Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

Wednesday, May 19, AD 2010

The boycott that Los Angeles is imposing on Arizona has its first victim, the city of Los Angeles itself.

The state of Arizona is about to strike back at L.A. again to defend itself.

A letter written by one of the commissioners of the Arizona Corporate Commission is telling Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be ready to accept the consequences of his actions:

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

Basically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bluff has been called.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

  • So silly on the part of L.A. and California… a state that one day soon might have to be bailed out by the U.S. government, in part funded by Arizona taxpayers! Frankly the best thing to happen to California is bankruptcy at this point…

    Perhaps if California did not have such outlandish welfare services they would not have severe budget and immigration issues of their own.

  • Man, if only CA would have used those billions of dollars of bond money to gain complete independence from the rest of the nation instead of building huge, inefficient new embryonic stem cell research labs, maybe they wouldn’t be so affected by AZ’s actions.

    As it is, the fact that the silliness has gone as far as it has is worrying.

  • You probably could be right.

    A bankruptcy would be beneficial.

    It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    And maybe, just maybe, they’ll vote responsible, fiscally conservative politicians into office.

  • When I first read the letter, I thought it was just chest-beating, but now I’m not so sure. I’m sure it would be a last resort, and there would no doubt be serious repercussions, but it is a delight to imagine. For the moment, I think the commissioner is just telling L.A., “Watch it! We can you hurt you!”, and pointing out the city’s hypocrisy in thinking they can start boycott on their terms alone, without any reverse consequenses..

  • Joseph,

    I think you’re right.

    He’s putting L.A. on notice, though the mayor is not balking, so it’ll be interesting how this plays out.

  • It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    Actually, it’s more of a schizoid situation. We routinely vote in restrictions on new taxes or introduce tax breaks while at the same time voting for expensive projects like high-speed rail.

  • Good for AZ! I read an article the other day too that AZ travelers are canceling plans to destinations that have called for similar ridiculous boycotts, like San Diego. The response? “Oh, its just local politics, please don’t hurt our economy by canceling your plans!”

    What pathetic, whining, sniveling cowards. I hope AZ sticks to every last one of them and makes them pay for the slanders, their race-baiting, their hatred and their ignorance. Teach them humility, Arizona!

  • BTW, Tito, have you seen Archbishop Chaput’s take on the Arizona law?

    http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3858

    It’s very good, and quite balanced.

  • Meanwhile, in a country where one-in-six workers is unemployed or under-employed, the undertaker-in-chief fetes in the white house a man mainly responsible for stealing millions of American jobs and almost bankrupting hundreds of municipalities.

    Truth IS stranger than fiction.

  • JohnH,

    That was a good article.

    Archbishop Chaput for prelate of America!

  • Boycotts are blunt instruments that hurt the innocent with the guilty. I would not support cutting off existing business with Arizona but I would support boycotting any new business. I hope sports leagues blacklist Arizona. I’d love to see New York’s Arizona iced tea company change its name in protest. I want Arizona to learn that the rest of America stands in solidarity with those who are unjustly discriminated against. I want Arizona to learn that the bishops of Arizona know better than bigots about what’s right and wrong.

  • RR,

    The rest of America?

    Over 60% of American’s agree with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.

  • I still want to know what the “flaw” is.

  • Restrained,

    It will be we who teach you that false claims about bigotry will be met with the contempt and disgust that they deserve.

  • The Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power doesn’t merely buy electricity from AZ, it is a part OWNER of two electrical generating plants there. We are only using what we own – this guy needs to get his facts straight.

    When did Christianity become so xenophobic. Do you think Jesus gave a rat’s behind where someone was born (sorry, no loaves and fishes for you – you were born on the wrong side of a man-made line)

  • What in the world is xenophobic about reguiring Mexicans to obey American immigration laws if they wish to live in America? Is it xenophobic of Mexico to expect that Americans will obey Mexican immigration laws if they wish to live in Mexico?

  • You don’t get it, Don. You see, we’re all racists and we don’t know it yet.

    Thankfully, we have MSNBC to let us know what horrible people we are on the inside.

    What Mexicans (legal and illegal for that matter) really should be angry about is how they’re used as political pawns by American politicians. That might ACTUALLY be sort of racist.

    A nation that cannot defend and protect its own physical integrity ceases to be a nation. Americans are perfectly within their rights to expect their state or federal government to enforce the border, and not use it as a backhanded means to manipulate demographics and election outcomes.

  • No Power is about to be shut off to California. I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway. Regardless I have to imagine that all sort of things comeinto play here such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce cause. I also have to imagine since so much of our power comes from all the over place there is already Fed regulation on this

  • “I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway.”

    Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.

  • It’s as if they’re saying, “wait, people are taking us seriously? Our words actually mean something?”

  • Liberals are conflating Christianity with “Ali Baba and the 40,000,000 Thieves.”

    I love and pray for all the cloistered marxists that call yourselves social justice advocates.

    Woe unto him who calls evil good.

    PS: If I believed they would comprehend “Marxist/Leninism”, I’d have used that term insetad of “Ali Baba.”

  • “Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.”

    I just think escalting this is nonsense especially in these bad economic times. People I think will move on from this issue if given time. We have short attentions spans. Also the fact that it appears that

    People actually think AZ can do this is annoying

    That people seem to think it is proper for State to engage in a war with each other
    (Can Louisiana shut off the pipelines of oil and natural gas if we get bad?)

    That people that are proclaiming themselves Federalist think this is a great idea. I MEAN I AM SEEING PEOPLE ACTUALLY wanting this to happen. Why? Because of what some yahoos on the LA City Council did?

    Personally in these days I would prefer that our military assets in San Diego are able to have the lights on.

    This just seems all counterproductive and gets us no where to solving the problem.

  • I guess again it highlights that cities boycotting AZ is also wrong and gets us nowhere. Only punishes hard working people in AZ including the military in Yuma. Really needs to stop.

  • Yeah, the problem is NOT the pushback from the AZ politicians, but the fact that these city governments around the country are engaging in symbolic boycotts.

    Wanna boycott AZ? Then boycott ALL that comes from AZ, even if it means you have to, you know, ACTUALLY make some sacrifices.

    Seriously, the “escalation” isn’t coming from the AZ politicians defending themselves, it’s coming from the grandstanding a-holes threatening to wreck the AZ economy by fomenting a nationwide boycott of the state.

  • Bingo Phillip. All the people of LA have to do is to have their cretinous leaders swallow some crow and simply state that upon reflection maybe calling for a boycott of Arizona wasn’t such a brilliant idea after all.

  • The point is jh that the WHOLE THING is nonsense. LA calls for a boycott in these harsh times and that isn’t irresponsible? That those “yahoos” on the city council are now having to deal with the consequences of their actions is refreshing. Too many politicians shoot their mouths off without regard for the consequences. It’s time they felt the results of their actions.

  • Is a boycott even constitutional? Maybe yes because of freedom of speech. Maybe no because of the interstate commerce clause. Any opinions?

  • Centinel:
    I think boycotts by individuals are generally first amendment protected, but government acts would have to be evaluated under dormant commerce clause jurisprudence.

  • Government boycotts would fall under the market participation exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Now This, This Would be a Sign of the Apocalypse!

Wednesday, January 13, AD 2010

A Republican may be elected to serve out Ted Kennedy’s unexpired term?  It could happen! Public Policy Polling, a Democrat leaning polling outfit shows the election a toss up between the Democrat Coakley and the Republican Brown.  Scott Rasmussen, the best political pollster in the business in my opinion, shows Coakley up by two.  Last week he showed her up by nine.  On Monday Brown raised over a million dollars in one day in internet donations.

If Brown wins the Senate race in the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts, it will send a political shock wave across this country the like of which hasn’t been seen in many a year.  If Ted Kennedy’s senate seat isn’t safe, what seat is safe for the Democrats?  Oh, I don’t believe that I should call it Ted Kennedy’s seat per Mr. Brown.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Now This, This Would be a Sign of the Apocalypse!

  • From where I sit, I do not think there is any chance Scott Brown will be elected. Massachusetts politics are too corrupt.

  • It is an uphill climb Zach, no doubt about that. It is interesting however that Massachusetts does have a history of electing Republican governors fairly recently, so the idea of a Republican winning statewide is certainly not impossible.

  • I don’t expect Brown to win, but then, I didn’t expect Corzine to lose in deep blue NJ either. If Brown comes within a couple of points of Coakley, Dems should still be very nervous. Coakley ran a dreadful campaign, because she expected it would be a waltz. She thought she wouldn’t have to fight for “the Kennedy seat” (ah, Massachusetts – or should I say Massachusettes, like the cool kidz do – once upon a time you rebelled against royalty). The fact that she does, in fact, have a battle on her hands is unnerving her.

    If Brown manages to pull it off, I shall develop a strange new respect for Massachusetts voters.

  • Eric

    It seems “you can’t vote for or support a pro-choice candidate” because “they are baby killers” and “supporting baby killers should get you excommunicated” might be countered with “He’s a Republican” and that’s good enough for some. It also suggests that much of that rhetoric is just political rhetoric, and not indicative of belief when there are these cheers for a pro-choice candidate. So you are right to point this out. Shows quite a few things all in one.

  • From what I can tell thus far, Brown is indeed, essentially, pro-choice.

    http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=1

    His support for minor pro-life initiatives notwithstanding, in my mind, a minimal pro-life position includes opposition to RvW.

    However, his opponent is also pro-choice, and apparently has a voting record more favorable to the abortion industry.

    In this case should Catholics vote for a “lesser evil” or abstain altogether? The ‘Catholic Answers’ voting guide says:

    “In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.”

    “Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance.”

    http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx

    Tough call. Voting for the Democrat is clearly out. Voting for Brown? I wouldn’t. I would abstain. But by this criteria anyway, one might vote for Brown.

  • The Catholic Answers voting guide fails to meet Catholic moral standards. On the other hand, I thought people said you could never “vote for a pro-baby killer, even if it is the least of evils.” Now when you start reasoning “least of evil” allows prudential decision as to who one should vote for, then people who saw no practical difference between Obama and McCain were fine with voting Obama and not to be condemned as being “pro-death.” I say this not as one who voted for Obama, since I didn’t. I am just pointing out how it is always convenient there are always excuses given for Republicans. But if one “can never bend” then it would seem supporting a pro-choicer is a no-go, and one should either abstain from voting or vote for someone who is going to lose.

    Again, all this shows is the double-standards, nothing else.

  • Coakley is attacking Brown for being pro-life, which he is not:

    http://www.lifenews.com/state4720.html

    Coakley is in favor of partial birth abortions which Brown is against. If I were in Massachusetts I would vote for Brown, although my vote would actually be against Coakley.

    Here is a story exploring the abortion positions of Coakley and Brown.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=1

  • Coakley thinks that if you are a faithful Catholic you shouldn’t work in emergeny rooms because of emergency “contraception”.

    “Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
    Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

    Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

    Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

    http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/6604/coakley-you-can-have-religious-freedom-but-you-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room

    Man, if I were in Massachusetts I would crawl over broken glass to vote against this bigot.

  • “The Catholic Answers voting guide fails to meet Catholic moral standards.”

    Then which voter guide does meet them? I’m open to suggestions. How do Catholics – who care about the teaching of the Church, that is – in Europe or other countries where all of the candidates support abortion rights vote? Do they vote? If so, what is their criteria?

    “I thought people said you could never “vote for a pro-baby killer, even if it is the least of evils.”

    What “people” are you referring to?

    “But if one “can never bend””

    If one is obliged to vote, and all the candidates are pro-choice, then it can’t be “bending.” Some Catholics believe they have a moral obligation to vote for SOMEONE – some take it further and say there is an obligation to vote for someone who is likely to win, ruling out third party candidates who have no shot.

    I am not so certain about that. There are times when Acts 5:29 trumps Romans 13:1. This is possibly one of those times – to withdraw from the political process altogether.

