Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Thursday, September 24, 2015

13 Reasons Carson Is Right To Oppose A Muslim For U.S. President


Once again, the mainstream media's response to a gotcha' question exposes why they are not practicing good journalism.

In response to a question from NBC's Chuck Todd, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson opined that he would not support a Muslim as president of the United States.

From the main stream media reaction you would have thought Carson had used the "N" word or uttered an anti-Semite slur.

The liberal reaction means one of two things. First it could mean that liberals are ignorant of how Muslims practice their religion. This is disturbing, if they actually know so little about Muslims given our war against Islamic jihadists for the past decades. The other option is they are only looking to paint Carson as a bigot  to pull down his favorables. This is contemptible, because journalists are supposed to report the news, not direct it.

Carson knows the truth about Islam.

Thanks to Glen Beck in his best selling It IS About Islam book, the lies about Islam have been clearly revealed.

Lie #1 - "Islam is the religion of peace and Islamic terrorists aren't really Muslims."

Lie #2 - "Islam is not much different than Christianity and Judaism."

Lie #3 - "Jihad is a peaceful, internal struggle, not a war against infidels."

Lie #4 - "Muslims don't actually seek to live under sharia, let alone impose it on others; there are so many interpretations of it anyway."

Lie #5 - "America is safe from sharia law."

Lie #6 - "The Caliphate is a fanciful dream."

Lie #7 - "Islam is tolerant of non-Muslims."

Lie #8 - "Addressing frustration, poverty, and joblessness in the Muslim world -- maybe even climate change -- will end terrorism."

Lie #9 - "Critics of Islam are bigots."

Lie #10 - "Islam respects the rights of women."

Lie #11 - "Iran can be trusted with a nuclear weapon."

Lie #12 - "The Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, mainstream Islamic group."

Lie #13 - "Islam respects freedom of speech."

Sadly, you can find many in the mainstream media that belief and repeat these lies.

Thank goodness Ben Carson is not blind to the truth. A practicing Muslim would be a terrible choice for an American president because his belief system is against the values inherent to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you liked this post and want to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Another President Had Brain Cancer Before Carter


Last week Jimmy Carter announced that he has a melanoma cancer that has metastasized to brain cancer.

Casual students of history may believe that Carter is the first president with a brain cancer diagnosis.

This is not true.

Although not widely know, there is strong evidence that Franklin Roosevelt also had melanoma that turned into brain cancer that killed him.


Franklin Roosevelt enjoyed the outdoors. As a result, it is not unusual that he developed a macule (change in skin color) above his left eye. Photos from the 1920’s show a very light discoloration but it was bigger and darker by the time he became president in 1933. It continued to grow and darken throughout the 1930s. This was a clear sign of melanoma, skin cancer, one of the most deadly forms of cancer.

Patients with melanoma are likely to see the cancer metastasize, especially to the abdomen and later the brain. Among those who die from melanoma, 60% had cancer in the bowels, and 90% have the cancer spread to the brain.

Someone with brain mestastase from melanoma is at high risk for brain hemorrhage.

Steven Lomazow, a board certified neurologist and his coauthor Eric Fettmann wrote a fascinating book in 2009 called FDR's Deadly Secret that makes a strong case the Franklin Roosevelt did not die from an out-of-the-blue brain aneurysm, but rather from a brain hemorrhage due to a brain tumor that grew from it's original melanoma.


Roosevelt in 1939 with lesion clearly visible

According to the book, on January 17, 1940 renowned cancer doctor Reuben Peterson wrote Roosevelt advising him that he should check the lesion over his left eye. Most doctors of the day did not recognize a lesion like Roosevelt's to be evidence of cancerous melanoma. At worst it might be precancerous. Hopefully, Roosevelt's doctors did a biopsy, but there is no record of it (more about that later). What we do know is that they took steps to reduce the size of the lesion. The photographic evidence is clear that beginning in 1940, the lesion was being operated on. For example, right after Roosevelt got Peterson’s letter, he left on a hastily announced cruise on the USS Tuscaloosa. During the voyage, photos where nearly all from the right side, so his left eye was not seen. He also wore sunglasses a lot which he normally did not do. We can guess that Roosevelt’s lesion was being treated, but it was likely already too late.

