Only a Liberal…

The following is one side of an argument I had with a supporter of federal govt run health care who thinks Wall Street is evil…

535 greedy, evil Wall Street SOBs each run their own insurance company. Greedy SOB #1 is named… Bernie. Bernie charges his customers $200 extra dollars per month over the market price for health insurance.

Greedy SOB #2 decides “You know what… I can steal all of Bernie’s business if I only charge $150 extra dollars per month. Ill steal all his market share, and still make a killing.”

Greedy SOB #3 says, “I’m only going to charge $100 extra.”
Greedy SOB #4 says, “I’m only going to charge $50 extra.”
Greedy SOB #5 says, “I’m going to charge market price.” But at market price, Greedy SOB #5 refuses to pay any claim, taking the money, filling in his hot tub with it, and rolling around on it in his mansion.
Greedy SOB #6 says, “I’m going to charge market price, and only deny half of the legitimate claims that come in. I’ll steal all of SOB #5’s market share. Muwahahaha.”

Bernie says, “I’m going to charge market price and pay for EVERY legitimate claim. I’ll steal all those greedy SOBs market share, and still make a profit.”

Greedy SOBs 2-6 go out of business… OR they follow suit and stay in business… maybe.

535 greedy SOBs, by the forces of competition are thus FORCED to provide consumers with the service they demand. They want to screw you… their very nature wants to steal every stinking penny from you. But they can’t. Their greed in fact lowers the price of insurance, increases the quality of service in the never ending pursuit to steal every last customer from their competition.

NOW… take those same 535 GREEDY WALL STREET SOBs and put them in charge of Congress. I ask you…

1. WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY EVER REDUCE COSTS AND INCREASE THE VALUE OF THEIR SERVICES WITH NO COMPETITION?
2. Which death panel is going to kill more people? The one on Wall Street or the on in Congress?
3. Why would anyone spend billions of dollars researching a cure for cancer with ZERO profit incentive?

You seem to think altruism will make the world a better place, despite all evidence to the contrary. I am perplexed by many people who will willingly hand over power to one political party and then get angry when that power is inevitably passed to the party they hate.

Perhaps you think the threat of elections will serve the same purpose as competition.The problem there is both people running for that office will do EXACTLY the same thing.

We’re stuck with bad politicians for 2-6 years. Bad corporations that mistreat their customers can go out of business OVERNIGHT.

Rand Paul, in a politically stupid move, told the world that he disagreed with the part of the Civil Rights Act that required private businesses to serve everyone. Democrats have chosen to purposely avoid his point and brand him a racist. While I think his choice of words and his inability to verbalize his position were terrible, Rand Paul is absolutely correct.

Paul is not right because black people should be refused service by private businesses. What a stupid policy to have… I can just see the rednecks of America lining up their foot in the site of their guns. Judging a person based on the pigment of their skin is so stupid I can’t get my head around it.

Everyone keeps portraying Rand Paul as saying white people should be able to refuse service to black people if they want to. He is also saying that black people should be able to refuse service to white people, or brown people, or any combination you wish. It has nothing to do with approving of racism. It has to do with accepting the premise that the government should have ANYTHING to say about what a private business chooses to do. It has to do with making an exception to the first amendment.

Michael Steele even got in on the action of criticizing Paul, I assume to distance the Republican party from him, while still defending him.

Let me be absolutely clear: if it weren’t for that part of the Civil Rights Act, we likely would not be as “racially mature” in America as we are now. Americans who had misconceptions about one race or another now know they were wrong. I agree that it achieved a few good things, but the problem with justifying the law with “it did one good thing” will ruin us all, because politicians will use that rationale to pass anything and everything they see as “helping” us. I am glad it was passed, but the notion that repealing that part of the CRA would bring back segregated lunch counters is absurd.

What would happen if it was repealed?

If that portion of the civil rights act was repealed, here is what would happen: really racist business owners, if there are any left, would post signs saying “I’m a racist, don’t spend you money here and come destroy my property.” I paraphrased of course, but you see the problem. In the vast majority of areas in this country, there is ABSOLUTELY no need for that section of the Civil Rights Act. The people would police it themselves. Not only would those owners go out of business, but they would likely have their business property destroyed as well as their residential property if the rejected patrons could determine where it was. Other businesses would take ALL their patrons in and succeed at a much higher rate than the racist businesses.