    If there is a clear Church teaching on what one is to do in a situation where all of the candidates support an intrinsic evil, I would like to see it. I believe the CA voter guide was based on what JP II said in Evangelium Viate:

    ” In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

    My guess is that they believe this would apply to voters as well.

  • The Catholic Answers voting guide, I think, is based on a false understanding of how to apply natural law principles to specific situations and circumstances. It more or less sets up a proportionalist trap. In my view, it is no more logical than the voting strategy set up by Catholics United that does not understand the hierachy of values.

    If anything, there is a radical modern misunderstanding of the virtue of prudence, which is founded upon the edifice, which Pope John Paul II himself often referred to, of “right reason.” Since Machiavelli wrote The Prince, both virtue and prudence (which is a virtue, obviously) have been radically misunderstood.

    Nevertheless, Catholic Answers’ Voting Guide for “Serious” Catholics is not a magisterial document, which is evident, I think, in the defiencies in its philosophical presumptions and I personally don’t feel obligated to vote in accord with it. The pope’s encylical might have inspired the voting guide, but that doesn’t make it void of errors–not that you suggested anything to the contrary.

    Moreover, I see this growing trend of Senate Republicans with this view — Hutchison, Snowe, Collins. Moreover, I am more appalled that pro-life organizations such as the one in Massachusetts (endorsing Brown) might endorse such candidates in their races if the other person is “more pro-choice.” I would think it better not to compromise your principles and not endorse the less-than-stellar “pro-life” candidate and rather just emphasize how bad the pro-choice candidate’s record is. It really boils down to proportionalist tendencies, which in some respects is inevitable.

    I seriously am very sympathetic to the argument which due to current circumstances makes it “non-negotiable” for voting Catholics to vote Republican, but in effect, it turns the pro-life vote into what African Americans have become to Democrats — a bloc of “sure” votes where Republicans win office and by and large govern as if the very issues we voted for them on are non-issues. The next election they throw us the same old rhetoric and “renew” their committment, but nothing goes differently. The Republican strategist can measure that the most strident pro-life Americans will not vote for a Democrat and even if a nominal pro-life Republican is running, we will judge that it “better than nothing” and vote for the Republican anyway to stop the “worse policies” of the Democrat. This trend seems spiraling and self reinforcing, which I don’t see how we can upset the status quo or change the indifference of some, or even, many Republican elected officials without their losing, or electing those who will upset the status quo — but how can you tell? It’s very difficult.

    I am sure there is a lot of this, in which, you and I probably have acute agreement. My greatest issue, or rather my cynicism, is unlike with slavery or other issues in the past, is that contemporary politics has found comfort in the status quo on all sides of the contemporary moral issues to the chagrin of those who are powerfully convicted, one way or another, on such issues. In other words, with say, slavery, you know that your opponent will try to craft the law in conformity with their views on slavery — either total legality or total illegality. There was no “reducing the number of slaves” rhetoric or strategic incremental methods for bringing about its illegality. This is most obvious to me in the fact that the Republicans have replaced the majority of the post-Roe court or the less-than-desirable amount of pro-life legislation coming off of Republican-controlled committees in Republican-dominated Congresses and so forth. From a practical order, considering current political trends, practices, and circumstances, I don’t buy the Catholic Answers argument for reasons other my philosophical issues with it — it seems to me to just preserve the status quo. Nothing I’ve said means vote Democratic. It does unveil we’ve got a lot of work to do.

    The other difficulty I have — and this is personal — is that by my prudential calculation which I am obliged in conscience to follow is that a pro-choice Republican should not receive my vote, being such a worldview is, more or less, my political antithesis and following my views, a detriment to the common good. Does that mean vote for the pro-choice Democrat? Not necessarily.

    I am also very fascinated by the fact that for many Republicans his abortion stance is virtually a non-issue and they are advocating that he win to block the health care bill — largely a consequentialist line of reasoning, regardless of one’s views on the health care reform efforts. This is especially true when one considers the line of thinking that amounted to counter-efforts against the pro-choice Republican candidate running for the House in New York that met party opposition for being a “RINO.”

  • Eric,

    “Catholic Answers’ Voting Guide for “Serious” Catholics is not a magisterial document”

    No one, least of all myself, claimed that it was. The problem is that there does not appear to be a magisterial document that addresses this issue. We face a similar dilemma with torture, though in that case, I think it is more clear if one really bothers to look and reflect on all that has been said.

    “which is evident, I think, in the defiencies in its philosophical presumptions”

    It isn’t evident. That is the problem. Perhaps you could explain it again? That such a document would not be “void of errors” is practically a given – I only used it as an example. It is one of the more well-considered examples, too, so I shudder to think what some of the other voter guides looked like.

    “There was no “reducing the number of slaves” rhetoric or strategic incremental methods for bringing about its illegality.”

    Ha! I agree, but tell it to the neo-Confederate historians, whom a surprising number of Catholic conservative intellectuals appear to agree with. On this point I simply know the history too well – it was all or nothing for the South.

  • dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

    Great line, but I doubt the sequel will be any good:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/

    Enjoy!

Sleeping Giant Awakes and Democrats Blink

Thursday, August 13, AD 2009

Today Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said that senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from the House bill.  This is a major victory for ordinary Americans.

As senior citizens voice their displeasure with “death-panels” and other provisions in the House bill, the Democrat leaders are grudgingly realizing that maybe, just maybe, some provisions in their House bill will not pass with the American public.

The most recent polls show that the demonizing tactics of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have failed to cover the growing grassroots activism that is rising among ordinary Americans.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to Sleeping Giant Awakes and Democrats Blink

  • Taco Man,

    Kindly correct “Nazi’s” as “Nazis”.

    I’m not entirely sure why you happen to have employed the possessive in this context.

  • Ill see your 2010 and raise ya a 2012.
    Nice echo in here. Im Catholic, Im an Obama supporter.
    Again, tell me why the vocal majority here wants to penalize the sick?

  • Master C,

    What penalty?

    You mean why are Americans tired of being over taxed and regulated? Why having to pay for such great government-run success stories like “Cash for Clunkers” and “FEMA” have inspired lack of confidence?

    Geeee, I don’t know what you mean?

  • I guess you have never been sick.denied coverage, or been out of a job and had to pay like crazy for COBRA.
    This country, the richest in the world, cant seem
    to help the least of us [THAT penalty]

  • I have been deathly ill, been denied coverage, and I am out of a job as I type this. And I refuse to pay COBRA (kind of helps when you have no money to pay for it).

    So I guess I will be demonized as well since I’m not being payed nor have I been contacted by any Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™ machine.

  • Demonized?
    I asked why the vocal majority here wants to penalize the sick.
    ….and I still havent heard the reason.

  • I asked why the vocal majority here wants to penalize the sick.

    See, this is what’s known as a strawman argument. The reason no one has answered your question is because your premise is logistically flawed. Please prove you’re not some 17-year old troll and actually attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise the rest of us will continue to ignore your moronic assertions.

    Hope that clears that up.

  • Since you have a taste for demagoguery, mc, why do you support government-funded abortion?

    http://asia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20090805/twl-us-health-care-overhaul-abortion-ef375f8.html

    [For the record, I support universal health coverage. But not this monstrosity.]

  • Nobody here wants to “penalize the sick.” However, we would like to find a way of helping the sick that DOESN’T involve running up vast amounts of debt for future generations to pay with crushing taxation, or the government paying to kill unborn children, or a gigantic bureaucracy deciding what kind of treatment we can and cannot have.

    .

  • So interesting,
    I am asking why we would penalize the sick, and if that is moronic, so be it. I have had 12 years of Catholic school education and have attended church all my life and consider myself well versed in what Jesus chose to spend his time talking about. The status quo protects INSURANCE companies not people. I am asking why you all would want to keep that in place. I know change is scary, but I believe that taking care of our people is important.

  • Pingback: We Are Americans, Not Europeans « The American Catholic
  • master c has decided to don troll garb. Do not feed the energy creature.

  • psst.. The ‘evil’ insurance companies are made up of people. Like me. And my Mom. Evil healthcare companies are made up of people, too. Like my Dad and many of my cousins.

    Personally, I always viewed insurance as a sort of capitalist socialism..

  • master c:

    I find it curious that even with a seemingly extensive education, you still suffer from what apparently are cognitive deficiencies you are unable to remedy in spite of your professed years at academia.

    To make the remarkably bold, outright assertion that anybody opposed to the Obamacare death squads as actually the ones penalizing the sick; I take it when such a hideous plan as in its original conception were actually implemented, you would have been amongst the first to dance for joy when the lives of your loved ones are truncated simply to promote system efficiency and cost savings.

    So, if anybody is doing any sort of penalizing, it is your much favored fiercely Pro-Abort administration seeking to extend the tentacles of its Culture of Death principles upon the general populace.

    Extra credit points, though, for your (albeit futile) attempts at making the proponents of evil as actually the advocates of good.

  • Master C: Read chapters 2 and 3 of B16’s Jesus of Nazareth and then come back for some big boy discussion of social justice issues.

  • How about reading the Caritas in Veritate encyclical?
    Does that qualify as big boy enough for you?

    I’m Catholic, Im American, yet Im a troll.
    Nice.

  • “I’m Catholic, I’m American, yet Im a troll.”

    So, you mean to argue that since you’re Catholic, you’re American; therefore, you cannot be a troll?

    Don’t get it. at all.

    “How about reading the Caritas in Veritate encyclical? Does that qualify as big boy enough for you?”

    It only qualifies as “big boy” enough if you read it thoroughly and with sufficient comprehension so as to discern exactly that what the fiercely Pro-Abort administration seeks to advance in such policies stands completely opposite to the very Christian principles essentially enshrined in such encyclicals.

  • what about the fiercely pro social justice part?

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/popes-social-encyclical

    a little something for all us!

  • So since it contains a pro-social justice part; therefore, adopting and, even further, implementing policies that would most certainly advance the Culture of Death must somehow be alright then.

    After all your comments, I seem to have gleaned an insight into just what you’re master of.

  • OK gentlemen,

    Enough with the “troll” comments.

    Just argue the substance, not the person.

  • Can we argue the source of master c’s understanding of the Church’s teaching:

    The pope’s social encyclical
    by Richard McBrien on Aug. 10, 2009

  • A guy who repeatedly asks “why the vocal majority here wants to penalize the sick” and dodges questions about his support for abortion doesn’t offer much substance to address.

    But, OK:

    mc–Caritas in Veritate condemns abortion three times. How does the Obama “health care” plan that pays for abortions [see the link to the Associated Press analysis I provided above] square with Catholic social teaching as set forth in the encyclical?

    I await your next change of subject.

  • Respectfully, here is the link from the lead post:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative#US_Voters

    That list of what conservatives seek or support doesnt entirely square with my Catholic beliefs, that’s all. That’s what Im here to say, not dodge, demagogue or demonize. I know your one issue that trumps all is abortion. I know lots of Catholics who let that determine how they vote.

    Dont know if it matters, but I am a woman.

  • “I know your one issue that trumps all is abortion.”

    I’m sorry–have we met? I have no idea who you are, so I doubt I’ve informed you as to my political beliefs. If it’s one thing people here will gladly testify to, it’s that I resent to high Heaven people who label me and assign opinions to me that I do not hold.

    So, speaking of demonizing, you’ve done it and not apologized for it, stating authoritatively that I (and others) want “to penalize the sick.” That was uncalled for, and still unapologized for, and now you make more assumptions. For the record, I have voted for pro-choice candidates in the past (regretfully, but there was no other options). Thus, your second assumption about me is false. I respectfully request that you cease and desist.

    And, yes, you’re dodging and changing the subject again, pointing to the Wikipedia link this time.

    Back to the question: how can a Catholic square support health care that funds elective (i.e., not for medical reasons) with authentic (as opposed to purely secular) social justice principles?

    The basic problem is this: we don’t help the hungry by knowingly giving them loaves of spoiled bread that won’t kill most of them outright (even though we know some will die from food poisoning). “But they’re hungry and we have a duty to feed the hungry” doesn’t cut it. Likewise, we don’t help the sick by giving them “health” care we know–KNOW–will result in the deliberate killing of human life. It is really as simple as that.