By early 1940, Franklin Roosevelt’s cancer had metastasized and it was only a matter of time before he would die from his condition.

In May 1941, the president complained of stomach pains and fatigue. Blood tests showed he had lost the equivalent of eight pints of blood at some point in the prior 14 months. His doctor concocted a story about bleeding hemorrhoids, but a better explanation was internal bleeding in his GI tract. While Roosevelt was bedridden in the White House, his press secretary made excuses that he was suffering from a minor intestinal ailment. The treatment, which remained secret from the public, was blood transfusions, at least eight of them through the summer. Lomazow and Fettmann believe they have found circumstantial evidence that the bleeding may have been caused by radiation treatment for prostate cancer. None of this was included in the recent PBS Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts.

By 1942 the lesion above Roosevelt's eye was gone, evidence doctors knew it might lead to skin cancer (and in fact already had).

Roosevelt 1942 with lesion removed.

In September 1943 his cousin Daisy Suckley recorded that Roosevelt was complaining of stomach pain that continued during the Tehran conference in November.

The next medical problem was identified (and acknowledged in the Burns documentary) no later than the spring of 1944 when Roosevelt was diagnosed with an enlarged heart and left ventricular failure. Doctors treated him for hypertensive heart disease.

Not covered in the documentary was doctors continuing to record further episodes of the president's abdominal pain.

Roosevelt ran for a fourth term hiding his significant health problems. A number of people who knew him well did not believe he would last another full term.

During the campaign, a letter to his wife and later recollection of his son James both recorded the president's continued bowel pains. He reported he had no interest in food because he could not taste it. By the time he died he probably weighed less than 150 pounds, a weight loss of at least 35 pounds during his last year.

After the election, people close to the president started noticing the president had periods of listlessness. The authors surmise that these were seizures caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain. This condition was noticed during the important Yalta Conference where Roosevelt met with Churchill and Stalin to make postwar plans. Many people have concluded that being sick, Roosevelt gave up too much to Stalin.

Roosevelt was exhibiting signs of a brain tumor. Perhaps the greatest proof of this was Roosevelt's speech to Congress upon his return from the Soviet Union. Burns documentary mentions the speech and notes that it was one of the few times that Roosevelt publicly referred to his polio condition. Burns did not mention that the speech was a disaster. Roosevelt could not stay on script. He took off on tangents and lost his place in the text, botching many of the words. Reviewing copies of the original speech document, Lomazow and Fettmann noticed a pattern - the parts of the speech where Roosevelt made errors were all on the left side of the page. The president was unable to see the left side of each line of his speech. This is called left hemisanopia, a condition effecting the right posterior portion of the brain that can be caused by brain tumors.

On April 12, 1945, Roosevelt suffered a massive brain hemorrhage and died a few hours later. When the embalmers came to prepare the body, they noticed the stomach was unnaturally distended. There was no autopsy.

Roosevelt's medical records have disappeared. Even when his wife Eleanor requested them 10 years later, she was told they could not be found.

Why did this cover-up happen? Roosevelt considered himself indispensable in a world at war, and many historians would agree. Had Roosevelt's true condition been known to the public, there is no way he would have been re-elected in 1940, much less 1944. After his death there was less reason to hide the truth, except for the fact that it would detract from the heroic myth of FDR, the patron saint of the Democrat Party.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.


Other Fiddling Ant blog posts about FDR:


If you liked this post and want to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Monday, July 20, 2015

The Donald Disses POWs - Dump Trump


Donald Trump made this statement last Saturday regarding Senator John McCain: "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

Trump's latest verbal diarrhea is a slap in the face to the thousands of American servicemen who suffered as prisoners of war. First of all these men stood in harm's way. Then these brave men withstood starvation and torture in captivity. Many died. Does Trump believe these men should have fought to the death in a banzai charge or kamikaze attack instead of being captured so they meet his narrow definition of what a hero is?

