Berks Conservative

More Corbett Indictments

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:24:00 +0000

According to an inside source, today at 1:00 p.m., Attorney General Tom Corbett announced the indictments of William Deweese, former majority leader of the House, a staffer from his office, and the former head of the Rendell Administration Revenue Department, Stephen Stetler. They had earlier received target letters, as has Majority Leader Todd Eachus, a step that is commonly a precursor to indictment.

The timing of the indictments are fortuitous as they, once again, help to catapult Corbett into the lead for the Republican nomination for, and eventual election as, governor a la Thomas Dewey in New York of the 1940's.

The downside is that the trials, if they happen, may very well happen during that campaign, causing a potential downside for Corbett if he loses the trials as he did very recently.

The poor you shall always have with you

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:14:00 +0000

John Fielding

On September 18, 2009, Bill Ulrich commented on the passage “For you always have the poor with you” and, in so doing, excerpted a comment of mine from the combox of my blog, “Berks Conservative”:

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you," and he is right, almost by definition. Since I beleive (sic) the problem to be ultimately intractable (at least in the sense of some always suffering), I tend to steer clear of utopian solutions since those "solutions" have hsitorically (sic) caused the most suffering experience by the greatest number. Ultimately, if government would get out of the way, I think charity would then be freed to step up to the plate (if it hasn't already become so atrophied by haveing [sic] government usurp its role all these years.)

Now, I am not accustomed to having my blog read by folks at the Reading Eagle, still less Bill Ulrich, and even less, the combox. I guess I will have to be more careful of my spelling next time if my comments in my combox are going to gain such notoriety. Indeed, it took me quite a while to even realize that Ulrich had said anything, and the intervening election kept me from responding more quickly.

Before Mr. Ulrich disagrees with me in his column, however, he disagrees with the Bible itself (“Clearly, this is one story the Bible doesn’t have straight.”), so I suppose I should feel flattered to be in such esteemed company. He engages in the same fish-eyed criticism of the Bible that we have come to expect from liberal churchmen so I suppose we should expect the same from liberal church laymen. Having destroyed the Bible as divine revelation by interpreting it in the most naturalistic manner possible, the liberals have proceeded to pour into it the most saccharine liberal social understanding possible. Indeed, Jesus is so inoffensive in the liberal telling, one wonders why anyone would have gone to the trouble of crucifying him at all.

In this scene, Jesus is attending a meal at the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany. A woman has an expensive box of perfume and anoints Jesus’ head with the perfume. The disciples (in John, we learn it is Judas leading the way) begin murmuring against this to the effect that the perfume was expensive and could have been sold, and the money given to the poor. Jesus responds in the Mark account, “Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” (Mk. 14:6-9).

Oddly enough, Ulrich says this:

In the Markan account, Jesus says "For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish" (14:7), echoing the Mosaic law set down in Deuteronomy: "Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’" (15:11).” We can make much of the fact that in the synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus’ anointing, he is in the house of a leper – one who is unclean and a societal outcast - in Matthew and Mark and in the house of a Pharisee in Luke. We can also explicate the significance of a kingly anointing by a woman when women had no status in that society and what significance exists in the anointing of Jesus’ head in Matthew and Mark and his feet in Luke and John.

That’s a long discussion for another day.

Then he goes on to take issue with me: “But we must take issue with Fielding’s hyperbole that his straw-man ‘utopian solutions… have historically caused greater suffering among the most people.’ Is care for the poor a "utopian" ideal or a Christian value?”

Of course we know that care for the poor is not a utopian value, but in order to find out why, we must have the long discussion that Ulrich eschews.

To the contrary, the Bible commands care for the poor. In fact, the fact that Jesus quotes the Deuteronomy verse indicates that, contra some current scholarship, Jesus’ teachings are not just dropped out of heaven, with no connection to the Old Testament.

And that is the point.

God has commanded how the poor are to be cared for in the Old Testament, and the government is nary to be seen, either in prescibing the care, or in enforcing it, or in punishing the lack of it. In fact, part of the condemnation of the nation Israel by the prophets was that Israel did not care for the poor as God had commanded and that was one reason for God’s judgment. But we search the Scriptures in vain for commands for governmental action on behalf of the poor, actual governmental action such as a welfare state, or, more importantly, any enforcement mechanism for individual Israelites’ failures to obey the commands of the poor law.

In creating his own strawman, Ulrich equivocates between my distaste for “utopian solutions” to poverty, and any care for the poor whatsoever.