  • The link was from the original post [see the top], and prompted me to reply in the first place. Im not sure if you actually read it, it is not from wikipedia. It was provided as support that this is a conservatively plural nation. As it was a set forth as a basis for this discussion, Im not sure how it is “dodging and changing the discussion” I apologize for all the demonizing. I respectfully cease and desist.
    Not sure what qualifies as on topic around here.

  • Since “conservipedia,” like Wikipedia, can be freely edited by anybody who logs in, it’s a Wikipedia for conservatives, mc. It even rips off the template. Nice try.

    At least it was better than your canned apology for slandering everyone here as a “penalizer of the sick.” And much, much better than your third evasion of the abortion/health care question.

    I have no interest in talking with you further.

  • Dude, the link came from THIS post by the author of THIS BLOG!
    get a clue.
    I am glad ypu wont be talking to me anymore

  • Pingback: ObamaCare Update « The American Catholic

Anger and Astroturf

Wednesday, August 12, AD 2009

democrats_republicans_head_to_head_hg_wht

There are two observations I have noticed during this health care debate that President Obama and Congressional Democrats have been pushing.

One, there is anger from the American people concerning the direction and the destination of health care ‘reform’.  Genuine anger.  The unfortunate problem is that a small minority have chosen to shout down congressional leaders in Town Hall meetings that have proven to be a distraction at best and a public relations disaster at worst.  Those that oppose any health care ‘reform’, especially the socialist laden package that is currently being drafted, should respect the opposition and engage in constructive dialogue.  Showing anger and disrespect to your elected officials is simply wrong and uncalled for and should be stopped now.

Which leads to my second observation and the accusations that this grass roots opposition to health care ‘reform’ is being labeled as astroturf.  Due to the cooperation of the mainstream media in failing to provide unbiased programming of the health care debate in addition to leading Democrats from President Obama to House Speak Nancy Pelosi having mislabeled genuine American concern of government intrusion via health care ‘reform’ as artificial.  If leading Democrats continue to mischaracterize the opposition as such, they will do this to their own detriment.  Meaning a possible loss of one or both chambers of congress in the 2010 Congressional Elections and possibly the executive branch in 2012.  They need to take the American people seriously, not ignore the problem.

Just my two cents worth.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Anger and Astroturf

  • Tito,

    The unfortunate problem is that a small minority have chosen to shout down congressional leaders in Town Hall meetings that have proven to be a distraction at best and a public relations disaster at worst. Those that oppose any health care ‘reform’, especially the socialist laden package that is currently being drafted, should respect the opposition and engage in constructive dialogue. Showing anger and disrespect to your elected officials is simply wrong and uncalled for and should be stopped now

    I think there’s 2 misperceptions here. One is that there is a general shouting down of the politicians. If you watch the whole presentation in context, I suggest that what happens is the politicians refuse to allow alternate points of view to be presented, refuse to answer, obfuscate and/or outright lie about the bill. Sometimes it is necessary to get loud to be heard. Granted it doesn’t always make good press when it’s cut by the liberal media to try and discredit the protesters. Caution is necessary to be sure, and there may have been excesses at times.

    Secondly, there is not many people who oppose reform of the health care funding system we have. Most support tort reform, and leveling the playing field between employer and privately purchased plans, as well as freedom of choice as to levels of coverage.

  • I don’t subscribe to bizarro news network, so I don’t know which town halls you are referring to.

  • I don’t subscribe to bizarro news network, so I don’t know which town halls you are referring to.

    It’s interesting that you (rightly) castigate the media for not fully reporting what’s going on, and yet you’re mocking Matt because he has a more accurate understanding of the complete picture behind the town halls. What you see on the nightly news or are hearing reports of are small snippets. People are asking thoughtful questions, and people are being respectful. However, people begin to get agitated once their representative begins to hem and haw, and then simply lie.

    I agree that there’s no use in yelling for the sake of yelling, and we should allow our opponents time to speak – after all, in many cases, they do a fine job of defeating their own cause. But it’s simply wrong to say that the protesters are not allowing Congressmen the opportunity to speak at all before the shouting begins.

  • Paul,

    Only a small minority is needed to make our arguments look bad.

    The mainstream media, as I wrote in my posting, is doing a terrible job covering what is actually happening.

    We all know that the MSM tilts heavily towards the left, don’t you think it would be wise to be a bit more careful when articulating our arguments.

    The MSM will give liberal protesters a pass when they portray Bush as Hitler, but will play up Pelosi’s “swastika” comments. And she was lieing!

  • Paul,

    thanks. Taco Tito has already apologized deeply and profusely for his error, he’s just too ashamed to do so publicly.

  • Matt’s been drinking kool-ade again.

  • Could somebody kindly explain Tito’s rather sarcastic dismissal of Matt’s previous comments?

    I thought the whole point of Tito Taco’s post was concerning the poor depiction of what is actually transpiring in these Town Hall meetings, which I thought Matt’s own comments attempted to provide a more accurate portrayal thereof.

    Was there some sort of rhetorical irony I might have missed in Matt’s comments that I may have missed which seemingly sought to make a mockery out of Taco’s post?

  • Never mind.

    I see Matt & Tito are simply flirting with one another.

    Still getting used to this “modern” world.

  • If leading Democrats continue to mischaracterize the opposition as such, they will do this to their own detriment. Meaning a possible loss of one or both chambers of congress in the 2010 Congressional Elections and possibly the executive branch in 2012. They need to take the American people seriously, not ignore the problem.

    These nutjobs are all hardcore Republicans. The Dems lose nothing. Still, it’s generally wise for a politician to at least pretend like the wackos are saying something worth listening to.

  • e.,

    This is to much fun, but since you may not be aware, Matt and I work together. In fact our offices are right next to each other.

    So we rib each other from time to time.

    Hopefully that will calm you down and relieve some of the anxiety you have.

  • unrestrainedradical,

    like the typical leftist elite you completely misunderstand the American people, the majority who are opposed to ObamaCare.

  • The nutjobs are all hardcore Republicans.

    I’m afraid the only nutjob here happens to be the commenter making this comment.

    Still, it’s generally wise for a politician to at least pretend like the wackos are saying something worth listening to.

    Wackos being the Demo-n-Caths and all wackjobs of fellow adherents of that sordid political party that merely pretends to usher in change on behalf of the general populace all the while under this veneer of healthcare for the common man lies a most devious atrocity which can only be conceivably advanced by the democrat death squads.

  • Yeah, it’s just the Republicans who are opposed to a single-payer system and are generally fearful of a government take-over.

    You guys keep telling yourselves that. Complete denial of public disapproval worked so well for the GOP in 2005-06.

  • Highly recommend the attached article by Camille Paglia. She, of course, is in favor of health care reform, but she correctly places the blame for the heated discourse where it belongs on the Democrats and Obama for attempting to hastily push through poorly explained and thought out legislation.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html

    She states:

    “But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises — or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

    There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

    You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

    I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.”

    She even has sympathy for Sarah Palin’s recent statements about Death Panels:

    “As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a “death panel” under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin’s shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate’s unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.”

  • Awakeman,

    You and I enjoy reading the same articles.

    You beat me to the punch, I was going to post this article later today, but this is just as good.

    Good job!

  • “If leading Democrats continue to mischaracterize the opposition as such, they will do this to their own detriment. Meaning a possible loss of one or both chambers of congress in the 2010 Congressional Elections and possibly the executive branch in 2012. They need to take the American people seriously, not ignore the problem.

    These nutjobs are all hardcore Republicans. The Dems lose nothing. Still, it’s generally wise for a politician to at least pretend like the wackos are saying something worth listening to.”

    Do you actually believe this? I talked to a friend of mine that is a Senate staffer in the most least populated area of the State ,In the most obscure areas it is standing room only and trust me these are not RUSH LIMBAUGH Republican Ditto heads

    I am always amazed on the left or right how some see some plot. I have been through this enough times to see that is a purely bipartisian affair.

    It is slighlty amusing, though with a bit of sadness, that SOcial Justice Catholics that proclaim themselves above such petty things as party fall into the same ole tiresome thing they rant against. No these people have legitimate concerns. They want answers. To call them “nutjobs” right off the bat shows a particular disconnect. Like I said I have seen this on both sides. Right now it is just you.

  • Oh, please, gents–

    Surely by now you’ve all seen the SEIU squad beat up a conservative activist (posted below, if I recall), the bullhorn-toting Obamacare supporters trying to intimidate the opposition at Pelosi’s visit of a Denver clinic:
    http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/08/pelosi-astroturf-healthcare/
    and the guy with the Obama with Hitler mustache poster (evidently obtained from Lyndon LaRouche’s organization) who was later spotted handing out literature for Rep. Dingell:
    http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html

    There’s poor footing to argue that the vocal nutjobs are all on the right, especially when some of those rightists turn out to be plants. Be wary of opening your mouth precipitously; you may find later you have inserted your foot!

    For the record, I went to a town hall earlier this week and the one attendee there who distinguished herself by attempting to interrupt the speaker and trying to rumble with the police security was an Obamacare supporter.

  • I do believe the “death panel” portion of the current bill has been blown way out of proportion — and I have actually read it, by the way.

    It states simply that the healthcare plan will pay for senior citizens to have consultations with their doctors regarding advance directives (such as living wills or healthcare powers of attorney) at least every 5 years. Such consultations would be paid for on a more frequent basis if the person becomes seriously ill — not necessarily because anyone is trying to hasten their death, but because the person themselves may want to make changes or adjustments in their advance directive as their condition changes or worsens. Bringing the doctor into the discussion makes sense because many times, advance directives are drawn up by and filed with lawyers and the doctor may be the last person to know that a patient even has an advance directive.

    Federal law already requires hospitals to ask patients whether they have advance directives and inform them of their right to have one — but it doesn’t REQUIRE anyone to actually have a directive if they don’t want one. Mandating that insurance pay for a service is NOT the same as mandating that the policy holder actually take advantage of the service. Most if not all of us probably have health insurance that by state or federal law has to cover things we never personally take advantage of.

    Now, it is true that National Right to Life and other pro-life groups would like to see stronger language in this bill to protect seniors and the handicapped from being pressured by their doctors, family, or others into signing away their right to life-saving or life-sustaining treatment. That is a legitimate concern which must be addressed, but it is a far cry from asserting that the bill creates an all-powerful “death panel.”

    I know it is very easy for conservatives, and particularly pro-lifers, to assume the worst about the Obama administration given his record so far. However, that does not excuse intentional distortion or hasty misinterpretation of the healthcare bill for purely political reasons.

    Now, all that being said — there are still very, very many serious questions to be raised about this bill and attempting to rush it through Congress without giving Congresscritters themselves — let alone the public — time to understand what it really does, and instruct them to stick to canned talking points, is the WORST possible strategy the Democrats could take. The more they attempt to dismiss and discredit criticism of the bill, the more they come off looking like dictators and playing right into the fears of those who are opposed to the plan. It’s enough to make me think they WANT to lose control of Congress next year… maybe they’ve discovered that being the party in power isn’t as much fun as they thought!

  • It is confusing to have any discussion, when the elected officials can’t refer to any facts. There are so many versions and variations of health initiatives crafted by staff and lobbyists, we can’t keep track. How can there be a discussion on smoke and mirrors! They are blowing the smoke, by confirming “my version doesn’t say that!”
    The media choose to ignore this mutliple layers and versions as adding to anger and confusion. It’s like buying a car with 3 different contracts in front of you.

  • Elaine,

    I’m sorry, with this bill the bureaucrats have the power to require such consultations and possibly to sign directives that the patients don’t agree with. There’s nothing in the bill which enforces the voluntary nature, it’s in the hands of government, we just have to trust them.