Trump is old enough to have served in the Vietnam War. He never volunteered and took steps to avoid the draft. He is the last person to criticize the war record of those who did serve.

On a nearly daily basis Trump displays that he does not have the judgment to be president. Speaking plainly is one thing, speaking plain stupid is something else.


Time to dump Trump.


If you liked this post and want to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Here's Where The Bible Predicted Same Sex Marriage

In Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking to his disciples about the last days preceding his Second Coming. In verse 37 to 39 he says:
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eating and drinking in Bible speak refers to wild drunken behavior. I can understand why Jesus would condemn this. However, in the past I was confused why "marrying and giving in marriage" is lumped in with the wild party lifestyle -- after all, Christians are encouraged to marry and marriage is ordained of God.

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that same sex marriage is the law of the land, the meaning of this scripture is much clearer. Marriage is not the problem. The key word is "They." Who is the "They" that are "marrying and giving in marriage?" It is the people who reject God. The party hardy crowd both in the time of Noah and in the present took it upon themselves to reject traditional marriage and champion same sex marriage.

Christians can read this scripture as the fulfillment of a prophesy. Is America in line for God to come down with a "Cecil B. DeMille style" whopping?

We shall see.


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Seven Things The Foreign Donor Scandal Reveals About Hillary


Peter Schweizer's sobering book Clinton Cash is a devastating revelation of Hillary Clinton's lack of qualifications for the presidency. With 55 pages of small print endnotes, Schweizer's book passes all credibility tests (The New York Times fact checked the correctness of his finding).

Disturbingly, much of the contents of this book are only public knowledge due to leaked information that was meant to stay secret. Read this book and you will receive confirmation of the following:

  1. The Clintons Shamelessly Transact Business with Criminals. In chapter after chapter Schweizer names dozens of criminals who have donated money to the Clintons.
  2. The Clintons Associate with Human Rights Abusers. Despots from countries like Kazakhstan, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo get government favors from the United States thanks to the intervention of Bill and Hillary. In return the Clinton Foundation rakes in big money and Bill gets six figure payments for making speeches.
  3. The Clintons Will Abandon Core Believes for a Big Payoff. The Clintons were against nuclear proliferation until they were for it. What changed? Agents acting on behalf of Indian interests donated big dollars to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees to Bill. Hillary made sure the State Department approved India's increased access to nuclear resources. In Columbia, Hillary got approval for a Clinton Foundation donor to run a lumber operation in an area which had previously banned such activities. So much for being environmentally friendly. Also in Columbia, Hillary flipped from opposing to supporting a free trade agreement when the Clintons got millions from Columbian donors.
  4. The Clintons Will Syphon Away Money Needed in Third World Countries. Both the Clinton Foundation and its donors have benefited from money pulled out of poor countries to line the pockets of the Clintons and their rich friends. Aren't there enough rich people to solicit for donations? Why the need to extract millions from countries lacking the funds to make needed structural improvements?
  5. Secretary Hillary Would Approve Questionable Deals And Bill Would Rack In Related Big Speaking Fees. A Canadian firm needed State Department approval to keep the Keystone XL pipeline project moving forward. Hillary made the approval. Bill earned more than a million dollars from this firm for a series of speeches. In another example, Hillary approved a Swedish firm to sell banned products to Iran. The firm then paid Bill $750,000 for a speech.
  6. The Rules Don't Apply to The Clinton. The Obama administration required that Hillary report any potential conflicts of interest from Clinton Foundation donation and her State Department actions. On multiple occasions the Clintons decided to not report conflicts.
  7. The Clintons Are Incompetent Managers. The Clintons took the lead role in managing the Haitian relief efforts after the 2010 earthquake. Hillary arranged for the relief funds to run through the State Department. Then instead of hiring experienced emergency relief experts, she funneled the money through the Clinton Foundation who assigned contracts to Clinton cronies (including Hillary's brother) with no construction competence. Instead of building much needed housing for an economical price, the relief money lined the pockets of Clinton donors.
The saddest part about the revelations in this book is that they did not end the career of Hillary Clinton. She has destroyed evidence that would provide more information about these questionable actions. The mainstream media refuses to demand she explain her unethical behavior. Incredibly she is the front runner to become the next president.

