Harry Reid (Racist-NV), Says Health Insurance Reform too Expensive

I thought that health care “reform” was going to decrease costs – except in Harry Reid’s Nevada (D) it will increase them (“Our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding,” according to Reid yesterday), – and increase access (except that up to 45% of Doctors may quit according to a poll yesterday).  So, health reform is “too expensive” for Nevada, but will cut costs everywhere else?  And we have a bridge and some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

All this within hours the latest attempt by Senate Finance Committee chairman Baucus (D-Montana).  Government death panels, higher costs, monopoly government control, fewer doctors, fewer freedoms, socialism, care for others subsidized by the young, special plans for the Royal Congress, higher costs (as in 40% higher in Massachusetts’ version of this): sounds like a winner.


WASHINGTON – No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee’s chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it’s not good enough for Nevada.
Reid is concerned about the cash-poor state’s inability to boost Medicaid spending as would be required under the bill.
“While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada,” Reid said in a statement. “During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding.”

House of Representatives Limits free speech!

You have to enjoy the irony of the Chairwomen Louise M. Slaughter, Committee on Rules U.S. House of Representatives giving a summary of decorum in the House and in Committees today.

In part Slaughter states you should not “allude to personal misconduct.”  One has to question, first, the Constitutionality of these rules.  For example, could the House not have alluded to personal misconduct of President Nixon in the alleged Watergate coverup.  Or could not allude to Andrew Johnson’s violation of the Tenure in Office Act – itself probably Unconstitutional due to separation of powers – because it was alleged to be personal misconduct.  Likewise, one would have to conclude that the House could not allude to President Clinton committing perjury.  In short, it would make the President immune to criticism.

However, the saving point is that it is fascinating that Slaughter uses the word “allude” which means to “suggest or call attention to indirectly” or “hint at.”  Given the plain language from Rep Slaughter, as long as one states plainly that “President Obama lied when he stated the government will not take away your health care,” one does not violate the rule.  There is no “alluding” going on.  It is stated plainly and clearly.

A Member of the House that chooses to follow these rules is violating his or her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First Amendment.  The Founders intended robust debate and any rules to the contrary must be ignored.  Anything else makes a mockery of the concept of free speech.

Other statements that seem to be allowed:

“President Obama misrepresented the facts when he discussed his health care nationalization proposal.”

“President Obama misinformed you when he gave a speech on socialized medicine.”

In short it seems one can use words like these:

fib, dissemble, dissimulate, prevaricate, stretch the truth, mislead, exaggerate, whopper, falsified, invented, used a piece of fiction, distort, skewed, or misreported.

Likewise, as long as you state something outright, you are not going to run afoul of Rep Slaughter’s speech controls.
Continue reading House of Representatives Limits free speech!

The “time for bickering is over”? No, it is not.

President Obama stated last night that the “time for bickering is over.”  What this really means is: forget your principles, give up your freedom and do it my way.  It is as if King George told the Colonists, the time for bickering is over.  “The time for bickering is over.  Pay your taxes, forget your freedom and shut your mouth.  It is time for action.” Not likely.

It is a nice technique, to disparage your opponent’s principled disagreements as “bickering,” “politics,” or “partisanship” knowing you won’t be called on it by the press.  But the intent is the same, to dismiss arguments as below you instead of responding to them.

Rancor in politics means not compromising on freedom

The Politico states that Obama’s “gift for healing words would combine with the power of his biography to transcend the rancor of modern politics.” (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9C86A356-18FE-70B2-A8CD0AA335449DD4).   Rancor in politics is caused by one group attempting to gain power over another and that group fighting back.  To take freedom and turn the United States into a socialist paradise.  To take our liberty for what they claim as a good purpose.  The Founders knew this which was why they enumerated powers in the Constitution.  The authoritarians knew this too and since at least the 1930s have attempted to pit one group against another for the aggrandizement of their own power.  Group politics and group envy is the basis of those power hungry groups who only care about one thing – their own power.

Should the North avoided “rancor” with the South in April of 1861?  Should Roosevelt should have avoided “rancor” with Japan on December 8, 1941?  Should the Africans who were being sold into slavery by their own people to the Europeans have fought or should they have avoided “rancor” in politics?

Anyone who is being sold into serfdom should fight back to preserve their freedoms.  Rancor is perfectly fine. Rancor is good, it means you are engaged and care about being free or being serf.  Rancor means not compromising when it comes to protecting your freedoms.  Rancor means that power-hungry authoritarians are not getting their way.  Rancor means that the line of liberty in the sand is drawn and defended.  Rancor means that the defenders of liberty are not willing to compromise their liberty away bit by bit.

Freedom implies free markets.  Freedom implies free minds.  Freedom implies the freedom to make good, and bad decisions.  Every compromise is a grain of sand dripping out of the hour-glass of freedom.  It may only seem like a single grain, but given enough time eventually the top of the glass will be completely empty.

“The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

“The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

On Depression-era welfare from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 State of the Union Address.

Racist Rep. Charles Rangel

Yet another ugly racist rears his head in the halls of the U.S. Congress. Congressman, Charles Rangel (Racist-NY) showed yet again that he cares more about the color of people’s skin instead of the content of their character.

Why do black people have to bargain for what is theirs? Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can’t we get what God has given us? And that is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not court the votes.

Sorry, Charlie, some people really care about the policies being discussed and implemented, not the color of people’s skin.  It must be extremely difficult for a 79 year old racist who “forgets” millions of dollars on his financial returns to understand that while he may be a racist and care about skin color, most people are not.  It is apparent to everyone that attempting to divide people on the basis of skin color helps your political career and helps you keep your power over the rest of us, but do something that is right for the country instead of yourself for a change.  Tax evasion is only for the “rest of us” not the politicians in Washington like Rangel.

Stop playing the victim, get some guts and debate something on the merits instead of being a racist, playing the race card.  Renounce your racist policies and statements and then resign.  Stop projecting your own all-consuming racism on the rest of the country.  Of course, Rep. Charles Rangel (Racist-NY) has been playing the race card for years, so what do you expect here?

In short, it is your policies, not your pigment, Charlie.  The same goes for President Obama.  When the mainstream media has been swallowing his guilt trips for years, Rep Rangel shouldn’t take all the blame because he expects that no one will dare call him on his blatant racism.  But no more.  The mainstream media no longer has a stranglehold on opinion and racists are racists no matter what their skin color.

That which was specifically forbidden by the Civil Rights Act is now explicitly (albeit covertly) required by the federal government.  Employers are given quotas of black employees they will hire, records of minority-group employment are diligently maintained, and censuses repeatedly taken.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Reason Magazine, November 2000