  • I’m not talking about mere opponents of Obamacare when I say “nutjobs.” I’m not a supporter of Obamacare. Those who support or oppose the plan on its merits are a small intelligent minority. I’m talking about the Glenn Beck groupies that show up at the town hall meetings with their birth certificates in zip-lock bags yelling about how the big black socialist is going to kill their grandmas. Dems can mock them with political impunity.

  • elitistunrestrainedadical,

    Matt McDonald Says:
    Wednesday, August 12, 2009 A.D. at 1:06 pm

    unrestrainedradical,

    like the typical leftist elite you completely misunderstand the American people, the majority who are opposed to ObamaCare.

  • Saying that the end of life consultation provision could be open to abuse in the future is accurate — just about ANY provision of any law is open to abuse, and the potential abuses have to be considered when the law is written. However, saying this bill actually creates “death panels” is NOT accurate. In fact it may be even less accurate now that the Dems are seriously talking about removing that whole provision from the bill, which is fine with me.

  • RestrainedRadical,

    I’m talking about the Glenn Beck groupies that show up at the town hall meetings with their birth certificates in zip-lock bags yelling about how the big black socialist is going to kill their grandmas.

    You have to admit that that is a leap of logic of connecting genuine grassroots opposition to socialized medicine to racist birthers.

    Elaine,

    It has been removed, but don’t you think they removed it because perception is reality? Meaning that it could be used to implement Aktion T4 like directives?

    Aktion T4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

  • During this whole debate, nobody consulted Michael Moore on his documented health care in Cuba. If we opened relations with Cuba,and sent cruiser ships with seniors for health care to Cuba, then we could find a happy solution.
    Grandpa could retire there with a bottle of viagra, lots of cigars, and plenty of rum! That’s what I call a great way to end your days!
    If I had to choose between Canada and Cuba, there’s no question I want Cuba!

Nancy Pelosi Calls Protesters Un-American

Monday, August 10, AD 2009

[Updates at the bottom of this posting.  Most recent update at 6:54 pm CST 8-10-09]

Nancy Pelosi, the liberal Democratic Representative from San Francisco, wrote early this morning in a special USA Today Nancy Pelosi 1editorial that those protesting against government run health care are “un-American“.

It is clear to Representative Pelosi and her cohorts that the majority of Americans do not want further government intrusion into their lives, hence Mrs. Pelosi’s attempts at demonizing ordinary Americans.

Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

She is referring to the many town hall meetings where Americans were voicing their displeasure to government run health care.  Deliberately smearing Americans for voicing their opinions.

Sadly, the mainstream media is doing their part in painting these town halls as darkly as possible, regardless of the evidence that SEIU goons, Blueshirts, have already attacked health care protesters.

Let’s wait until the 2010 congressional elections and see their opinions voiced in turning back European style socialism by voting these malefactors out of office.

Update I: House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) ripped his Democratic counterparts Monday for labeling those disrupting lawmaker town halls as “un-American.”  Read the rest of this here.

Update II: The guy that beat up Mr. Gladney:

Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer – now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 – and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the Green Party.

McCowan accused the Mayor of setting fire to his van . . . because that’s what big city mayors do in their spare time, I guess.  He also called [St Louis Mayor Francis] Slay a racist.  And, on election night, McCowan thanked the family who voted for him.  It was quite touching, actually.

McCowan is not a rank-and-file, card-carrying union guy.  He is a director with SEIU. He IS the union.  He ISSUES the cards. Andy Stern himself might as well have kicked Gladney.

Read the rest here.

Continue reading...

71 Responses to Nancy Pelosi Calls Protesters Un-American

  • Nancy Pelosi is un American to say what she said. Our founders scuffled all the time. Time to come down from your ivory tower congress and listen for a change instead of shoving things as us we dont want. The protests will not stop til you listen and do what the people in your areas want.

  • Be fair, for heaven’s sake… You don’t have to like Nancy Pelosi (I don’t) and yu can be against the health care plan, but she did NOT call the protesters “Un-American” She said:

    “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American”

    Let’s discuss this issue and quit trying to put words in the mouth of anyone…

  • m.,

    Read my article carefully.

    I mentioned what you said and I explained how she referred to protesters as un-American.

    She doesn’t distinguish between mob attacks (which have been done by the Dems) and actual grassroots protesters.

  • Quit spinning. Nancy Pelosi is against anyone who wont take her poison pill. You must think Americans are stupid. Go USA. She works for us and will soon be fired.

  • Nancy Pelosi is trying to drown out our opposing views by calling it un American. She is trying to punish us for not agreeing with her horrific lack of healthcare plan

  • Well, if you go to the source, you’ll notice that the sentence in context points pretty directly at anti-Obamacare protesters, some of whom have had the unmitigated gall to chant slogans (!) at Pelosi and her buds.

    Funny, since from where I’m sitting it looks like an awful lot of that trying to drown out opposing views is coming from Pelosi, her buds, and some of their hired or coopted punks.

  • obamas union thugs have brought the violence to the scene. they beat up a black man at one rally and yesterday shoved a camera in a ladys face. they are bringing the violence to the scene and they have been endorsed by the whitehouse to go stir things up. there was no violence before just yelling

  • OK, so the people show up and don’t have something like Acorn T shirts, or union Ts and professionally manufactured signs and such are the typical Americans? I get it…If you have one of those Ts then you can drown them out.

    It is after all a one party system and we are to sit down and shut up. I get it.

  • i have been to 3 tea parties. i went on my own with my senior citizen car. absolutely no organizing. you go if you want. you go informed and that is what is killing congress. they expect us to be stupid and too busy to follow the issues. congress if first time meeting their voters and they know more than them. Americans will win this cause we are patriots and we fight to win.

  • Obama & Pelosi aren’t the only ones who like perfectly scripted townhalls and speaking engagements. Did Bush ever have a public forum to which tickets were not restricted to only fawning sycophants – only one that I can think of that press conference in Iraq where he had a shoe tossed at him. If these forums dealt with the “WAR” on terror and there were persons speaking out US policy in the middle east who would be calling people un-American then – who did call people un-american when they spoke out against the war – go to your back issues of National Review dealing with those Un-patriotic Conservatives who dared to opposed Bushes war in Iraq.

    I think both sides are terribly hypocritcial.

  • Did Bush ever have a public forum to which tickets were not restricted to only fawning sycophants

    I don’t recall Bush and Cheney calling people who disagreed with them un-American. Oh, but there was that one article in NR (written by the guy that most conservatives have long ago written off as being a total sellout idiot). I guess that makes the two sides equivalent in some weird, wacky way,

  • Welcome to Bizarro world Paul.

  • bush is gone. move forward zummo. america is speaking and congress must listen or get the boot pure and simple. it is not about how nice anyone speaks it is about how well the congressman listens and answers. simple stuff

  • Errr, mommalu, I was responding to awakaman.

  • Sorry Paul & Tito:

    I am obviously Un-American (or bizzare) for not recognizing the greatness of the Bush presidency and the War on Terror. You have proven my point – engage in strawman agruments as opposed to addressing the facts.

    Did Bush or Cheney call people who opposed their policies Un-American I don’t know or remember – but their agents Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, O’Reilly, Beck, The Weekly Standard, FOX News, and NRO sure did. Either that or “you didn’t support the troops”. It wasn’t just David Frum it was the entire Mainstream “Conservative” Media.

  • “I am obviously Un-American (or bizzare) for not recognizing the greatness of the Bush presidency and the War on Terror.”

    Oh yeah —

    I forgot about all the devestating terror attacks that took place on U.S. soil subsequent to 9/11 due to the remarkable incompetency of that very administration.

  • (written by the guy that most conservatives have long ago written off as being a total sellout idiot)

    Mr. Frum is a libertarian of a sort atypical among journalists and academics but (one suspects) fairly common among rank-and-file voters of a libertarian orientation inasmuch as he does not attribute the disagreeableness of the world abroad to the bumbling of the governments of the United States and Israel and tends to share Arthur Vandenberg’s view that we are no longer innoculated by geography to this disagreeableness. I would doubt he is a sellout; he was just never your ally (or mine) bar on a restricted range of questions.

  • I forgot about all the devestating terror attacks that took place on U.S. soil subsequent to 9/11 due to the remarkable incompetency of that very administration.

    None of Mr. Bush’s discretionary appointees were in charge of the Massachusetts Port Authority, nor did they generate the Chinese walls within the FBI.

  • Did Bush ever have a public forum to which tickets were not restricted to only fawning sycophants – only one that I can think of that press conference in Iraq where he had a shoe tossed at him.

    Which of us (including you) was keeping a catalogue of the public appearances of either man?

  • Art Deco:

    Perhaps you would’ve been much more relieved had another 9/11 occurred during Bush’s presidential terms; perhaps then you could glory on how incompetent his administration was in preventing a subsequent attack on U.S. soil all throughout his extended terms — the again, such leftists are known to glory in the deaths of innocent civilians so long as their political aims are celebrated in the end!

  • Awakeman,

    Don’t stop engaging in dialogue. Just because we disagree we don’t have to be disagreeable.

  • am obviously Un-American (or bizzare) for not recognizing the greatness of the Bush presidency and the War on Terror. You have proven my point – engage in strawman agruments as opposed to addressing the facts.

    Umm, do you even know what a strawman argument is? From this paragaph, obviously not, especially since it is you who just created one.

    Did Bush or Cheney call people who opposed their policies Un-American I don’t know or remember –

    The answer is no. The rest of your comment is therefore gibberish.

  • I suspect the point of Pelosi’s comments weren’t to name call, rather to distract American’s for actually debating the health care legislation. If she can demonize the protestors their concerns become less important. Amercan’s see this bill as another step towards socialism, where our liberties are slowly being eroded. For real health care reform, it must start with tort reform. The medical malpractice in the US has assumed crisis proportions, and is the single largest contributor to insurance and health care waste, estimated over $200B every year. Fear of litigation pervades all aspects of medical practice, if forces our doctors to act and behave in ways that are contradictory to their medical profession. This is because the spector of lawsuits erodes professional integrity and promotes the practice of defensive medicine. Forty years ago only 1 in 7 physicians were sued during their careers. Current estimates indicate that 1 of 7 physicians are sued every year. Recent reports indicate that half of all physicians make clinical decisions that are influenced by either an extreme or a strong desire to minimize the possibility of lawsuit. With the money that is saved on Tort Reform we would be on our way to paying for many of the uninsured.

  • Pelosi is an embarrassment, not only to her party, but to her country.

  • This article misrepresents Nancy Pelosi’s comments. She is not against disagreement. She is talking about the rude, shouting, unwilling to let others talk behavior that is being fostered and encouraged by some front groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites. Nancy Pelosi is not saying disagreement is anti-American, she is stating the disruptive behavior which interferes with the actual discussion is anti-Amreican because it is not allowing discussion. It’s unfortunate that a Catholic site would so clearly misrepresent the Speaker’s words and intent.

  • Solarzar,

    If you read the context that she wrote the article in, she is implicitly denigrating the point of view that contradicts her world view.

    Secondly, the fact that you refer to anyone protesting government intrusion in peoples lives as ront groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites clearly demonstrates your disdain towards others that hold views dissimilar to your own.

    You’ve outed yourself as one of those that finds it difficult that there are others out there that actually have views different from your own.

    That is the fallacy of those on the left. You’re allowed to disagree, just as long as you don’t disagree with your point of view.

    To use your condescending words, it’s unfortunate that a liberal would so clearly show contempt towards other Americans that don’t share your politics.

  • Fox News

    I have no particular love of Fox News, and frankly I think all television news is complete crap, but why does every single person who derides conservatives bring up Fox News? Do they really think that we’re all just sitting there awaiting our marching orders, oblivious to any other information out there?

    Well, they probably do, but that only speaks to their limited sources of information and constrained worldview.