Now most or all of you when I said “really racist business owners” likely pictured a white person… if so, perhaps we’re not as racially mature as I thought. I would argue that if this portion of the civil rights act were repealed, you would mostly see non-white business owners exercising their right to free speech. And they would get away with it.

Any white person that attempted to reject black or brown people would not only lose the business of black and brown people, but the business of white people who disapprove of such ignorant racist stupidity, and they’d probably end up in the hospital as well. Black and brown people who did this would be excused as some sort of misguided moral “reparations” for some convoluted past crimes against other people that look like them.

Liberal politicians, rather than engage Rand Paul on the issue he is bringing up, decided to take the opportunity to paint him and all Republicans as racists. The Democrats rely on keeping black and brown people working on their political plantation forever by framing the political world as only giving non-whites one option: the Democrat Party. The fact is Liberals in both parties are infinitely more racist than the Conservatives are. They treat non-white people like impotent children that have to be attached to the federal umbilical cord to survive. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

I find the continued race debates in this country to be ridiculously ignorant and insultingly condescending to non-whites. Liberals spend their days giving losers of all colors excuses for failing. In 2010, no one fails because of the color of their skin or a crime committed against a person they never met by a person they never met. People of every color, gender, and whatever other irrelevant characteristic you want to cite have reached the heights of success and fame in this country despite all the fake obstacles Liberals would have you believe exist. Liberals scream about those obstacles because it causes a substantial number of people to think they “care” more than their political opponents. All they care about it your vote. Stop giving it to them.

I used the words white, black and brown because they are the most predominantly used terms to describe certain ethnicities in this country. I wish I never had to use them, because they are stupid. Especially for people who are mixed color, like myself and the president. Not to mention all black people refer to themselves as African-Americans, whether their ancestors were enslaved or not. I think hyphenated Americans should be scoffed at in the first place, but if Obama is going to use that hyphen, it should be Kenyan-American. Africa is a continent… his father is from Kenya.

Rand Paul may have committed political suicide because he chose to start a debate that can be easily spun to paint him as a racist for people who don’t pay enough attention. The fact of the matter is even if the encroachment on the first amendment has noble intentions, it paves the road to others encroachment upon the first amendment with ignoble intentions. (Read fairness doctrine)

I take no credit for investigative journalism in encountering this scoop. A coworker of mine, over lunch with 8 people said their spouse, who works for Senator Barbara Boxer, doesn’t think they’ll still be with the Boxer team after November.

I have no poll statistics to back this up. I have no signed affidavit. Just the loose lips of a stressed out coworker.

From Pajamas Media… an interesting analysis of the branding of Barack Obama… this is wonderful exercise for the brain.
The Power and Danger of Iconography

I find it particularly interesting that Obama uses his own logo more than the exclusive Presidential seal.

Every few years, some liberal mentions the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced. (Wikipedia)

All points of view are welcome on the various media, so the fairness doctrine simply conflicts with the First Amendment. The reason liberals want the Fairness Doctrine is because conservative talk radio and Fox News are so effective at attacking their policies. They want to shut conservatives up.

When Joe Wilson yells out “You lie” in a joint session of Congress during a speech by President Obama, the left wants him punished severely, censured, whatever they can do. When Alan Grayson says Republicans’ health care plan is for Americans to die quickly, the right wants him punished the same way. So what’s the difference?

While the left would do anything they can to shut Wilson up, most on the right would elect to give lunatics like Alan Grayson their own radio show. The reason the left wants Wilson to shut up is because while he was rude, he was 100% accurate, as I covered in another post. I am a political libertarian, but when it comes to free speech, I’m a right-wing nut. When it comes to the truth about issues, I tend to side with the right, mainly because their policies don’t infringe on my freedoms nearly as much as the policies of the left. Republican politicians have reacted to Grayson for political reasons, but they don’t want to shut him up.

Shut up, unless you agree with me

The left wants to shut Rush up. They want to shut Hannity up. They say they’re liars, right-wing extremists. On the other hand, Rush and Hannity don’t want to shut up their competition. Give Alan Grayson his own show, PLEASE, they would say. Here’s a headline from Limbaugh’s web site:

Don’t apologize, Grayson. Please keep talking.