What a travesty.


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Stage Right Radio Profiles Intelligent Design Play


Thanks to Rocky Benasher for interviewing me yesterday about my play Inherit The Wind: Overturned by Design. on his blogspot talk radio show Stage Right. You can listen to a recording of the interview at:

Stage Right

More about the play here.

If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Obamacare + Conservative Utah = Fiscal Child Abuse


You would think that in conservative Utah, this would be the last place where debt loving politicians would find allies.

Sadly, Utah opinion leaders have no problem in embracing a program that would saddle future generations with massive debt, to the tune of $1.35 trillion in just the next 10 years. (See Table B-1 of the January 2015 Congressional Budget Office's scoring report.)

The CBO numbers clearly show that there are not enough Obamacare revenues to pay for the exchanges, much less the Medicaid expansion. In other words, Obamacare Medicaid expansion is 100% paid for by debt.

The program the Republican governor of Utah wants to use to steal money from future generations is called "Healthy Utah." This program would take federal dollars to provide health insurance to people that don't make enough to qualify for the Obamacare health insurance exchange - the so-called Medicaid Gap.

It has been sold to the public with the message that Utah taxpayers would only pay for 10% of the money spent and the federal government would provide the other 90% of the funds. The Utah governor, the major Utah newspapers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies and opinion polls all support "Healthy Utah."

So far the conservative Utah legislature has rejected "Healthy Utah." The main reason given is that there is no way to control future costs of the program and while paying 10% on the dollar for expanding health insurance for poor people sounds like a good deal, there is no guarantee that this 10% will not grow to the point that it will take money from other state spending needs or require state tax increases. The real problem is the other 90%, which thanks to a perverse form of money laundering, the public remains ignorant that it is totally unpaid for.

We are at a point where the governor and legislative leaders are trying to hammer out a compromise so Utah can get its hands on the federal money. I don't think they are giving enough attention to the debt this will create for the next generation.

Supporters of Healthy Utah argue that the program is needed because a large number of poor people have no access to affordable health care.They say that other states are taking Obamacare money and Utah is missing out. They say Utah is sending federal tax payments to Washington and not getting back our fair share.

It sounds eminently reasonable and anyone opposed to "Healthy Utah" is cold hearted, and lacking in compassion, right? How can we allow people to live without access to affordable health coverage? No wonder polls show majority support for "Healthy Utah."

I think majority support for "Healthy Utah" would evaporate if people were asked this more truthful question:

"Do you support 'Healthy Utah' Medicaid expansion if the federal money used is 100% funded by federal debt which future generations will have to pay back?" or even better, "Is it moral to require future taxpayers to pay for the current health care needs of poor people?"

Some people will say, "It is what it is. We need to embrace the Obamacare program because it is all we have and poor people need help." Fair enough, but we should be the ones paying for, not the next generation.

We are justifiably appalled when we see Baltimore citizens looting stores. How dare they take something without paying for it, even if they need it. Shouldn't we feel the same way about spending money on health care needs of the poor when we are not paying for it? We are literally stealing from future generations. And if we see other states stealing money, does that make it okay for Utah to do it too?

Laurence Kotlikoff, the liberal Massachusetts economist, refers to this modern practice of inter-generational theft as fiscal child abuse. This is a strong term, but an accurate one. How dare we as a society spend money that is not ours, so we don't have to pay for services that benefit us, and then expect our non-voting children and grandchildren to pay the bill?

Who wants to defend fiscal child abuse?