  • Art:

    1. Please see the following article from that “balanced” news source FOX News:

    “There is an active campaign underway to try and disrupt and disturb his [President Bush’s] events in hopes of undermining his objective of fixing Social Security,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy told FOXNews.com. “If there is evidence there are people planning to disrupt the president at an event, then they have the right to exclude those people from those events.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html

    2. I would not refer to David Frum as a libertarian. He like most Neo-Cons have a love for the State, at least one that they control and have no problem with big government and higher taxes so long as it advances their agenda. I suppose you are only addressing his position on abortion, but a pro-choice position on abortion does not a libertarian make.

  • Paul,

    What rankles liberals is that most Americans, not conservatives, watch Fox News instead of CNN or MSNBC, which is their favorite source of biased programming.

    With that said, I don’t watch Fox News either.

    Though it is interesting the bitterness and contempt that many liberals do have for Fox News.

    Awakeman,

    Thank you for rejoining the conversation.

  • I bring up Fox News because they specifically encourage protestors to challenge the town hall discussions of Health Care. You are correct that I don’t agree with Fox News but I do agree with disagreement. I did read the interview with Nancy Pelosi, I’m not outed as anything. I agree with free speech, but that is not the same as people shouting and disrupting the discussions preventing the dialogue. Also, Fox News tells not relate news, it fosters misinformation. In addition, I have never been anything but a registered Republican who served 21 years in the Marine Corps and currently works for the Department of Defense. But I do believe whether you like Pelosi or not, this article misrepresents her point. I do despise Fox News, because it is not news, it is propaganda and it is against free speech. So if you choose to define me, I will help. I am someone who has served and continues to serve this nation. I am not against any view, I am only against views based on false information and lack of fairness to the truth.

  • I seldom ever watch broadcast news either, but when I do I go to Fox news.

    One, even though most of the commentary personalities would fall on the right, the actual reporting isn’t seething with a particular bias, and you’ll actually see negative things said about the Pubs, where you won’t see negative things said about the Dems on other networks.

    Two, as much as I dislike Hannity and O’Reilly, I have never seen such despicable commentators as those who lead up MSNBC.

    Three, and perhaps most important, Fox is at the forefront of having a wide lineup of extra-talented woman anchors and commentators.

  • Solarzar,

    What part of “front groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites clearly” did you misread?

    I didn’t accuse you of being a Democrat nor of not serving your country… which has absolutely nothing to do with my original point.

    You’re a liberal for bringing up “conservative lobbying firm(s) and Republican sites”.

  • I bring up Fox News because they specifically encourage protestors to challenge the town hall discussions of Health Care.

    Here’s Charles Krauthammer, on Fox last night riling up the protesters:

    he Democrats are pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and the Republicans (or conservatives) are handing the Democrats the rabbit. The Democrats have no argument. They have no facts. They don’t even really have a bill.

    And if people were just to stand up and quietly and civilly raise questions — “the money doesn’t add up,” “the CBO has said that you say it is going to control costs, but it increases it by $1 trillion,” all of this stuff, it’s really out there — they would be winning this debate as they were before the town halls.

    What’s happening is this is causing a backlash. It’s completely unnecessary. It is shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to demonstrate, you want to shout, you do it outside carrying signs. When you walk inside [the town hall meeting], you ask questions.

    This is going to have two effects. Public opinion will make people, if anything, rather unsympathetic to those who oppose the bills.

    And secondly, it’s going to give a great excuse for the Democrats, when Congress returns, to push a partisan bill with no Republican support and say it’s because the opposition is not — is simply oppositionist without any arguments and is acting in an irresponsible way.

    Yeah, really sounds like he’s egging people on there. And Mort Kondracke, another loony right-winger of course, was even more critical.

  • If I choose to dislike Fox, that is still not the point. Let me be more clear, Hannity specifically has encouraged misinformation and false informatin and encourage people to challenge the Health Care debate, as had Glenn Beck. Now if Fox wants to encourage fair and balanced I’m not asking it to censor news reporting, but it has an obligation to correct misinformation. Locally I prefer my Fox channel, but I do not appreciate corporate Fox programming under the banner of news. That’s my preference, and when I state they have encourage the disruption you will find it with several of the woman anchors you mention, Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly. That’s more than an occassional item. Whether you like any other news or not is your choice, however, I hear many sources of information and read. My decisions are based on that. This article is biased again Nancy Pelosi in language and intent which makes it unfair. Notice how quickly I was labelled a liberal, I didn’t like others point of view and how quickly I had to be wrong in my point of view. I didn’t challenge anyone’s point of view only the bias of this article.

  • Excuse the typos on the last post. I often think ahead of my fingers.

  • Solarzar,

    Many of us here at AC do not like nor have much respect for Hannity or O’Reilly.

    And to be fair, I don’t have cable period, hence why I don’t watch FOx News, nor CNN, nor MSNBC.

  • Also, Fox News tells not relate news, it fosters misinformation. In addition, I have never been anything but a registered Republican

    Bash Fox? Check.

    Claim to be a life-long Republican? Check.

    Do I think this person is a seminar commenter? Double check.

  • Solarzar,

    Please disregard the last two lines of my comments towards you for the 11:41pm comment posting.

  • and encourage people to challenge the Health Care debate,

    Oh no, he’s telling people to “challenge” the supporters of HC reform. The man is truly a Nazi in disguise.

    Also, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are not and do not claim to be straight news anchors in the traditional sense. They are opinion journalists – no different in that sense than Olberman and Mathews on MSNBC.

    Anyway, from the sounds of it you spend a lot more time watching Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity than any of the people who actually are conservatives on this site do. Unless of course you’re just spewing talking points from leftist websites, and there’s no way that could possibly be true.

  • What is a seminar commenter? And why am I a troll?

    Also, you there is a direct line to a lobbying firm that began the instructions on how to disrupt the town hall meetins. I’m not in a place to relay the specific information but I didn’t make it up I saw the interviews and read the articles. Does it have to be false if you don’t believe it?

    When you name a person as a liberal with disdain, when you choose to use terms with dismissal are you being open to discussion? You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, but I didn’t challenge anyone on this forum. I challenged the article as being biased, and the language is.

    And I challenged media misinformation. This why the discussion gets sidetracked, it turns into a personal attack or dismissal instead of a discussion of differences.

  • Solarzar,

    “front groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites clearly”

    Liberal talking points.

    Whether you got it from HuffPo, Daily Kos, or Vox Nova, liberal is is liberal say or do.

  • And I challenged media misinformation. This why the discussion gets sidetracked, it turns into a personal attack or dismissal instead of a discussion of differences.

    You haven’t made a single substantive comment. You’ve made vague assertions about Fox News, and spent the rest of the time whining about how people choose to respond to your comments.

  • Since when did Fox’s Hannity, O’Reilly and the like pass off for the News of the Right — especially given the fact that these are largely the feeding posts of the Neo-cons?

    Also, you don’t see me mocking the biased leftist shows like Stewart’s Daily Show, which often actually passes for legitimate news for most, if not, all liberals!

  • I will agree that using Hannity, OReilly and Beck in the same breath as Fox News is unfair on my part.

    Tito I think I know which comments you are asking me to ignore. Fair enough.

    Also to Paul’s comments I have a talk radio show so I do spend time researching many of these issues. I came across this site because of research I was doing and only chose to comment because I believe the Catholic church should spend more time presenting the information with less bias.

    Since you don’t know me I am also a biblical scholar who spends a great deal of time reading and studying the bible. As a former Catholic I do find many of the views expressed in the political arena to be counter to a Christian view. Can they disagree, absolutely. But first present the unbiased facts.

    What are facts.

    1. Many groups are disrupting Town Hall meetings.

    2. Repulbican sites (not all), are listing Democratics town hall meetings (not Republican) as sites to debate the Health Care issue.

    3. The lobbying form run by Dick Armey has put together a program on how to disrupt the Democratic town hall meetings.

    4. The health insurance companies have put together a campaign to fight against the Health Care initiative by calling it socialism (how many times have you heard that).

    5. An M Street conservative lobbying firm has sent Health Care information buses to various states and they have been captured on film reciting the “euthenasia” mantra that is not in the House bill on Health Care.

    6. Do you have to believe anything I day – No. However, this isn’t an emotional rant. It’s a different view of the Speaker’s comments based on these points.

    So we can agree to not agree.

  • Solarzar,

    Thank you for engaging us in this conversation.

    There may be links from a lobbying firm, but you have to admit that this is a small group when you look at the whole sample.

  • Tito,

    You may be right. Back to my original point, whether you like Nancy Pelosi or not the framework of her statements are some of the overt “disruptive” behavior, not disagreement.

    That was my disagreement with the article, and not with others views. Since you seemed to know each other I just attempted to put my views in context.

    Thank you for sharing your views.

  • Actually, some of your facts are disputable, and others are hardly damning. People are organizing protests? Shocking!

    But yes, let’s agree to disagree.

  • Solarzar,

    I still don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re attempting to demonstrate, especially given the opinions (rather than “facts”) which you’ve presented before us as what should solidify some God-only-knows contention concerning some saintly depiction of Pelosi as anything other than arrogantly biased.

    Tito Taco and Paul Zummo might agree with whatever fertilizer you’re selling them as “facts”; however, I am still quite awed how easily they’re taken by your style of argumentation which seems more so likened to a peasoup fog; yet, I guess what passes off for legitimate debate these days is this kind of refuse.

  • e,

    I didn’t think they agreed with what I said, only agreed with our disagreement.

    Also, my only point was I felt the article was biased to Nancy Pelosi’s opinion, and I don’t believe they agree.

  • however, I am still quite awed how easily they’re taken by your style of argumentation

    Heh. I thought I was being overly aggressive with solarzar, but evidently I wasn’t being clear enough in my dismissal of his points.

    I’ll try harder next time, e.

  • e.,

    I’ll try to be more condescending and obtuse next time as well.

  • paul zummo:

    Good for you! I’d expect better from a person of your stature.

    You shouldn’t let falsehood get by so easily.

    Sure, by all means, be courteous; however, that doesn’t mean neglecting what your very intellect is advising you and, not to mention, surrendering your very dignity to the likes of such petty opponents — especially those whose arguments are a little more than merely makeweights.

    Leave that to the likes of Tito Taco.

    Based on past comments I’ve surveyed from you, you’re certainly better than this.

  • e.,

    Thank you for that Eddie Haskell comment.

  • Tito Taco:

    Well, sorry to disappoint, but I’m not the “Thank-you, Sir, May I have another?” kind of person.

    Bad enough that somebody is putting forth what hardly seems an argument in the first place; worse, to treat such a person as if his very point was somehow so dignified!

    You gents might prefer such humiliation and treat such insulting adversaries as if they were God’s-Gift-to-the-World; however, back in the ole days, when Right was right, we didn’t let off such falsehood so easily and, even further, thanked them for not only their insultingly risible argument but also for their apparent ridicule, too.

  • e,

    I didn’t believe I ridiculed anyone here. You don’t like my opinions, fine. I didn’t attempt to insult anyone, only the article.

  • awakaman,

    That there are lobbies and other organized activity is neither sinister nor an indication that they are the motor for most of those in protest.

    Mr. Frum about fifteen years ago published a book with the title Dead Right. The contents certainly looked like an extended libertarian argument to me, but perhaps a deficient memory or my Neo-Con love of the state has addled me.

  • Solarzar:

    Adducing as your supporting “fact” that Fox News is biased, etc.; for the still dubious contention that the article itself is somehow “biased” because it doesn’t rightly portray Pelosi et al. in some sort of spectacularly positive light and expecting us to take such “facts” as valid corroboration for such contention is indeed (even if somewhat) of a ridiculing nature.

    You are either being deceptively disingenuous or perhaps, at the very least, remarkably naive.

  • I have never been anything but a registered Republican who served 21 years in the Marine Corps and currently works for the Department of Defense.

    ….

    I have a talk radio show

    I am also a biblical scholar

    I don’t buy this guy for a second. He comes on attacking the majority conservative/republican approach to bad legislation, defends the democrat leadership, attacks conservative commentators, defends the bad legislation… claims to be a US Marine and a lifelong Republican, talk show host and biblical scholar…. wow…

    if it walks and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

    I call QUACK.

