whose statement opposing Obamacare is a breath of fresh air compared to the sellout AMA.

that their system sucks.  This video is a must-watch.



No surprise to me, since I lived in Detroit for 9 years, and saw firsthand how Canadians would pour across the border to get care at Henry Ford Medican Center or Beaumont Hospital. No one in their right mind would want this kind of system. Those who suffer MOST under it are those who can afford nothing else. In the U.S., if you're poor, you get care, and you can't pay for it. Under socialized medicine, you pay for it, and you don't get care

This one is real comic genius.

You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't ya, hon?  *yawn*  Here we go again - I don't understand the writer or I hate the fact that she's right, so I'll throw dull, unimaginative and false accusations at her to deflect from that.  (She's 47 and she singlehandedly brought down GM!  She hates unions despite the fact that she worked in downtown Detroit and proudly drove an American car!  Let's ignore her family's immigrant history and working class background!)

But since you were nevertheless kind enough to make my point for me (albeit unwittingly - unsurprisingly, given the lack of raw material on that score), I'll spell it out for you.

YOU ARE RIGHT.  At least about the part where paying for everyone's health care killed GM.  (Though I would argue that that was one of a number of wounds - poorly designed cars, top-heavy bureaucracy - any one of which probably would have been fatal, the sum total of which certainly was.

Paying for everyone's "health care" will - to use your term - be the "coup de grace" for the U.S. government as well.  Governments fail, too, Jack honey.  Read a little history sometime.  And this one's teetering.  And then who you gonna elevate your failed business model to?  The European Union?  The United Federation of Planets?

Your collectivist wet dream has failed everywhere it has been tried.  People hate it, and DON'T want it - once they know what it is, which is why foreigners who can come HERE for care (I lived in Detroit, remember?  I know all about the Canadians coming over to the Henry Ford and Beaumont Hospitals for care) why your Anointed One has to lie about it, and why it is ALWAYS accompanied by oppressive regulations and regimes.

Want to know what nationalized health care will mean?  Ask the Native Americans.

And while you're at it, if the communized health care system Obama and his Kronies in Kongress want is so great, why don't you ask Congress why they'll be exempt from participating in it?

Great article about GM here.  As I say whenever I speak to groups about entrepreneurship and public policy, a failed business model, taken larger, will still fail.  But the failure will be even more catastrophic.  We threw $50 billion at GM, and it still went into bankruptcy.  When the  "new" GM fails - and it will, because the people running it (translation: the Obama admistration) know nothing about running a company - it will not just be GM employees, bondholders and shareholders who lose.  The American public will then be the losers.

And so this will go for every single company and industry that Obama nationalizes, over-regulates, or otherwise controls.

Running a company is not "community organizing."  It is not running a campaign for election.  Or re-election.  Obama is incapable of running a company, much less an industry.  He deserves to lose his job in 2012.  If we cannot persuade our senators and congressmen to give him nothing more, then they must all lose their jobs as well.  Sooner, rather than later.

This is as good as it gets.  Effing brilliant.  David Kahane is often funny, but he really nails it in a sobering piece this time.

Here.  It doesn't get any clearer than this.

... or does Sanford's Argentian hottie look like a younger version of his wife (with thicker eyebrows)?

Just a couple of weeks ago, late-night comic David Letterman continued the media’s incomprehensible hatefest on Sarah Palin. (Incomprehensible at least in part because her ticket lost; for a losing VP candidate, she has remarkable and unprecedented staying power.) Part of his schtick that night included calling her a “slutty flight attendant.”

Of all the pots and kettles I have ever seen, having a member of the media/entertainment establishment call anyone else a $lut is at the top of the list.

But Letterman, for whatever else you can say about him, is an entertainer and a comedian. He is not a news personality. (Nor does he pretend to be, unlike some comedians.)

ABC, however, does purport to be a purveyor of news. So it is incredibly unfunny and profoundly disturbing that the network will be broadcasting what will be little more than an elaborate all-day informercial for Obama’s plan to socialize the entire American health care system. In a story broken by the Drudge Report last week, it was revealed that ABC would be hosting a primetime special, “Prescription for America,” broadcast from the East Room of the White House this evening. Ok, fine. But Charlie Gibson will also be anchoring World News from the Blue Room in the White House. And this is in addition to an interview with the President on “Good Morning America,” and with Michelle Obama later in the day. (It is so bad that a number of commentators have rechristened ABC the “All Barack Channel.”)