Tragically, the Utah media is not giving the funding source for Obamacare the attention it deserves. If you want to fight fiscal child abuse, please share this information with Utah voters, fiscally responsible citizens, and especially Utah politicians.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Diversity Hypocrisy on Campus


While the values espoused by conservatives include hard work, morality, and thrift, one of the most favorite values of liberals is diversity. Unfortunately, this is often a false value that is rarely actually displayed by liberal institutions. For example, higher education is a bastion of liberal thought where diversity is king (or should I say queen in the interests of diversity).

Sadly, the diversity in action is wildly missing when it comes to diversity of thought. The percentage of liberals teaching or administering at most leading universities can be up to ninety percent or more, hardly evidence of diversity.

You may argue that this is because no conservative wants a career in positions such as theater, women's literature, and queer studies but couldn't the universities at least invite conservatives to speak at graduations? In the interest of diversity, we should expect at least half of the commencement speakers to be conservatives, right?

Here is a list of commencement speakers at the leading U.S. universities for 2014 and 2015. Liberals in blue, conservatives in red.

Ivy League Schools

Brown University - Former San Francisco State University President Robert Corrigan (2015) / Writer Isabel Wilkerson, a former NY Times bureau chief and expert on black migration (2014)

Columbia University - Democrat Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (2015) / Actor and Screenwriter Dan Futterman (2014)

Cornell University - Former Democrat congresswoman Gabby Giffords (2015) / Actor Ed Helm, known for The Office and Hangover. (2014)

Dartmouth College - Sometimes conservative New York Times Columnist David Brooks (2015) / TV Producer Sonda Rhimes, known for Grey's Anatomy, Scandal and President Barack Obama appointed her to serve as a trustee for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts appointed by Barack Obama (2014)

Harvard University - Liberal former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (2015) / Liberal former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (2014)

Princeton University - Director Christopher Nolan (2015) / Former Vice President Al Gore the climate change prophet (2014)

University of Pennsylvania - Samantha Powers, US Ambassador to the United Nations (2015) / Singer John Legend, known for supporting Earth Institute's sustainable development and AIDS Service Center NYC (2014)

Yale University - Vice President Joe Biden (2015) / Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry (2014)

Other Top Line Schools

Duke University - Paul Farmer, CEO, Partners in Health, social justice champion (2015) / General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2014)

John Hopkins University - Pixar President Ed Catmull, Democrat contributor (2015) / YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, Democratic fund raiser (2014)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Megan Smith, CTO of United States appointed by Barack Obama (2015) / Dupont CEO Ellen Kullman, 61% of political donations made to Democrats (2014)

Northwestern University - alumni IBM CEO Virginia Rometty (2015) / Conductor Riccardo Muti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra (2014)

Stanford University - Liberal NBC News correspondent Richard Engel (2015) / Liberal philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates (2014)

Tufts University - Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State (2015) / Anne Marie Slaughter, former Democrat State Department official (2014)

University of California Berkeley - Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, regular Democrat campaign contributor (2015) / Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (2014)

University of Southern California -  Chicago investment fund president and big Democrat campaign donor Mellody Hobson (2015) / Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, regular Democrat campaign contributor (2014)

University of Notre Dame - BBC Chairman Chris Patten, former Conservative member of Parliament (2014 rescheduled to 2015 due to health reasons)

University of Rochester - Education strategist Deborah Bial (founder and president of The Posse Foundation) (2015) / Liberal CNN commentator Chris Matthews (2014)

Wake Forest University - Stephen Colbert, Comedian (2015) / Jill Abramson, executive editor, New York Times (2014)

Williams and Mary - Condoleezza Rice, Bush Secretary of State (2015) / Medal of Honor recipient Sergeant First Class Leroy Petry (2014)

So, out of 20 top schools, only four conservative speakers in the past two years were invited to speak to graduates, only one if you focus on Ivy League schools.

Where is the diversity?

Not at our most prestigious universities.