Despite the impression upon our modern society has, which would rather create its own standard for good and evil, and generosity or lack thereof, Biblical law is fairly moderate in its approach.

The state and the church are fairly closely circumscribed, with certain responsibilities being left to the family (such as the bulk of charity), leaving considerable freedom for individual action. I believe I said nothing about the “free-market” or “capitalism” in my combox, but Ulrich just assumes that I believe that the free-market is the solution.

And of course he is right, although not to the exclusion of care for the poor by individuals, families, and church under biblical law. Notice I did not mention the state. Because there is no such provision. It is when the state steps in a la liberal progressive Christian social gospel that we have the “utopian” solutions I distrust so much.

Because the free-market is what is left after state, church, family, and individual have obeyed those commandments directed to those spheres of authority in the Bible. Thus, “free-market” is simply another word for free individuals engaging in free human action.

Sorry Bill doesn’t like it.

Far be it from us to gloat...

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:11:00 +0000

On this morning of bright and shiny political glory, it would be presumptuous of us to remind our assorted Bolshie fans of the reason we won both Sutton and Long last night.

So, we won't.

Much.

Suffice it to say, as primary-colored roundels strafe Red wounded for target practice, that this may have had something to do with it:

and perhaps this:

This is not Fire Island or the mud massage room at The Bell Tower. When you run campaigns that only try to impress denizens of both, you get it right up the ... well... ahem..... Of course, some people...

My advice? Continue to use the same teams you used this time around. It will make us happy enough to fly more victory rolls, and you able to whine about the evil GOP attack machine.

We get power, you get melodrama. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Sutton piles on Corbit

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:26:00 +0000

John Fielding

Here’s the latest spot in the campaign for Berks Prothonotary. And as you will see, it’s a hilarious spot. As we predicted earlier, this October Surprise further hits the Corbit campaign, an effort already on the ropes. Our sources tell us that this is not the end of Corbit’s misery, as the Sutton campaign has one more massive and also hilarious trick up its sleeve to finish the campaign in proper style. Enjoy.

We also hear that in an erstwhile private e-mail from the Corbit campaign that they find alleged covert sexual innuendo in commentary on the Corbit campaign "icky." Icky? Icky?! What kind of word is that for a man to use? Icky. I'll show you icky.

Attendee at the Reading Pride celebration, which Corbit attended

Or this

or this

Mr. Corbit doesn't seem to mind "icky."

Charles Corbit, far left Dem Prothy candidate and happy Reading Pride revelers

Neither does his "campaign manager," Jane Palmer.

The only problem with the Corbit camp is that it doesn't understand a political campaign. These girls think they're involved in performance art. Reports are that because the Sutton campaign kicked back and didn't stand still to watch a senior County row officer get slammed by false and misleading campaign drivel from the arts and croissants crowd surrounding Corbit, Corbit's in a crisis mode.

He is alleged to have said that he doesn't understand why people have to be so "hurtful" in politics, and that he "just wanted to go someplace and hide until the campaign was over" and other things on his campaign website that have been excised because they are truly "icky."

Well, bro, as Wll Smith said in Men in Black, "don't start nuttin', won't be nuttin."

The Berks Democrats Strike Out Again

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:25:00 +0000

John Fielding

Well, well.

What will the Berks Democrats think of next?

They have much to pick from, but in the county races they may have had a shot in they go with a professionally challenged dilettante and an estrogen-enriched pretty boy.

Snyder and Corbit, running against Long and Sutton, for Treasurer and Prothonotary respectively but not respectfully, have enlisted the battered acolytes of the president as their base of support. In Berks today, not last year, too little very late.

Snyder is so dense light bends around her. She’s out of her depth in a parking lot puddle. Long has toyed with her in debate, reducing her to simpering. But she’s got cash and, despite a non-starter resume, is not an incumbent in a rebellious year. Long is wildly popular with moderates and his gruff/no b.s. demeanor and C.P.A. status is seen by most as a proper temperament and creds for the office.

Corbit is, well, from a certain sub-section of the usual Dem grievance groups. Rumor is that may come to hurt him late this month. He’s running for Prothonotary rock hard and has a consistent message against Sutton. Sutton herself, a long vote-getting champ, has his number and is punishing him (though, he may like that) in the media war. Perhaps a…ahem…protégé of a Dem elected official, Corbit is making neophyte mistakes and is bleeding momentum. And the shadowy circumstances of his wife’s recent filing for divorce cannot help matters much.