Even for a media so slavishly adoring of Obama that their coverage of him seems more like a sex act, this is a new low.

Republicans were stunned at these blatantly partisan efforts by a news organization. Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay sent a written request to ABC News, asking to participate, present opposing viewpoints and alternatives to “Obamacare.” ABC News refused. From that, you know all you need to. But the response of ABC News’ Senior Vice President Kerry Smith is just as revealing. He said:

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Like, duhhhhh. I’m sorry, but isn’t that precisely the point? We know you’ll be controlling the content and handpicking the shills in the audience.

And so does Barack Obama, who is no doubt thrilled with ABC’s “complete editorial control.” At this week’s Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama got a big laugh when he joked, “A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning trying to figure out exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn't get back to sleep, I rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he thought.” If the President himself admits you’re in bed with him, it’s hard to argue the point. 

The more ABC scrambles to defend itself against accusations of bias and currying favor, the more obvious the travesty becomes. And a travesty it is, indeed. The press is the only non-governmental institution that is specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution understood how vitally important it was for a free people to have a free press; one unfettered, uncensored, and uncontrolled by government. One utterly devoted to uncovering and exposing the truth. It is a mark of how spoiled, selfish and unforgivably ignorant our media have become that they have abandoned this sacred duty to the public, and cast all semblance of neutrality aside to give this President (or any political leader, for that matter) the kind of obsequious uncritical coverage that would give Ahmadinejad a tingle up his leg.

It is particularly heinous that this event comes even as we watch the trickle of information – that would be real news for those of you who have forgotten – seep out from Iran via Twitter and crude cellphone cameras, disseminated by an oppressed people who do not enjoy any of the freedoms we have – including a free press – and who are facing retaliation, imprisonment, injury, and death to keep the world informed about what is really going on there.

The bravery of these “amateur” reporters makes the cowardice and sycophancy of our Pravda press more than an embarrassment; it is a moral outrage.

On the other hand, there is some good news. Apparently, the ratings slide that the TV news shows have felt is continuing apace. So perhaps not that many people will watch after all. Or, perhaps – even better – they will, and that will seal the existing network news’ fates for good. 

Either way, we still won’t respect them in the morning.

this, then he is truly too dangerous to be President.  Just the latest in Victor Davis Hanson's excellent series of recent articles.

Obama is a bully, a coward and a weakling. He is a bully because he uses political power where he cannot use reason and persuasion.  (Poor Inspector General Walpin.)  He is a coward and a weakling because he will not take a position on the revolts in Iran.  He won't take a position, because he doesn't have a position.  No one expects him to sabre-rattle - or wants to go in to Iran.  It's not about threats, it's about standing up for the rights of the Iranian people.

Great article.  But if Obama stood up and said that Walpin dematerialized before his eyes, the press would slavishly report that as if it were truth.

Hans is deluding himself if he thinks the Pravda press will hold Obama accountable for anything.

Ugh.  Yeah, and Ahmedinejad has been a great dictator, too.  I voted for him (the better of two bad choices), but only McCain would say something so stupid as ,"Obama's successes in Congress have come with little or no Republican support."

Ya think?  Those of us who would like to support whatever shred of conservatism is still present in Congress do not want Republican "support" for Obama's legislative initiatives.

This kind of RINO nonsense is what has cost Republicans elections in 2006 and 2008.  Time for McCain to retire.  His presidential campaign proved it.  Or maybe he can just become a Democrat like Arlen Spector.

 On this annual holiday, we typically celebrate the men who gave us life, loved us, raised us, cared for us, instructed us. In that spirit, I wanted to honor the men whose vision, passion and courage gave us our country, and whose timeless wisdom should still be a beacon today. 

Much is written about Americans’ freedoms of speech, of association, of religion. But it is unpopular these days to extol the virtues of commerce. Our current President seems to regard businessmen and woman as the only criminals left in a system otherwise populated with the deprived, the discriminated against, or the simply misunderstood. Too few people today see the relationship between liberty, individual responsibility, and prosperity. But our first President, George Washington, understood it: “A people... who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.”