Hannity constantly offers to have any leftist on his show. He welcomes it. What a stark contrast! If Rush and Hannity were spouting as much nonsense as the left would have you believe, why wouldn’t they want him to continue? If Rush is ostensibly “destroying” the Republican party, why wouldn’t liberals celebrate this? Because he isn’t. He’s destroying the Democrat party.

Rush wishes  Grayson, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, and any other nutjob on the left had their own show. Why? Because their lies and racism and other nonsense only helps the causes Rush supports.

Back to Alan Grayson

If Republicans actually wanted Americans to die quickly, and there was evidence in a bill they had proposed that they supported quick deaths, Grayson’s statements would be extremely effective, and would hurt the right-wing. His statements were so ridiculous that all they did was hurt Democrats. While I despise Hannity’s sycophancy of the American military, and other partisan stuff he does, I have to wholeheartedly agree with him on free speech being 100% free (save yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.).

If liberals want to continue believing that conservative talk radio just spouts lies all day to succeed, observe the career of Alan Grayson over the next few years and see where fallacious hyperbole gets you. Conservative “hate” speech succeeds as a business because its generally accurate. If leftist liberals dislike this, start telling the truth more, and Air America will succeed. I welcome their potential future success.

Just broke on Fox News… the prostitute scandal appears to have finally ended the insanity.

Keith Olbermann presents a convincing case that Joe Wilson was just flat-out wrong when he accused the President of lying in his address to Congress. Wrong in his incivility towards the Commander in Chief, but also wrong in his facts. I found that hard to believe. Let’s find out.

Olbermann cites in this video (go to 3:30 in video) on his show Countdown that H.R. 3200 Section 246 explicitly prevents illegal aliens from receiving health care. (You can see the bill and this section at the bottom of the post)

Sec. 246. No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens.

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

After viewing this, I thought, “Wow, Olbermann’s right. It says no payment for undocumented aliens.” So I watched it again.

Oops

Do you see Olbermann’s mistake? It took me a couple views. I’ll show you again with bold…

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

Well that’s odd? Why not say “Nothing in this bill”? Why isolate it to the “subtitle”?

Section 246 falls under Subtitle C: Individual Affordability Credits. I am still trying to determine exactly how inclusive these credits are, but there are multiple divisions, titles and subtitles. There are 51 subtitles total, and only one has a provision for not allowing payments to “individuals who are not lawfully present in the U.S.”

Other subtitles shall allow coverage for illegals

So if nothing in Section 246 of Title II Subtitle C “shall allow” payments for these credits, what is to stop other subtitles from “allowing” payments? Absolutely nothing. Other subtitles include “Standards guaranteeing access to essential benefits,” “Governance,” and “Public Health Insurance Option.” Keith Olbermann is being lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

Olbermann puts the fake nail in Joe Wilson’s non-existent “coffin”:

You got it wrong! There is no ambiguity. There is no disagreement. The bill says those here illegally will not be covered.

No, Keith, it does not. Coverage to illegals is only forbidden in 1 out of 51 subtitles. You got it wrong!

On top of all that, Mr. Olbermann, even if Section 246  of Subtitle C covered the entire bill, the bill has no provisions for enforcement.

As Rep. John Boehner pointed out, Republicans attempted to apply Section 246’s restriction to the entire bill with an amendment explicitly banning coverage for illegal aliens. The committee headed by Democrats voted it down. I am unaware whether the amendment addressed enforcement or not.

President Obama, Rep. Wilson was correct.

You lie

You are lying about coverage for illegal aliens.

While one could argue yelling in the middle of your speech was inappropriate, he broke no law, and its certainly not the first time a negative noise has been made by an elected official during a Presidential address.

And that, along with saying Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda and the KKK, is why Keith Olbermann gets less viewers than 10 Fox News programs, including Shephard Smith TWICE.

Text of HR3200

Subtitle C

Fox News- “James O’Keefe, a 25-year-old independent filmmaker, posed as a pimp with a 20-year-old woman named “Kenya” who posed as a prostitute while visiting ACORN’s office in Baltimore. The couple told ACORN staffers they wanted to secure housing where the woman could continue to maintain a prostitution business.”