Liberals seek a diversity of gender, sexual orientation, or skin color, but the last thing they want is a diversity of thinking.


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Monday, May 11, 2015

ObamaCare Winners and Losers


TIME Magazine's Steven Brill did us a great service in writing his book, America's Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System. Brill leans left, but his does not pull any punches in pointing out the significant problems with ObamaCare. Having finished reading the book, I have a better understanding of the winners and losers created by the ObamaCare mess.

WINNERS

1. Trial Lawyers. Brill estimates that at least 5% of medical costs are due to extra defensive medical testing and other excesses related to dealing with ambulance chasers. ObamaCare did nothing to reduce this contributing cost to high health care costs because trial lawyers are big Democrat donors.

2. Drug Companies. Because of heavy contributions to both Republicans and Democrats, congress won't take actions to control the cost of prescription medicines. A proposal to allow people to buy drugs from Canada for significant savings was shot down. A rule that requires Medicare to pay higher than average prices for drugs was also not addressed. As a major buyer of medicines, Medicare should be able to demand significant discounts, just like all insurance companies do, but they are not allowed to in order to protect drug company profits. At one point ObamaCare was structured to favor generic drugs. However, in the final version, Big Pharma was able to get co-pay free drugs approved. This means that a more expensive name brand drug would be picked because it was available without a co-pay - no upfront cost to the customer, but higher costs overall that increases premiums for everyone.

3. Hospitals. For years hospitals have had to absorb losses from serving people in emergency rooms who could not pay their bills. Brill estimates this could be 5% of their revenues. Now that many of these people have insurance, they will be collecting fees from insurance and writing off fewer bad debts, resulting in another new source of income. Hospitals were big ObamaCare supporters because the recognized they would be getting more customers out of the deal, with hardly any change to their billing practices.

3. Lower Middle Class Families. In pre-ObamaCare 21st Century America, many people worked in low paying jobs with no medical coverage. These people went without medical care or used emergency rooms. There is no question these people are big winners. They are getting more access to health care because other people (or future people) are footing the bill.

4. Federal Contractors. Creating heathcare.gov cost hundreds of millions of dollars, even when it didn't work! This was a windfall to the federal contractors who won bids to create the program.

LOSERS

1. Obama's Leadership Reputation. Even rabid Obama supporters can't defend the way the Obama administration botch the creation of healthcare.gov. White House advisers recommended bringing in an experienced high tech business manager to run the operation. Obama instead gave the lead job to a former college professor with no business or tech experience.

2. Secretary Sebelius. Her Health and Human Services job was supposed to have gone to former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a health care reform wonk and Washington insider, but his nomination would not go through. Instead we got cabinet secretary that was clueless to the disastrous ObamaCare rollout. She was pushed out the door once it was clear it would not overly embarrass the president.

3. Democrat Office Holders. The number of Democrats in congress has dropped by 70 and in the senate by 14 since ObamaCare passed. Obama squandered the big lead the nation gave Democrats because they were weary of Bush's wars.

4. Health Care Reformers. All health care experts acknowledge that American health care is too expensive for the results we get for the money spent. Some reformers were naiive and believed that ObamaCare would find ways to reduce costs. That might have been possible with a capable leader, but not easy. What we got, from Mr. Lead-From-Behind, was a program that gives more people access to our expensive system. No wonder Obama got no opposition from doctors, hospitals, and drug companies - ObamaCare gave them all more customers pretty much paying the same rates, with the government footing the bill.

How bad did ObamaCare blow its chance to fix health care? Here is a quote from Confidence Men, by liberal author Ron Suskind where he talks about Dartmouth Method reformer Dr. Jim Weinstein, whose research had found widespread waste and unnecessary procedures throughout the health care industry and was hopeful that ObamaCare would address these obvious problems.  However, special interests squelched any chance at these much needed reforms.

     To spend a ¨once-in-a-generation¨ effort on extending coverage to the uninsured--without any real teeth in using evidence about what was effective in reducing unnecessary procedures, and driving down costs--was a ¨stunning error.¨

     ¨It made things worse,¨ he said solemnly.