The lack of qualifications of Snyder and the cult of personality aspect of the Corbit campaign highlight two major motivating forces in today’s Democratic Party: nihilism and narcissism. From the White House on down, who cares if they have any ideas for the job if they just really want it or the camera likes them? It recalls the Coen Brothers’ great line, “Nihilists! F--- me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

Neither of these races is in the bag for any candidate. But in a year the Dems could have zigged, they zagged. When they could have swoshed, they swished and grabbed possible defeat out of the pouty mouth of victory. Nice going girls.

School Choice: Waaaaay Overdue

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:36:00 +0000

"Barocky Road"

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:00:00 +0000

From Ann Coulter's blog, by PA Electric Man

In honor of the 44th President of the United States ,

Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: " Barocky Road ."

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.

The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you.

You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

It’s Worse Than a Lie; It’s…It’s…Déclassé!

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:09:00 +0000

By John Fielding

An obscure congressman from South Carolina has now become a cause célèbre. Joe Wilson has become the face of the faceless forgotten people showing up at tea parties and in Washington by the thousands. Calling the President out in the middle of his address to a joint session of Congress, Congressman Wilson could not stand to hear the lies and half-truths issuing forth from Obama since he sits on a committee that deals with the subject being addressed in the speech.

Joe Wilson lost it for a second. He is like ordinary people when pushed too far by falsehood and threats to their well-being. Now he is the national face for all of us who are tired of Washington grabbing too much for itself and treating the Constitution as if it is not worth the paper it’s written on.

And what has been the response from the “brie and Chablis” crowd? "Tsk, tsk, how rude." "Sniff, sniff, how distasteful; pass me another canapé, dahling." We all know them because they belong to both parties.
Here in Berks County, they got Tom (the terrible) McMahon elected mayor of Reading twice. Through their party organ, the Reading Beagle, they even managed to cover up a deficit and unfavorable crime statistics until after Mayor McMuffin’s reelection.

On the Republican side, they wander in from the skeet ranges to support liberal Democrats for office simply because they belong to the same country clubs. One must never allow ideology or truth or principle to intrude on good manners.

They are simply the local inhabitants of the upholstered play pens of the arts and crafts auxiliary of the Northeast Liberal Establishment.

I remember a few years back, I was running for office. I had a late custody negotiation in a judge’s chambers. The judge said, “Gee, John, I didn’t expect you here this late. I thought you’d be out shaking hands with the shift workers as they got off work.” I replied, half-joking, “Nah, Judge, I’m a Republican. I go station myself outside the country club clubhouse to catch the blow-dries as they come in from the 18th green to graze on martinis."

The blow-dries think they control the local GOP. However, parties need foot-soldiers as well as those who write checks without getting their hair mussed. And the present and future foot soldiers of the GOP are in the tea parties and the demonstrations here, and in Washington. And Joe Wilson is the voice of that wing. And it is a large wing. And it exists in both parties. And the reaction of the blow-dried “brie and Chablis” toffs in both parties was the same: “It is worse than a lie; it is gauche.”

The judge was half-right. I have more in common with the workers getting off their shifts than I do with the blow-dries. The President was lying, and everybody knows it. Joe Wilson’s voice was my voice and the shift-workers’ voice. The blow dries in both parties are just going to have to get used to it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE SPEECH

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:56:00 +0000

Posted by Michael Connelly at http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Last night President Obama made what was touted by much of the media as a major address to Congress and the American people on healthcare. I’m not going to write a lengthy response to the speech because first, there was really nothing new in it, and secondly, he did not address the Constitutional issues. In fact, most of the health care bill supporters are running like mad from having to respond to questions from Americans on those issues.

Instead, they take the arrogant and elitist approach that the President took last night; accusing all who oppose the enlightened paternalism of the left of either being evil or just too dumb to know that we have to be taken care of by “Big Brother”. In other words, there was little in the speech that I have not already addressed in my previous articles posted here.

There is one issue that I need to address however, since not only have the President and members of Congress been making a point of it, but I have received several e-mails asking me about it. That is the question of whether illegal immigrants will get medical care under the provisions of HR 3200. My answer is clearly yes. This is disputed by those who point to Section 246 of the bill that is titled: “No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens”.