It has always been amazing to me - and never more so than now - how many Americans mistrust business - which consists of people with money - yet repose total confidence in government - which is people with money and guns. No one has ever put a gun to someone’s head and forced them to buy a box of cereal. (Although you’d think they had, given the FDA’s recently announced War on Cheerios; that’s a subject for another column.) But governments have put guns to people's heads for as long as there have been guns.  (And before that, they used other methods.) 100 million people died in the 20^th century under Communism alone. Other forms of government (monarchy comes to mind) have killed millions more.

It is not that heads of corporations cannot be corrupt. Of course they can be. Or that you cannot find instances of abuse of power in business. Of course you can. But those who point to these abuses fail to draw the larger lessons from them. People who loathe, resent and mistrust business seem to conclude that the species of human ensconced in government is somehow different than that which drives business.

History refutes this illusion over and over again. Human beings, when given power over others, tend to oppress, enslave and/or kill them. The more power they have, the more murderously inclined they are.  Why? Because humans tend to assume that they are right, and that everyone should do what they dictate. Most of us cannot act on those assumptions – thank God. Those who can are always in a position threatening to the rest of us.

The drafters of our nation's foundational documents had studied history, and they understood the human tendency to oppress others when given power. (That would be all humans; not just those running multinational corporations.)   Alexander Hamilton said, “A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.” James Madison builds on this understanding, saying, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” And so our government was set up to be limited, so that we would not be dependent upon the whim, personality or individual ethics of the person - or people - in office. Madison writes in Federalist Paper #58: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

The system the Founding Fathers created was one of restrained government and individual liberty. But liberty means the freedom to make mistakes. And it comes with a price - consequences. You smoke? You may get cancer. You sleep around? You’ll get STDs. You gamble? You lose money. You have children out of wedlock? You have a far greater chance of being poor. Freedom without personal responsibility is not liberty, but license, and is democracy’s downfall. John Adams wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Pillaging business and attacking individual prosperity in the name of “protecting the less fortunate” are nothing new. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791, “[W]e still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.”

There is an obligation to help the less fortunate, including those whose sorrow and circumstances are the product of their own poor decisions. But it is a moral obligation, and cannot be made a legal one without consequences even more dire than leaving them to their fate.

The reason that government cannot protect everyone from the consequences of all their choices, or give people everything they want, is because it is impossible. And the pursuit of the impossible by those powerful enough to attempt it notwithstanding has always been a prescription for widespread misery. Among the most miserable are those who become dependent upon government. Thomas Jefferson understood that these poor souls are easy prey for the power-hungry, writing, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

The pervasive lie that forcibly taking from the productive will benefit those who are not, not only destroys prosperity, it rewards sloth, irresponsibility, and even criminality. The Founding Fathers understood this. We have thought ourselves their betters, and are reaping the consequences of this deliberate ignorance today.

President Obama wrote a poignant essay for Father’s Day, in which he acknowledged the immeasurable loss of his own father, and bemoaned the time he has spent away from his daughters. He also said, wisely, “I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.” Both Barack and Michelle Obama seem to be adoring, responsible and deeply committed parents – role models for all Americans, but particularly for the African-American community, which has seen its family structure decimated by government handouts. The sponsors and supporters of these programs had the best of intentions, but by separating irresponsible behavior from its consequences, they encouraged it, allowed it to spread, and helped cultivate a culture of irresponsibility, sexual promiscuity, and now multiple generations of fatherless children. Inspiring these children to behave differently from that which they have seen and known will be a monumental challenge. It is not insurmountable. But it is clear at this point that more of the same will not succeed.

As is so often the case with President Obama, his Father’s Day speech sounds wonderful, but the reality of what he proposes is far different. All the social programs in the world cannot substitute for individual responsibility. There is no amount of money that can compensate for its lack. All the prosperous citizens and all the thriving businesses cannot fund it. Any government program ignoring these realities will be doomed to fail, and any tax system set up to support it will be insatiable. It will doom the American system of prosperity with it.

Would that our current President heed the words of our Founding Fathers as he composes his own. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”

(With special thanks to marksquotes.com.)

There are a lot of hardworking people trying to get news out to the American public.  But the real stories are being spiked, buried, killed.  So I am going to do my bit. 

Here is a recent story from a former ACORN insider - she was part of the story that the New York Times refused to cover.