     And then he got frustrated. ¨I can´t believe how wrong they got it. This was our one chance, and we completely blew it.¨

5. Future Generations. The biggest loser by far is future generations. Too late to be included in Brill's book, earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office scored ObamaCare and released a report showing that ObamaCare spending is only covered by 1/3 in new ObamaCare revenue. The other 2/3 must be paid for by borrowing, to the tune of over $1 trillion over the next ten years alone.

This means that with ObamaCare we will be spending health care dollars now and expecting our children and grandchildren to pay it back later. Who really wants to defend this funding system?


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Friday, May 1, 2015

Fiddlin' - Hillary Sings Her Champion Song ;)


Hillary Clinton keeps telling people, "I want to be your champion," so let's have her sing it in a song . . .

I Am Your Champion
Sing to the tune of We are the Champions by Queen.

I've paid my dues,
Now it’s my time.
I've dumped my server,
But committed no crime.
And bad mistakes ‒
I've made a few.
I've had my share of sand kicked in my face,
But I've come through.

(BILL: And yet she just goes on and on, and on, and on)

I’ll be your champion, my friends,
And I'll keep obfuscating 'til the end.
I am your champion.
You are just chumps, friends.
I’ll help you losers,
'Cause I am the champion,
Of the world.

I've taken big fees,
And big foreign hauls,
You brought me fame and fortune and everything that goes with it,
I thank you all.

But it's been no bed of roses,
No pleasure cruise.
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race,
And I ain't gonna lose.

(BILL: And yet she just goes on and on, and on, and on)

I’ll be your champion, my friends,
And I'll keep obfuscating 'til the end.
I am your champion.
You are just chumps, friends.
I’ll help you losers,
'Cause I am the champion,
Of the world.

I’ll be your champion, my friends,
And I'll keep campaigning 'til the end.
I am your champion.
You are just chumps, friends.
I’ll help you losers,
'Cause I am the champion.


For an index of all Fiddling Ant parody songs, click here.

If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Monday, April 20, 2015

Oklahoma City Bombing Cover Up - Iraqi Connection


Do you remember where you were 20 years ago on April 19, 1995 when the Murrah Federal Building was brought down by a fertilizer truck bomb?

You may recall initial reports said authorities were looking for two suspects, one white and one dark skinned. Within days this was changed to say that authorities were only looking for a white suspect.

In 2005 investigative journalist Jayna Davis wrote The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, an eye opening book claiming an Iraqi involvement in the tragic bombing.

Davis discovered that federal authorities were aware of the bombing plans prior to the tragedy. They were trying to run a sting. The operation got out of control and when the bomb went off, the feds had to cover their tracks so they would not be implicated. This was a few years after the mishandling of the Waco fiasco and the last thing the feds needed was an even greater mass killing that they had the where-with-all to stop.

On the day of the bombing early witnesses saw a Middle Eastern "John Doe #2" with bomber Tim McViegh. The FBI conducted a cover-up so that this side of the story remained buried. Not only was it embarrassing to the FBI, an Iraqi connection would create an international incident that President Clinton did not want to deal with. America would not react kindly to an attack by Sadam Hussein. It fit the government narrative better to blame the bombing on right wing extremists.

There are numerous disturbing revelations in Davis's book, including the professional cleaning of a suspicious vehicle by the FBI to prevent the discovery of evidence showing the existence of the mysterious Middle Eastern terrorist. Davis interviewed eyewitnesses and their statements to her were much different than what the FBI reported.

Even worse than mourning the loss of 168 innocent lives, is the fact that the government did a shoddy job with the investigation of the bombing and too many questions remain unanswered. Those who only know what has been officially reported don't know that too many facts have been buried or changed.

I'm no 9-11 truther, but the Oklahoma City bombing is one event where the generally accepted account of events is not telling the whole story.