That seems clear enough, but what does it really say in the section. There is only one sentence in the section and it states:

“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

All that says is that affordability credits to help them get insurance are not available to illegals. It does not say that they can’t participate in the overall program and get reduced cost insurance under the so-called “public option”. Nor is there anything in the bill that requires someone to verify their citizenship to get benefits from the Insurance Exchange in the program. Any enforcement provisions were specifically excluded in the House Committee. The bill also doesn’t limit the care currently being provided for free at emergency rooms and government clinics. You can read this section and the rest of the bill for yourself by going to the following link: http://thomas.loc.gov/

The access of illegal aliens to the system has been verified by a recent report released by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. This service works for Congress and the report was released days before President Obama made his speech, yet he continued to deny that illegals will get coverage. There is also a movement among some members of Congress to grant illegal immigrants full rights to participate in all government programs including Social Security, even if they have never paid a penny into the system.

Is it Constitutional to require American taxpayers to pay for medical coverage of those who have broken our country’s laws by sneaking across our borders? Nobody in the Obama Administration seems to care.

Life Under Cart....Obama

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:23:00 +0000

Life under ObamaCare

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:40:00 +0000

John Fielding

Want to know what life will be like under ObamaCare? Read the rather rueful and remorseful article by Robert Heilbroner, Socialist professor from the New College for Social Research at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html.

Gov Palin Is Correct: ObamaCare Is EVIL

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:24:00 +0000

Posted by citizens4palin on August 15, 2009 on the Sarah Palin Information Blog
(http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/page-by-page-of-bill-gov-palin-is-correct-obamacare-is-evil/)

I was able to get through 500 pages of the Health Care Bill and took many examples of the disaster Obama is attempting to force down our throats. Please print the list and bring it with you to any Town Hall meetings or similar gatherings. After reading this bill, I am sure of one thing Øbama is EVIL. Please realize no matter Health Care Bill is passed Obama tried to force this socialist garbage down our throats and as fast as possible.

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed

Page 30: A Government committee will decide what treatments & benefits you get. This would be the “Death Panel” and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process.

Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.

Page 59: The Federal Government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electric funds transfer.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans such as SEIU, UAW and ACORN.
Page 84: All Private health care plans must participate in the Health care Exchange giving total government control of private plans.

Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care Plan

Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled, you have no choice in the matter.

Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Simply put, private insurers will be crushed.

Page 127: The government will set doctors wages. The AMA sold doctors out!

Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

Page 126: Employees MUST pay health care bills for part-time employees AND their families.

Page 149: Any Employer with a payroll of $400k or more, who does not offer a public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

Page 150: Any Employer with a payroll of $250k – 400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.

Page 167: Any individual who does not have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

Page 195: Offices and employees of the Government Health care Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” This is directly from the bill!

Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid, Seniors and the poor affected”

Page 241: Doctors: no matter what medical specialty, will all receive the same compensation!!!! You can thank the AMA.

Page 253: Government sets value of the doctor’s time, their professional judgement etc.

Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare companies and industries.

Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Page 272: Cancer patient treatment will be on a case by case depending on cost of treatment. As Governor Palin described: Death Panels.

Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the Government prevent
able re-admissions.

Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a re-admission, you will be penalized by the Government.

Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in Health care companies!!!!

Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without Government approval!!!

Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, organizations like ACORN will have authority.

Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. More Death Panels and rationing.

Page 341: Government has the authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs etc.

Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. Trig and other children with Down Syndrome will be excluded or accepted according to Øbama’s Death Panel.

Page 379: The Tele-Health Advisory Committee will be established. Health Care by phone.

Page 425: Advance Care Planning: Counseling for Senior Citizens, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Scary and evil!

Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans from the Government.

Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatment you may have at end-of-life.

Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services will be made available: organizations such as ACORN.

Page 472: Payments will be provided to Community-based organizations (ACORN).

Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing services.

Barack Obama: The Ultimate "Shovel-Ready" Project

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:43:00 +0000

By John Fielding

Obama, in his public appearances, has taken to contradicting himself. In several town halls, he has pointed out Medicare as a bright and shining star of government achievement. And it is true that the seniors have come to depend on the government dole in the form of senior health care. And Obama has pointed out that the very seniors that are clutching Medicare to their bosoms with the grip of death are the very ones so concerned about a government health care takeover.

However, then Obama, sometimes in the same speech, will point out how Medicare is running out of money, thus implying that the program is unsustainable in its present form. Well, if this program is unsustainable, how will the new public option be sustained? And what happens to those whose major health care issues pop up in the last years of their lives in a system of limited resources that is dedicated to allocation of scarce health care resources?