You can view the video from O’Keefe at BigGovernment.com. Here is a good edited version… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYU9PamIZk

More from the Fox article…

The “pimp” later says that he and “Kenya” plan to bring up to 13 “very young” girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. Although an ACORN staffer points out their plans are illegal, she also suggests that the girls can be claimed as dependents.

“What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?” the pimp says.

“If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway,” the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. “It’s illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don’t give up no information you’re not asked.”

ACORN will be counting heads in the 2010 census. An organization whose primary function appears to be causing trouble and where at least one office doesn’t even blink when a pimp comes in asking how to deal with the tax implications of underage prostitutes will be charged with honestly reporting on the population for the purpose of determining how many representatives there will be in Washington.

Helluva job, James O’Keefe. Helluva job.

John Holdren is the Science and Technology adviser to President Obama.. one of his many czars. In an interview he gave in 2007 in the virtual reality “Second Life” game, he said this:

I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous. (watch video at Hotair.com)

I suppose pointing out that one of Obama’s czars believe in redistribution of wealth isn’t that damning, considering Obama himself already admitted that in his exchange with Joe the Plumber.

Forced abortions and sterilization

I actually brought him up for much worse comments, like supporting forced abortions and sterilizations to control overpopulation. You can’t make this stuff up. From Fox News:

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

Holdren co-authored a book in 1977 called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. That is the source Fox News is talking about.  You can view scanned portions of the book here.

It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

So he co-authored a book recommending forced abortion. Here’s a sterilization quote:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control…To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements.

Dr. Holdren, there is no situation where that is “acceptable.” Zombietime.com has a ton of quotes from this book that all fit the same ideological mold.

Dr. Sterilize in charge of billions of federal dollars

Its hard to pinpoint how much in federal funds Dr. Holdren is in charge of allocating, but its billions according to the website for his department.

Does that worry anyone?

Denial

Of course in the typical liberal fashion, Holdren’s office denies all of it.

“Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth,” the statement said.

Dr. Holdren, YES YOU DID. Then his office clarified…

“Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake.”

If he never supported such things, why mention that something happened 30 years ago? I’m fairly certain 30 years ago is not “never.” If he “never” said something, then no one could “strain to conclude” anything from a book he co-authored.

‘Willing suspension of disbelief’

How often do you suppose someone puts their name on the cover of a book they so strongly disagree with? If he “never” agreed with sterilization, perhaps he said so immediately after the release of the book. If he had, perhaps his office would be citing the non-existent 1978 interview where he said he disagreed with sterilization and forced abortions. They didn’t cite it, because it never happened.

I am amazed at the number of politicians or their appointees who still operate in a pre-internet world of misinformation. They think they can say something and then literally deny they said it in the face of concrete evidence that they did.

So how many more kooks does Obama get to be friends with before a majority of Americans accepts he might be one too? Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Van Jones, John Holdren, etc. Why does he hang out with such radicals if he’s such a moderate?

I highly recommend the following video…

The American Form of Government

It explains the spectrum of government, from monarchy to anarchy, with great clarity. The spectrum ranges from lots of centralized government control to zero control.

Monarchy-Oligarchy-Democracy-Republic-Anarchy

The main focus is the differences between a Republic and a Democracy, and why a Democracy is inferior. Democracies can make slavery of one race into law, while a true Republic cannot. America was founded as a Republic (the Constitution does not mention the word democracy at all), but unfortunately the electorate’s ignorance of the difference has led to many democratic policies.

For instance, any entitlement program where money is taken from the rich and given to the poor in unconstitutional in a pure republic, but thanks to democracy, a majority of people can vote themselves other people’s money. A democracy can decide with a majority vote to do anything, while a Republic restricts a tyrannical majority from doing unlawful things.

A Democracy is rule by majority, while a Republic is rule by law. This is fundamental to understanding why so many people are just plain wrong when they cite polling data as justification for legal action. A Republic recognizes that the majority, or EVERYONE, can be wrong, while a Democracy does not. A Democracy can vote itself free health care while a Republic says the government is not allowed to control such an important freedom.

I recognize that in many ways we are a Democracy, but the point is we are not supposed to be. We are supposed to be a Republic, and the day we move back in that direction will be a great one.