If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Obama Meets Lincoln Joke


One night President Obama is woken up from his sleep by the ghost of George Washington. Figuring that it is a great opportunity to learn from the father of our country, Obama asks him for advise on how he can best serve his fellow Americans.

"Be honorable and honest, as I was," Washington tells Obama.

The next night President Obama is woken up by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson. Obama asks him for advise on how he can best serve his fellow Americans.

"Cut taxes and reduce the size of government, as I did," Jefferson tells Obama.

The next night President Obama is woken up by the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Obama asks him for advise on how he can best serve his fellow Americans.

"Take the night off and go to the theater."


If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Monday, April 13, 2015

Help Mike Lee Stop Fiscal Child Abuse



Mike Lee wants to stop fiscal child abuse and he could use your help.

The term fiscal child abuse was coined by liberal economist Laurence Kotlikoff, to describe the Washington practice of spending money now and running up debts to be paid for by future generations.

Back in 1997, before Balance Budgeting Republican was an oxymoron, Newt Gingrich's congress passed a law to control the increase of Medicare costs. For the past 18 years, congress has regularly passed a "doc fix" bill to increase the rates paid to doctor. The original 1997 law helped keep health care cost inflation in check, but the "doc fix" restored these payments to the health care industry. To restore the payments to the doctors, Congress has had to cut spending elsewhere.

Now a new fix to "doc fix," recently passed by the House with Republican and Democrat support, is going to pay for two-thirds of the cost ($141 billion) by adding it to the debt. Mike Lee thinks this is a bad idea. He wants to pay for this by cutting spending elsewhere. When the bill comes to the Senate this week he is going to propose an amendment to require the $141 billion to be paid by spending cuts elsewhere, instead of another act of fiscal child abuse to add to the $18 trillion already dumped on our children and grandchildren.

Please contact your U.S. senators and ask them to support Mike Lee's amendment to the "doc fix" bill.

Mike Lee gives the details of his idea in this editorial.

If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Friday, March 27, 2015

Dang, Obama Gets One Right


For the past six years it is hard to find anything that Obama has done that deserves the praise of conservatives. Yesterday, he spoke of his support for The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's proposal to end payday loan traps.

It is an embarrassment to conservatives that most of the support for the payday loan industry comes from free marketers and libertarians. They see no problem in shrewd businessman taking advantage of desperate poor people who don't have a grasp of the trap that is set for them when they use these services.

In supporting the need to crackdown on payday loan abuse, the Associated Press reported the story of Wynette Pleas, an Oakland, California single mother of three including a blind son. Pleas borrowed $255 to pay her electric bill and buy groceries. The payday lender got access to her checking account and tried to withdraw money that wasn't there. The overdraft activity resulted in the bank closing her account. Meanwhile, fees and penalties ballooned the $255 debt to an incredible $8,400!

The Pleas story is extreme, but not uncommon. Investigative reporter Gary Rivlin wrote an excellent primer on the payday loan industry in his book, Broke, USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc. - How the Working Poor Became Big Business. The reader will find story after story of how smart businessmen take advantage of poor people with few other options to clean out their limited assets. They tap into their low wage income and repo cars these poor borrowers can ill afford to lose since that takes away their transportation to work. Rivlin's book points out that while some payday loan customers are able to use these services without paying through the nose, the payday loan stores focus on getting clients who have become repeat customers to borrow again and again. It is not uncommon for these customers to pay more than $500 in interest in fees during the year on a $500 loan. Without these high profit clients, the payday stores can't stay in business, even if it ruins the borrowers.

Condemnation of this sleazy industry is not limited to anti-business liberals. Payday lending is illegal in some very conservative states, such as Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Somehow poor people in those states are able to get by without "help" from payday lenders. Federal action to stop this type of fiscal abuse is a good thing. If people can keep more of their own money, they have less need to seek government assistance.

If people don't have a chance to take this "easy" money loan, they will find they have to become better prepared at controlling their income and spending. Yes, greater personal responsibility, a novel thought! 



If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.