Further, government does not encourage innovation and does not reward achievement. From where are the new health care initiatives and inventions to come? And why would new medical students want to become government slugs, only able to earn up to some government cap ("from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs"). The entire mess sounds like a prescription for a latter day incarnation of the Twentieth Century Motor Company from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Obama need look no further than his own speeches for a "shovel-ready" project.

A "Practical" Solution to the Health Care "Crisis"

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:19:00 +0000

By John Fielding

My new friend, "Practical Conservative," "prefers" a free market solution to the health care situation, but, failing that, opts for socialized medicine. How is socialized medicine a practical solution. Waiting lines, diagnoses postponed far beyond the point of cure, rationing of health care. My new friend evidently proposes this as "practical." Well, then, as Lincoln would say, as his faith is let it be to him. The solution to the "practicality" of the Canadian and English system is Detroit and New York, respectively. Where are we to go when this "practical" solution is adopted here?

Even though my belief is that the free market should take care of this area, including the licensing of physicians and the like, I realize years of dependency on government has turned the American people into pigs that must return to the mud of a government solution.

Therefore, I offer the following modest proposal, gleaned from the John Mackey opinion piece, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," found in the August 11, 2009 on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal.

First, "remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems."

Second, "equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair."

Third, "repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable."

Fourth, "repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying."

Fifth, "make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?"

Sixth, "enact Medicare (and social security reform). We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare and Social Security are heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility."

Seventh, "revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."

"Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any."

"This "right" has never existed in America."

"Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments."

"Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million."

According to Nat Hentoff, in an on-line article ("I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration") at the RealClearPolitics web site, ObamaCare wishes a federal board to discover whether you merit federal funds in order to continue your less-than-optimum life. The board is slready in the stimulus package and, even though taken out of the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill, but can, of course, be added back in during later negotiations.

And why shouldn't we expect this? Obama himself told us to evaluate him by those surrounding him. Very well. The brother of Rahm Emmanuel, bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel supports the rationing of health care for those who have lived longer. As Hentoff states "he calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - 'the complete lives system.' You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks."

Those of us involved in the pro-life movement for a few years can recognize the "interest-balancing" test found in Roe v. Wade. As an unborn baby grows in gestational life, it gains more of an interest in its continued existence as over against the mother, whose interest in an abortion decreases. In this case, as a person gets older, he or she moves more in the direction of a "completed life" in Dr. Emmanuel's metric and thus his or her ability to advocate for continued existence decreases vis a vis the argument that may be advanced by younger people.

After all, Hentoff reports that Obama himself, in an interview in the New York Times of April 28 (quoted in an editorial in a Washington times July 9 editorial) stated that "'the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care' costs."

Well, if the chronically ill and the at the end of life account for that much of the expenditures, where does one cut? Well, one "encourages" these folks to leave us. As Richard Lamm famously stated, "the elderly have the duty to die and get out of the way."

People like making sport of Sarah Palin for using the rather purple phrase "death panel" to describe this federal board, but what else shall we call it?

Hentoff reports "A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of 'advance care planning consultation' every five years - or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains ("Undue influence," Aug. 8): 'the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.'

Significantly, Lane adds that, 'The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).'

"But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are 'purely voluntary.' In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:

'"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"'
But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. 'Patients,' notes Lane, 'may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority.'

And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?"

Just so. I guess I am just not "practical" enough to see socialized medicine a la Obama as an acceptable solution.

Wisdom from the Past...

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:05:00 +0000

Obama's America

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:07:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:58:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:51:00 +0000

The Future of Obamacare....

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:21:00 +0000

Let's try that Palin video....again. Geez.

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:03:00 +0000

Sarah Palin Ethics Conspiracy Video--Watch it before it's removed....again!

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:02:00 +0000

Touche', Madame

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:00:00 +0000

John Morgan has responded to my recent effort, "Local Dems Push Poofter Rights" on his blog, The Pennsylvania Progressive. Unfortunately, since progressives are more interested in their free speech rights than mine, I harbor no illusions that I would be allowed to post a reply on his blog. Hence, here is my response:

Morgan, you old pooftah (sorry about getting the spelling wrong previously on "poofter," but I was so addled from many recent wild orgies and LSD-fueled raves on Elm Street, I rather forgot my dictionary at the office), sorry you took umbrage to my comments regarding issues involving the...ahem...gender challenged.

