. So… to keep their support for a flawed plan they got an exemption to provisions in the deal that others did not. Small business owners, our families running America’s mom & pops, did not get this deal. Ask yourself: why did union bosses get special treatment? And when did our country’s unions get on the wrong track with moves like this that hurt their good members and put them in such a bad light?

Good hard-working, pro-free-market, pro-America union members should join in opposition to their union bosses’ sweetheart deal. Coming from a union background and living in a world with many union memberships among my family and friends, I know that average members will be embarrassed by their bosses’ deal, which basically only delays the heavy tax on their health care plans until 2018 and in the meantime unfairly leaves many fellow Americans in a much less “enviable” position.

Union members don’t want to stick it to non-union colleagues in the private and public sector. Their union leadership is not helping them in the long run, they’re certainly not helping the rest of America, and unfortunately some union bosses are making all union members look bad, selfish, and anti-business with this Big Government backroom deal.

I know that ordinary union members don’t want to hurt their fellow Americans, just as ordinary Nebraskans didn’t want to stick it to the rest of the country with a sweetheart deal on Medicaid subsidies. I urge union members to make their voices heard. Please, call your leadership – don’t put up with these special-interest politics – tell them to fight for all Americans who want common sense health care reform, not this flawed boondoggle.

To quote what may be the battle-cry in 2012, “Boom! Taste her nightstick!”

UPDATE: Phil Klein with more on this union bribe.


When you’ve lost Bob Herbert

December 29, 2009

It’s finally happened: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have succeeded in uniting the nation – we all hate the proposed health care reform. When even a reliable left-liberal like the New York Times’ Bob Herbert says it stinks, you know it’s done. Stick a fork in it:

There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.

The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.

Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

In other words, rationing. I know it would kill Herbert to admit this, but he’s on his way to agreeing with Sarah Palin.

Give in to the Right side of The Force, Bob. We have cookies.

(hat tip: Jennifer Rubin, who uses this as an example of an overall growing awareness among liberals that this plan stinks.)


Christmas for the insurance companies

December 27, 2009

Nate Beeler on the corporatist deal cut on the Senate version of health care reform:

I’d have put Harry Reid in Obama’s place, but the point is well-taken: Big Business sells out to support Big Government’s policies in return for guaranteed profits, in this case the individual mandate that requires persons to buy a private insurance policy whether they want it or not. They’re not owned by the government, but they are an arm of it, nonetheless.  It’s the fascist bargain.

And, no, I’m not calling Obama or Reid jackbooted fascists. But the progressive policies they’re pursuing are part of an ideological continuum on the Left that runs from a relatively mild Progressivism through Fascist and Communist totalitarianism, all of which subordinates the individual to the State and assumes that the State is the arbiter of the public good. Theirs is a fascism with a smile and a warm hug, not goosesteps and truncheons. In short, it’s a liberal fascism.

You can follow Nate Beeler’s cartoons at The Washington Examiner.


Arrogance, corruption and stupidity

December 24, 2009

Early this morning Last night the Senate passed its version of health-care reform on a party-line 60-39 vote, the first time that’s happened on a truly major piece of legislation since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Thankfully, I’m not into omens, but how fitting that Nebraska should reprise its old role! The LA Times called the moment “historic.” Perhaps, but I would remind them of what Karl Marx once said about historic repetitions.

And yes, the oddity of me quoting Marx has not gone unnoticed. But the progress of this abominable bill through the Senate has brought us to an odd time, indeed, when even cats and dogs will ally.

I was all set to write a long screed about what a terrible piece of legislation this is and how rotten the process became, but Oklahoma’s Senator Tom Coburn, a physician, does it for me:

This vote is indeed historic. This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible. If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

(via Gaius)

Go, read the rest. Some form of nationalized health care, whether the Senate’s, the House’s, or a compromise monstrosity, is almost certain to pass in the next few months. Regardless of which, just remember the arrogance, corruption, and stupidity of those who passed it when you go to vote next November.

RELATED: A powerful House Democrat is not impressed with ReidCare.


Civil war on the Left

December 23, 2009

It’s Blue on Blue as the Left goes after Obama for broken promises:

Schadenfreude goes well on popcorn, don’t you think?

(via Hot Air)


Thoughts for the night

December 21, 2009

Yogi Berra once said:

“It ain’t over ’til it’s over!”

Or Churchill:

Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

She won’t:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,867 other followers