    No further discussion until you provide some bona-fides, how about the name of your “show” and station it airs on?

  • Why must I defend everything I say. How come I must be either lying or wrong.

    Here is the fallacy: I was researching the Pelosi interview. This link appeared. I mistook the blog entry for a news report of Pelosi. The blog is certainly biased against Pelosi and what she said. It has the point of view of the blogger – I didn’t realize that.

    I never said I was lifelong Republican. It is the only party I have ever belonged to. I left the Republican party in 1994 because of it’s affiliation with the Religious Right. I believe in the separation of Church and State and the integration of a religious platform into the Republican platform doesn’t suit me.

    I research these topics for discussion on my show, which I don’t have to prove. It’s unfortunate that only one view is the right view. Life is actually nuanced. Not right or left.

    My service was 21 years from machine gunner to Director of a benefits and customer service agency for the Department of Defense. I went from enlisted to officer during my 21 years. Currently I am a subject matter expert for the DoD and I coordinate and provide benefits to the active, retired and reserve Service members and their family members. I support over 37 million people, as well as manage projects that support the exchange of information and benefits between the VA and the DoD.

    I walk my talk and believe in free speech, not the stifling or limitation of opinions. I also believe everyone has a right to express based on the facts. Pelosi was expressing a dissatisfaction with the disruption and shouting at town halls and said it was un-American for either side of the discussion to stifle discussion by shouting or not allowing the people to express their views. It was not a biased or partisan position.

    I did not paint some spectacularly positive lights for the Democratic Party, Pelosi, or even the Health Care issues. I do consider myself a Progressive, but on some issues I’m conservative, on some I’m moderate and on some I’m liberal. None of that matters if the discussion is only framed around one side. There is no single answer to anything.

    It took until e’s last comment for me to recognize that I was naive that this was a blog and not a Catholic sanctioned site so I was interferring with a secular house that only accepted a particular view. The discussion often generated into an attack of me, not my opinions, although I have to admit my general criticism of Fox news sure lit a firestorm.

    Dick Armey has a lobbying firm called DLA Piper. He accepts clients and then generates “grass roots” support throught his group called Freedom Works. Freedom Works generated guidelines for how to “disrupt” (their term, not mine) town hall meetings on Health Care it is called the “August Recess Action Kit”).

    Members of DLA Piper include Matt Kibbe, former RNC Chair, and Richard Stephenson, CEO of Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Frredom Works also supported the “Tea Party Patriots”. You might like the work they do, but they are disgusing how they do it and proclaiming it as grass roots when it is financed, funded and sheilded. That is the false part. Can they object – sure.

    Any American can disagree, have opposing views, and as citizens any member of DLA Piper can object to any position. However, they use Freedom Works as their front organization claiming grass roots action based on the client list of DLA Piper. You don’t have to take my word. Just take the time to look into Freedom Works, DLA Piper, and Dick Armey. It’s all avialable if you look hard enough.

    My show is Good Vibrations Radio: Tools for Transformation on AM 540, KRXA in Monterey, California. I’m certain you wouldn’t like it since it is progressive. As for my biblical studies, I’m working on my Doctor of Divinity, have spent the last 18 months on New Testament studies with many more months to go. Notice I said scholar, not expert. But I speak only what I believe to be true. Yet, there are many truths to many people, we learn by listening.

    I won’t bother you gentleman again since this is a public, yet private forum that I mistook for an affiliated Catholic site. Now that I’ve explored I do agree I was naive in what I thought the site was.

  • Matt McDonald:

    I don’t buy this guy for a second.

    Thank God — finally, a voice of reason!

  • Solazar,

    I have never been anything but a registered Republican

    you basically started your posting here with an intentionally misleading statement. Whatever you were up until 15 years ago, you are now an progressive/liberal. So that’s why I called quack, I knew something wasn’t right.

    As to your other points, it’s clear that you’re reading the talking points put out by the Soro’s funded elements so it’s a little bit of pot calling the kettle black. In any event, that some group is disseminating information does not change the nature of the opposition. Most people opposed to health care have an instinctive reaction to it and then follow up with research and seek like-minded organizations to work with. Unlike many Soros funded “activism” no reimbursement or assistance beyond information is provided to the groups who are opposing health care and so it’s far more legitimate.

    Your points on the health care bill are all based on the best presumptions about how the executive and bureaucracy will perform their duties. It’s clear from past history that this is a very naive approach. Consider that 2 of Obama’s key advisers have come out in favor of euthanasia and eugenics, positions they have never dissavowed… who is running the bureaucracy?

  • One can find out the basics of military service from public records such as Military.com if one has a real name. There are several things that can be Googled about Solarzar starting with his radio broadcast. One wonders about what his divinity dissertation will be like given this:

    http://www.solarzar.com/

  • One can get a sense of his political views on his blog:

    http://www.solarzar.blogspot.com/

    Somehow I don’t think he is a Republican.

  • Not a little self-serving biography:

    Solarzar is an expert in Leadership, Communication & Customer Service, Goal Planning, and Stress Management. He’s a Master Trainer, award winning Speaker, and Psychic Entertainer who has lived many lives in one: from living on the streets as a teenager to going through the enlisted to the officer ranks in the U.S. Marine Corps during a 21 year career. He is a high school droput who became the Principal of a publicly traded company and brings a wealth of experience that he shares in his powerful, life-changing, magical presentations.

  • So Solarzar is a Psychic entrepreneur that performs magical presentations?

    That makes since, given that the general outline of his argumentation herein is just about as magical as his ironically “biased” contention.

  • Abacadabra: “since” become “sense”!

  • Pingback: Sleeping Giant Awakes and Democrats Blink « The American Catholic
  • You have to understand that the “New Democratic Party” is now a party of the “Elitists”. They used to represent the average “Joe In The Street” but now are only concerned in a, shall we say, Socialist point of view and if you don’t agree with their view, get out of the way. Look at the sweet hearts of the Democratic Party. Would you like to have them in your house? Pelosi, Reed, Dodd, Frank, Boxer?

  • Dean Carlson:

    As Fr. Groeschel himself once remarked, it wasn’t former democrats who betrayed the Democrat Party; it was actually the Democrat Party itself.

    Your above comments are the best thus far that not only addresses this but the rather unfortunate fact that is the Democrat Party.

Blueshirts, Pelosi, and Mobs, Oh My!

Saturday, August 8, AD 2009

It’s been an interesting week in the world of American politics.  With the arrogance of congressional Democrats and the White House attempts at discrediting a grassroots movement, the passions will certainly continue to climb after the weekend is over.

Here are some highlights from these past few days:

1. At a town hall last week in Dallas, an elderly “mob” with “manufactured” outrage questioned AARP’s support for nationalized health care, asking: “Do you work for us or do we work for you?”

There were no swastika-wearing grannies at Tuesday’s meeting, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might claim. Nor were they “taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongers . . . and insurance rackets,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said.

But they were mad as hell at the perception that AARP was selling them out in the name of government-run medical insurance. That perception was not helped when the AARP town hall on the subject was shut down by the seniors outfit once the members dared to ask questions. The AARP representatives did not want to hear from the members at all. Just send in your dues, granny, and be quiet.

To read the rest of this IDB Editorial click here.

2. You’ve heard a lot about this crazy, scary, vicious mob on some shadowy GOP payroll. By the way the DNC, Rachel Maddow, and President Obama talk, you’d think it was a motley crue of Hell’s Angels.

Let me introduce you to the mob:

scary mob 1

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Blueshirts, Pelosi, and Mobs, Oh My!

  • A superb roundup Tito! You have a real talent for putting these together!

  • It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

    How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

  • If you don’t know who Rick Scott is then you don’t know who is duping you. This is the false prophet. Scott is the money-changer you let into your temple. Scott is a big health care CEO (whose company by the way was fined $1.7 billion for fraud) who is financing the disruption of the town hall meetings. He is the temptor who has cause you to stumble into the gospel of hatred for your fellow man. His “salvation” (money) is to get you to serve corporate profits instead of your fellow man.

    One Master said “Feed my sheep,” “As ye do to the least of these my brothers, you do unto me.” Perhaps you can appreciate how that would be served by universal health care?
    The other “master” says, “shout them down,” and “voice your anger.” Does that really serve your mission to be the spreader of the Good News?

    I truly feel sorry for good-hearted people who have been drawn into the hatred of political extremism and who honestly think they are serving Christ, when in fact they are serving corporate lobbyists. What a shame!

    Check it out: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/06/rick-scott-sanchez/

  • Paul,

    Those were very hateful elderly people in those posts.

    I guess the GOP Hate-van picked them at an early bird dinner and bussed them over to these town halls.

    It’s called grasping at straws.

  • I really don’t care how great the proposed healthcare bill is, even if it give cradle to grave care to all at the same level Congress enjoys (don’t mention the military, our healthcare isn’t all that great). I don’t care if B.O. & Company summon up a genie to pay for it all with no expense to the taxpayers. I don’t care if there is absolutely no provisions for funding abortions in it.

    If it doesn’t expressly forbid coverage for abortion and euthanasia it isn’t good enough. Period.

  • The health care plan on offer provides for government funding of abortions. Pointing to shady corporate lobbyists doesn’t change that gruesome fact. Who’s the temptor who put that murderous, needless and revolutionary language in the bill? Mr. Scott may be a fraud, but he hasn’t snuffed human life on the scale contemplated by this health bill.

    It has no place in a “health care” bill. Demand that it be taken out and I’ll stand with you, CL. Ignore it, and I’ll ignore you.

  • Paul,

    Do you have a citation for your assertion that the military receive the ‘the best health care in the world’?

    I am not aware that anyone has asserted that private enterprise is infallible, merely that it generally performs more efficiently in the provision of merchandise and services unless the good in question is one that cannot be vended on a market (e.g. law enforcement, or natural environments) because the costs and benefits of the provision of the service are very poorly aligned, payer and recipient being different parties (for the most part). A secondary problem you have is that often the use of markets to provide certain goods and services leads to a distribution of same that people find unpalatable. Medical services is one of those goods.

    People’s demand for goods and services (including medical services) is invariably going to exceed the capacity of producers to supply these services. From the perspective of the consumer, if you spend more on x, you have to spend less on y. Rationing of the fruits of productive capacity may be done through price systems or through administrative controls, but it must occur. Neither the individual household, nor the commercial insurer, nor the government have unlimited resources, so some party must be in the business of ‘denying coverage’ (i.e. refusing to pay for it). The commercial insurer charges you a premium which is derived in part from an understanding of a particular benefits configuration. If you change the benefits configuration post hoc, the insurance program is not actuarially sound and eventually goes bankrupt.

    The program as proposed is hideously rococo, is proposed to be enacted when there are severe demands on public resources from the banking crisis, and is being enacted when simpler alternatives that allow for more decision-making by consumers and providers are available. People also tend to be rather risk-averse in these sorts of situations, preferring a devil they know. That there is opposition is unsurprising. Get used to it.

  • Paul,

    the plan at offer bears no resemblance to the plan which congress generously offers itself, it’s more akin to medicare or the veterans administration. Active military enjoy excellent trauma care, but their “routine” medical system leaves a lot to be desired.

    ChristianLiberal (an oxymoron),

    and your well-crafted talking points are financed by George Soros. Whatever the agenda of Rick Scott’s organization, they fund NOBODY to attend any townhalls, they, along with many other conservative groups help to analyse the proposal (it’s >1000 pages for legalese and Orwellian “newspeak”) and communicate their findings. It’s the well funded SEIU that is far more in line with what you’re accusing us of.

  • Advocacy groups, at ALL points on the political spectrum, exist for a very good reason: because most ordinary people cannot take the time to thoroughly perform completely original research and personally lobby their legislators on EVERY single issue of interest to them.