I was merely stating a position that seems also to be the position of the vast majority of American citizens as of about, say, last I checked, this morning. And a slur? An offense? Tish, tosh, Morgan. To point out your proclivities should not be a slur if you're proud of them. On the other hand, if you're not, well, then, the slur is in the eye of the sluree (Notice I resisted the temptation to say "slurpee" with all its attendant imagery? Point for that, eh?).

But we both know the real point of this exercise, don't we, Johnny Boy? And though I am indeed flattered, your obvious attempt to get me to notice you and further enhance your fantasy life, must be, alas, directed at another. But massive points on good taste. Besides, it would interfere with the obvious unrequited regard that a certain tall, lanky, transgender type that has been seen stalking Elm Street must harbor for you.

Cordially Yours in Raging Heterosexuality,

JF

p.s.- Second Class citizenry for you? Perish the thought! Fourth or Fifth Class should do nicely.

History Unfolding

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:48:00 +0000

(This post, wrongly attributed to Professor David Kaiser, was actually a response to a post on Pat Dollard's website [http://patdollard.com/2008/11/the-classroom-is-open-on-tonights-i-am-a-student-of-history-jihadi-killer-hour-with-author-tps/] by a writer known as "TPS." I wish I could take credit for having written it; it was written prior to the presidential election of 2008)

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people”, who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) – the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth… It is potentially 1929 x ten… And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside o ur borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. (Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life . In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the “savior” was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative “losers” read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did – regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand – the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course.

How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex . He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media – did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and … change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It’s all there in the history books.

So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me…

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe – and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.

Local Dems Push Poofter "Rights"

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:20:00 +0000

John Fielding

On Saturday, June 20, 2009, the local Democratic Committee pushed the envelope further by voting to support hard-left Senator Daylin Leach's proposed legislation legalizing marriage for gays:

"The following resolution was passed on 6/20/2009 by the Berks County Democratic Committee:

Whereas Senator Daylin Leach recently introduced legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 7th state to legalize marriage equality;

Whereas at the same time, 13 Pennsylvania State Senators, including 2 Democrats, have signed on to John Eichelberger's bill to ban marriage equality;

Whereas both bills, the bill for equality and the bill for discrimination, are seeking more co-sponsors,

We, the members of the Berks County Democratic Committee, urge our State Senators to do two things:

1) Co-sponsor The Marriage Equality Bill (SB 935), and

2) Say no to discrimination and bigotry by refusing to co-sponsor the bill to ban marriage equality.

We, urge our State Senators to co-sponsor Senate Bill 935, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. S.B. 935 would allow our state to join ranks with our neighbors in Maine, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts by offering full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania.

S.B. 935 would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction. The legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.

We also strongly urge our Senators to refuse to co-sponsor Senator Eichelberger's attempt to ban marriage equality and insert discrimination into the Pennsylvania Constitution."

Sorry, life is about discrimination. In fact, "discrimination" is just another word for "choice," another word near and dear to far left extremists, at least with regard to one issue.

Because left-wing extemists are the most anti-choice people in existence. Laws limit choice by definition, and left-wingers are the most legislation and litigation-happy groups I can think of. Every time their knickers get in a bunch about some social cause, nothing must do but that we must pass another law telling some individual or group that they may not choose to do something that is on the current list of liberal no-no's. Only once, in the case of the murder of unborn children, do they suddenly discover a "right-to-choose."

Law legislates morality and, therefore, regulates choice. In this case, it's just a question of whose morality: America's or Sodom's. The Berks Democrats have shown us whose morality they back.

Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture and Win

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:29:00 +0000

Gary Bauer
Posted 06/19/2009 ET

In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.

A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal.

Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose.

These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish.

But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That’s because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin.

The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin’s daughter had been “knocked up” by Yankees’ libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez.

Letterman claims he was referring to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape.

Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are “crude, sexist, perverted,” as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you’ll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today’s popular culture. And if the target of the comedian’s demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better.

There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some “hate crimes” statute.

Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been “knocked up” by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure.

Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him.

Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women’s groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for “snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age…”

Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a “win-win for Letterman.”

Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there’s deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like “you betcha.’” They can’t fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn’t pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy.

Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin’s life than Letterman’s. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture’s sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults.

The cultural left mocks Palin’s values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin’s politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can’t resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes.

In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn’t. Just ask David Letterman.

Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.