    That’s why we have issue-based organizations that do it for us — National Right to Life, the NRA, AARP, the Sierra Club, etc. If they organize an event and provide transportation, meals, etc. for people to participate, does that automatically mean that every individual who attends is being “manipulated” or “bought” and therefore their views don’t deserve consideration? Do people’s views “count” only if they happen to find out about an event completely on their own and attend totally at their own expense, without using any arguments or “talking points” that have ever been used by anyone else?

    The mere fact that an advocacy group organizes an event or actively invites people to participate (no one has, as far as I know, claimed that anyone on either side was ordered or forced to attend) does NOT mean that the views expressed by those attendees are insincere or not worthy of attention. I think that applies just as much to SEIU as to any alleged GOP political operatives — if they care enough to show up for an event, they have a right to be heard AND a responsibility to let others be heard as well.

  • Elaine,

    you’re right of course, but in the case of the townhall ‘mobs’ the only support provided has been information as far as we know, and that’s generally the case with conservative causes. On the other hand, there is a LONG history of leftist groups using all sorts of enticements, including cash payments to individual protesters. Furthermore, it’s curious that the SEIU is showing a lot of interest in this matter, since union negotiated health care plans are largely exempted from interference under this law. Also notable is the special treatement afforded SEIU and other democrat activists at these supposedly “open forums”.

    I remember SEIU “protestors” involved in a janitorial contract dispute a couple of years ago marching around Cincinnati. I asked one of them what it was about and after a short discussion he acknowledged that he had no idea what it was about he just got paid to come out.

  • Pingback: Pelosi USA Today Editorial Calls Protesters “Un-American” « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi/Hoyer Calls Townhall Protesters ‘un-American’ « Specfriggintacular's Blog
  • I probably should have added that I have very little if any sympathy for SEIU, since they were among the biggest supporters of and donors to Illinois’ disgraced Governor Blago, and also among the most strident groups now pushing for a massive tax increase to cover the state deficit. I believe their efforts to organize home health care workers and demand taxpayer support for them are doing more harm than good to their cause and those of the elderly and disabled people they are supposed to be helping. Also, it is true that completely original arguments offered by someone acting on their own will carry more weight than canned “talking points”.

    What I take issue with, however, is the notion that participating in ANY kind of organized effort or campaign regarding an issue somehow invalidates one’s point of view or makes it less genuine.

    Also, Pelosi obviously doesn’t know what “astroturfing” means. In my experience as a journalist, it referred to instances in which an advocacy or lobbying group creates fake grass roots support for its point of view by getting its own members or clients to write a bunch of letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, blog posts, etc. in a way that makes them APPEAR to have come from ordinary citizens moved to write purely out of personal conviction — with NO mention of the authors’ group affiliation or personal or financial interest in the matter. However, the mere fact that a letter-writing campaign or public event is organized by some group does not make it “astroturf.”

  • Tito Edwards, Art Deco, Matt McDonald: It is very American to want to help our fellow countryman. I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You, not so much. Lets face it the previous administration did nothing (except start two wars of choice that are bankrupting our country with all the “war profiteering” contracts to Halliburton) well you and I will just have to agree to not agree. I did not believe any of the Republican rhetoric before the last election and I do not believe them now. I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority, but your comments, funny stuff.

  • Paul,

    Tito Edwards, Art Deco, Matt McDonald: It is very American to want to help our fellow countryman.

    yes, and we do. In fact, if you are a typical liberal, and we are typical conservatives then we do far more to help our fellow countrymen than you do… shame on you.

    I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You, not so much.

    I believe in God Almighty. I appreciate and thank our military, firefighters, and police. The FEDERAL government bureacracy which you worship, not so much. State and local governments I appreciate and trust more because they are closer to the people.

    I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority

    based on all the liberals you hang out with it’s not surprising that you have no idea what the majority think. Check the polls buddy.

  • “I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You, not so much.

    And this comment was meant to prove what exactly?

    It reminds me of a corrupt company when faced with possible prosecution for dumping toxic wastes into rivers; they all of a sudden introduce the rather conspicuous red herring: well, our company, as you know, believes wholeheartedly in the greatness of these United States and, in fact, donate regularly to charitable causes!

    Well, quite frankly, much like the Demo-n-Caths and other like-minded felons who capitalize on the veneer of societal goodness, professing such remarkable love of country and their fellow man, all the while, advancing deterimental policies that only hinder and even injure the common citizen; I don’t buy the seemingly noble facade even for a second.

    Go sell your liberal goods elsewhere; while McDonald might play gracious host to you, I, on the other hand, see you for who you truly are: an actor disguising sheer demagoguery in mere sentimentalism but, as even evident in the agenda and actions of the current administration, nothing substantive or even noble where the average American Family is concerned, which policies as these can only prove injurious as regarding any purported benefits such policy claim to advance and can prove even fatal, especially in light of end-of-life issues which will certainly be truncated — not so surprising given the fiercely Pro-Abort administration bent on only advancing the merits of the Culture of Death.

  • e.,

    very eloquent!

  • Matt & e: Sticks and Stones……. Stick and Stones

    I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority, but your comments, funny stuff.

  • Paul:

    I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with sanity; but, hey, such is the sorry state of the world.

    All things besides, interesting that you should flaunt your views as being the right one simply because you make the rather tenuous claim that it happens to be the majority, which doesn’t necessarily make them right even if so.

    That notorious ad populum is an old fallacy that even your own ignoble confreres have used time and again.

    Please do visit us again should you have something more substantive to share. Thanks.

  • e: Snore….Snore

SEIU Blueshirts Attack Health Care Protestor

Friday, August 7, AD 2009

SEIU Blueshirts

[Updates at the bottom of this posting.  Most recent update at 7:41 pm CST]

On Thursday, August 6, the White House call to arms by Deputy Chief of Staff David Axelrod, “punch back twice as hard“, at the growing grass roots movement opposing government single-payer health care produced the first violent incident later in the day.  During a Town Hall Meeting with U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan at Bernard Middle School gym in south St. Louis County, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members dressed in dark purple shirts, though they look blue in the video below, attacked a black American protester by savagely beating him.  The protester ended up in the Emergency Room of St. John’s Mercy Medical Center.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to SEIU Blueshirts Attack Health Care Protestor

  • I just realized that Donald had posted about this incident earlier on one of his updates, but it goes without saying that these protests are drawing violent reactions from proponents of government intrusion.

  • It’s an important event Tito and it needs all the exposure it can get. Great post!

  • Just flat-out disgusted.

    No less because I’ve already seen folks blaming… dum dum dum… opponents of the healthcare boondoggle for the violence. (How dare that fellow violently attack the union members’ shoes?)

  • I rather be called an American, but for the sake of argument…

    Latinos are predominantly more conservative, traditional, and orthodox in their Catholic faith than liberals lead on. Once we find someone who can break this liberal stereotype, the floodgates will open when Latino’s realize that there are more platforms within the GOP than in the Democratic Party that reflects their own values.

  • This whole health reform mess gets uglier by the day.

    At what point do the Democrats back off?

    Mr. H
    http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

  • At what point can any Catholic in good conscience and of good-will be associated with the party of death?

    At first I was outraged by the barbaric violence found on this video but on further reflection this is a predictable natural outcome for a party that accepts abortion as the paramount plank in its platform. If you accept murder, then on what grounds would you object to anything that amounts to less?

  • Pingback: Pelosi USA Today Editorial Calls Protesters “Un-American” « The American Catholic
  • Marlene,

    Please be more careful in stating your opinions and refrain from what may be perceived as racist remarks.

  • Wait, I’m confused. Gladney is the black guy lying on the ground where the white guy is trying to kick him, right? Why is Gladney wearing a “Health Care 09: We Can’t Wait” t-shirt? That’s an SEIU shirt.

    Or is Gladney the guy who gets knocked down right after, while he’s rushing over to the downed SEIU guy? Because that guy gets right back up and is walking around throughout the rest of the video. Did he get some sort of delayed-onset injury, where you can walk around, chat with a cameraman, flag down the cops, and speak just fine on Fox News the next day, but then the day after that you can hardly move?

  • Gladney is the *skinny* black guy wearing a tan polo shirt; the one that purple-shirt-blue-jeans-hat on the right throws to the ground again at about 0:05, while the camera guy is trying to get what the heck is up.

    Can’t see who you think is rushing over, because you can see Gladney being pulled to his feet (and swaying) by the guy who looks like retired military, the one that directs a lady to pick up the button-boards.

    The fat guy in the purple shirt is the one that called him a n****r and first attacked him, if I understand it correctly– he’s on the ground because folks pulled him off Gladney. (and if that’s an attempt to kick, they suck– cheap shot would be dead easy there)

    I’m wondering– have you ever been hurt? It often takes at least five minutes after an attack before you realize how hurt you are. I know that when I got bucked off and dislocated my shoulder, I didn’t know it was damaged until I couldn’t lift it to climb the fence.

    Unless you’re going to claim that the hospital treated him for imaginary injuries….

  • Update on the guy mistaken for Gladney:
    Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer – now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 – and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the Green Party.

    He’s…kind of known for nutty behavior, since he accused the mayor of setting fire to his/church/Green campaign van….

  • Pingback: Who are the Real Brownshirts? « Right Sided American Kafir
  • Pingback: Obamaville Shanty Towns: Tent Cities Sprouting Up Across America « The American Catholic

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

Tuesday, August 4, AD 2009

Ah, it does my heart good to see Senator Arlen Specter (D.Pa) and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services exposed to the verbal anger of the public!  Now why is that?

Well as to Snarlin’ Arlen, he was for decades a pro-abort Republican and now is a pro-abort Democrat.  My reaction when he jumped parties earlier this year was good riddance.  He jumped parties of course because he was an almost certain loser to pro-life Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.  The hilarious thing is that Specter will face a Democrat primary challenge from Congressman Joe Sestak who announced his candidacy yesterday.  If he survives the primary challenge he faces an up-hill fight against Toomey.  In a Quinnipiac poll on July 22, Specter leads Toomey by a single percentage point 45%-44%.  This is a devastating poll for an incumbent facing a well-known challenger.

As for Sebelius, she is a fanatic pro-abort, as I detailed here, and a close political ally of the late Tiller the Killer.  Just before her confirmation it came out that she had received three times the donations from Tiller than she had claimed.    Of course this is only the tip of a large ice berg of campaign funds that Tiller used to aid Sebelius as this letter here from Tiller indicates.  Her ties to Tiller were outlined by Bob Novak last year here. When confronted about Tiller she was always in full ” Tiller?” mode:

Yep, I can watch these two being booed with a fine enjoyment!  Schadenfreude?  Indeed!

Continue reading...

36 Responses to It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

  • I too take some comfort in knowing the likes of Specter and Sebelius are being challenged. However, my real delight was in the substance of those two clips from the town hall meeting. They demonstrate the common sense of the common man, and the futility of trying to stump it. The common man may not be slick or sophisticated like those who desire to lord over them, but he is far wiser because he chooses to deal with reality rather than delude himself.

  • Agreed Rick. This was the classic case of two con artists suddenly learning to their dismay that “the marks” of their con weren’t quite the rubes they thought!

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

  • I’m confused… Your theory is that Donald will burn down the administration and then get himself elected chancellor of the US in a tight three way election?

    Or is it some sort of vague aspersion that although the Democrats may be bad, the Republicans are infinitely worse?

  • It’s funny that MZ is getting his “talking points” from a website where the main contributor (Marshall) in 2005 openly stated that the social security reform package should be “demagogued” to death. So now it’s four years later and suddenly the left is upset about passionate rhetoric and instilling fear as a method of squashing reform. Convenient.

  • That being said, the comparison to Hitler in this context is revolting, but it’s MZ so it’s not surprising that he said something intentionally inflammatory. His hair shirt has to be chafing.

  • I could be wrong, but didn’t M.Z. vote for Obama?

    Also remember that when people start comparing Republicans or Conservatives to anything Nazi or Hitler, that’s a strong indication that they are losing (or have lost) the argument.

  • Oh, I get it… The point is supposed to be that the booing is orchestrated and therefore doesn’t count. (And the Nazis are simply thrown in for extra rhetorical spice.)

    Of course, the booing could be orchestrated. These things happen. Goodness knowns, given the much greater preponderance of bored students on the liberal side of the aisle we’ve been dealing with this for decades. But given that support for the health plan has dropped solidly in the polls, it’s hardly surprising if adverse reactions are seen regardless of whether they’re orchestrated or not.

  • Does that mean we can call liberals communists when they use the same tactics?

  • I thought that’s how you say communist in American?

  • We have no idea whether or not the lady in the audience who spoke up was there to be a disruption or was there due to her own concern. Nothing in what she said would indicate that she was trying to be a trouble maker – unless of course, one considers challenging the wisdom of the ruling elite as being such.

    Oddly enough it was Specter’s own words, voluntarily given, that were damning. Anyone who thinks it is good or appropriate to ram through legislation of such magnitude without studying what effects it may have or to do it so it can’t be scrutinized really has no business making such decisions. Alas, I know we elected them, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to keep them in check.

    Personally, I’m suspect of any decision made by someone who would classify abortion as health care. Even if the proposed reform was mostly a good and workable idea, I’d be against it because of the inclusion of abortion. One absolute mandate of the justification of the state is to defend innocent life – not take it. While the state has a duty to the common good, properly understood, forcing people to buy health insurance and creating alternative insurance organizations is not mandatory – especially when the state considers abortion health care and a right and starving the infirm to be a private matter. These moral and intellectual faults make for horrible foundation to build “health care” upon. It is easy to see how euthanasia and the disabled could easily become marginalized by these people.

  • Hey, what ever happened to dissent being patriotic?

  • Phillip,

    It’s ok to dissent if you’re an extremist liberal. It’s not ok if you’re an ordinary American.

  • I encourage people on the Left to engage in the fantasy that these eruptions of citizen rage taking place at townhall meetings are simply the work of some grand right-wing conspiracy. Reassure yourselves that all is well, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are on the right course, and that there is absolutely no chance that in 2010 angry voters will be clambering over each other to register their displeasure at the polls.

  • I seem to remember that just last week at VN they were claiming that conspiracy theories are a characteristic of the right but not the left. Huh.

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

    It’s a bit early in the day for the sauce, MZ.

  • Art Deco,

    M.Z.’s a teetoler, he drinks only Kool-Ade.

  • Donald,

    There is absolutely no chance of any change™ occurring in 2010.

    For example, ACORN at this time are combing cemetery’s to register new voters in order to prevent change™ from happening.

    They’ve even began discrediting Tea Party protesters as ‘right-wing-tea-baggers’ with Janeane Garofalo leading the cheers.

    What next? Cow-towing to dictatorships that imprison innocent Americans such as the two journalists in North Korea or the three hikers in Iran? So we can be sensitive to our enemies, but damn American voters for voicing their disagreement with government run health care?

  • It was a stupid comment, but let’s not go overboard on the inside baseball jibes.

  • I’m actually enjoying all the comments. True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

  • Darwin,

    This gentleman’s explanation you may find more persuasive.

  • Consider it community organizing.

  • True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

    We know, MZ. All those uppity people speaking back to their superiors. They should know better.

  • MZ,

    Not really.

    All,

    My apologies. Resume pummelling.

  • On a side note, I’m amused that some on the progressive side are claiming to be shocked (shocked!) that criticisms voiced at “town hall meetings” are not sufficiently learned from their point of view.

    Does anyone really imagine that getting a bunch of random voters to ask politicians questions about a complex and contentious topic will produce learned questions — or answers for that matter? “Town hall” meetings to discuss anything other than how to run a local town are unlikely to result in deep analysis from either the citizens or the politicians involved. To get upset that it’s not your pat and simplistic arguments being aired seems odd.

  • Are you pawning yourself off Paul as the everyman?

  • MZ:

    Yes, MZ. Clearly walking by the SEIU headquarters every day on my lunch break is finally getting to me.

  • The rift between the common people and the know-it-all’s widens…

  • From the comment MZ linked to:

    “These town hall shut downs have been orchestrated by the same Washington lobbying firm that was behind the tea parties. I assume those of who who don’t depend on Fox know that by now.”

    I rejoice that such a complete misreading of the current situation is what passes for analysis on the Left. Of course the proposals of Obama and the Democrats in Congress can’t really be unpopular with the public; this all has to be orchestrated by a sinister right wing cabal.

  • Hillary Clinton nailed it over 15 years ago as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” Donald.

    Why people are incapable of making up their own minds without help from “others”.

    Frankly, if this is what the White House offers as an objective analysis, then President Obama is in for a real awakening come 2010.

  • Hmmm Republicans lead by 5 points on the Rasmussen generic Congressional ballot:

    “Support for Republican congressional candidates has risen to its highest level in recent years, giving the GOP a five-point lead over Democrats in the latest Congressional Ballot and stretching the out-of-power party’s lead to six weeks in a row.
    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

    Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead on the ballot for the first few weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and from mid-April through June the two political parties were roughly even. Republicans have held a lead on the ballot since the last week in June, the first time they’d been on top in well over a year.

    Women who have consistently favored Democrats now prefer the GOP by a 40% to 39% margin. Men continue to favor Republicans over Democrats 47% to 36%.

    Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Republicans two-to-one – 43% to 22%.”

    Well Rasmussen must obviously be in the pay of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Of course that doesn’t explain why NPR shows Republicans ahead on their generic Congressional ballot poll by one point. Even the full mooners of the Left will have some difficulty portraying National Public Radio as in any sense right-wing.

    There is a long way to go of course until November 2010, but this is a crucial time for recruiting candidates and raising war chests, and this type of news gives a big boost to the GOP and a big problem for the Democrats.

  • Oh, I’m sure Toomey’s campaign manager danced a jig around the office when he (or she) saw that clip. PA voters are going to see the sound bite helpfully provided by Arlen “I don’t actually read the bills” Spector over and over in the fall.

    Look, in your own personal life you know you’re a darn fool if you don’t bother to read important documents you put your name to, whether they’re mortgages, leases, wills, insurance policies or what have you. Every responsible adult understands that what’s in the fine print might come back to bite you. And yet we have the surreal spectacle of our lawmakers pushing for a momentous change – and yet they haven’t even read the bill (or else it hasn’t been written yet, so they don’t know the specifics.) And yet we’re just supposed to trust them to do the right thing? This is ridiculous.

  • Pingback: Sebelius and Specter Respond « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi, Are Senior Citizens “Well Dressed Nazi’s”? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: We Are Americans, Not Europeans « The American Catholic

Congress Feeling the Heat

Sunday, August 2, AD 2009

town-hall-2

Hattip to Instapundit. Democrat Congress beings are reporting here that they are encountering angry constituents at their townhall meetings.  Now why would their constituents be so angry?

red-ink

Oh yeah.

There is a political storm brewing in this country of immense proportions.  If some members of Congress aren’t aware of it yet, they will be after they return from the August recess.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Congress Feeling the Heat

  • I’m sorry that the storm is brewing up over the cost of the proposal rather than over some of the specifics in it. No matter how the proposed program is funded, it seems likely that “universal health care” will make abortion available without restriction or cost throughout America in the near future. In fact, I understand that is the upshot of the Capps amendment included in the version that just came out of committee in the House. Sadly, an increasingly number of Catholic commentators (at America, Commonweal, and Vox Nova, among others) seem to agree that the only possible curb on abortion in the future will have come in the form of increased social services for women who decide against it.

  • The news is overwhelmingly bad and getting worse… But the recession is almost over according to the White House and controlling the deficit is the Administrations #1 concern once the “economy is on track.”

    What is it about the commonsense approach to fiscal responsibility that Washington thinks doesn’t apply?

    I’m not saying that this is “simple” but only that some basic principles strongly recommend themselves:

    1) Stop digging the hole. If you are in debt, don’t contract more debt and suspend the growth on contracted debts by renegotiating where you can.

    2) Shed unused assets, particularly those that have ancillary costs, and apply the recovered cash to the debts with the highest effective cost.

    3) Suspend gifts and donations that are absolutely necessary. This is to say that the 3rd World will have to do without us for a while as we get the economy back on track. Sure it will hurt but it will hurt a lot less than bankrupting the only large-scale donor on the planet.

    4) Reduce taxes where it will have a real positive impact on spending.

    5) Reduce or eliminate taxes on business income for small businesses.

    I am sure there are lots of other choices that people much smarter than me would make. However, the Vice President sounds insane when he suggests that the best way to avoid national bankruptcy is to continue to feed the growing debt. I am equally certain that those statements are utterly incompatible with the President’s assertion that reducing America’s debt is critical to the nation’s sustained prosperity.

    In short, were the Legislature or the Executive Branches serious about the economy, they would not be extending unemployment benefits, contemplating new social programs, or offering $4,500 to Americans to give a short-term spike to the auto markets. These are the acts of persons who have thrown in the towel, the acts which, if done by a person rather than a government, would be a pre-curser to filing for Bankruptcy, not one who expected to avoid it.

  • Ron, don’t underestimate the anger being generated about abortions being funded. Just last week I was approached by a fairly apolitical acquaintance who told me he was livid about the prospect of National Health Care paying for abortions. Paying for abortions has always been a 70-30 split with 70% of the country against using any government funds to pay for abortions. The CongressCritters will be hearing a lot on this issue during the recess.

  • According to the Politico article — if I read it correctly — all the anger seems to be directed at Democratic Congresscritters. Surely Republicans are hearing the same concerns as well?

  • Are you referring to the staged protests occurring, many of which are manned by bussed in operatives?

  • No Mr. DeFrancisis these are not Acorn style faked protests that the Left has specialized in for decades in this country. This is the rage felt by the public against the woeful incompetence of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress. However, please do your best to convince yourself and your colleagues on the Left that these are staged protests and that they have nothing to worry about in the 2010 elections.

  • Mr. DeFrancisis,

    My wife and I attended a Tea Party in June. Neither of us had been to a protest before.

    While there, we ran into many people from our places of work, our church, and our children’s schools. None of them had ever been to a protest before either.

    I make no prediction as to the effect of such protests since the Speaker and the President are hell bent on dragging our country into this no matter what we say or do. However, my personal experience suggests that they have sparked a visceral response that will not easily be set aside. The fantasy that this is all a conspiracy – some sort of a plot by business – is laughable at best and utterly corrupt at worst.

    Where was all of this skepticism of protests during the Bush years? Where was the indignation at the suggestion that our President was a liar, the Congress a bunch of corrupt lackeys, and our nation a bunch of sheep?

    No… Those struggling to defend the lies of the Obama Administration and of Pelosi’s Congress are a hypocritical lot, concerned more with maintaining political power than doing what is good for our country.

  • What must really be causing cognitive dissonance on the left is the fact that these tea parties are not only growing, they’re also taking place in blue states like New York. If they were limited to the South and rural areas, the liberals could continue to snicker and sneer about rednecks and sore losers. But there have been tea parties in deep blue states, in places like Long Island and (fittingly) Boston. Lefties see that and conclude that these people must have been bussed in from somewhere else because it’s unthinkable that anyone in Long Island could be possibly upset about government spending.

    There were a lot of anti-war protests in my neighborhood back in the day (2003-2008. There’s still a war on and things are heating up in Afghanistan and yet, amazingly, I haven’t seen a single anti-war protest this summer. Hmmmm, what could possibly be different?) So I know what a professional protestor – a leftist cause junkie – looks like. These tea party folks are amateurish by comparison – no Move On folks passing out slick manufactured signs.

    P.J. O’Rourke once noted that normally lefty marches and rallies are far bigger than conservative protests because “we have jobs.” When Mrs. Jones the store manager and Mr. Smith the surgical tech get angry enough to take off from work so they can go to a rally holding a homemade cardboard sign – well, if I were on the Left, that would make me very uneasy indeed.

  • Pingback: Pelosi, Are Senior Citizens “Well Dressed Nazi’s”? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Why the Fiscal Lunacy? « The American Catholic