Blog

Category: Politics

Howard Fineman on Election Results

19 May 2010

In his zeal to match libertarianism against the Obama administration (represented by yesterday’s victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s GOP primary for the U.S. Senate), Newsweek’s Obamatron columnist Howard Fineman gets most of his blog post wrong. As I wrote to Mr. Fineman in an e-mail, his post reads more like an internal White House memo. No wonder Newsweek is struggling to survive.

First, he disparagingly asserts that the kooky libertarian Senate candidate is named after Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Wrong, according to the New York Times, hardly her biggest champion; Rand Paul, whose full first name is apparently Randal, is not named for Ayn Rand (source: yesterday’s report in the Times). Howard Fineman goes on to describe Ayn Rand, incorrectly, as a “libertarian” and he implies a philosophical connection, again incorrectly, between the son of Ron Paul and the author of Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and her philosophy, Objectivism, precludes libertarianism, which she denounced during her lifetime in unequivocal terms. It is intellectually and factually dishonest to describe her as a libertarian. Newsweek should post corrections.

Rand Paul, like his libertarian father Ron Paul, is a Christian-influenced “isolationist” and Ayn Rand was an atheist in favor of separation of religion and state who advocated military defense as part of government’s proper function. Fineman, suggesting the White House run against Rand Paul in November’s mid-term elections, admits that he has been struck by what he calls a “collective disdain for the idea of government” during his travels around the country. Is what he found more likely public disdain for government intervention in our lives, not the idea of government as such? There’s a huge difference, but with Howard Fineman declining to let facts get in the way of his ideas for a political campaign, one can never tell. For Ayn Rand’s thoughts on libertarianism, read what she said here.

Walgreens Anticipates ObamaCare

18 March 2010

Health care businesses are already responding to the Obama administration’s ominous plan for government control of health insurance and medicine. Drugstore company Walgreens announced that its pharmacies in the state of Washington will refuse to accept new customers using the government’s state and federally funded Medicaid program. Last year, Walgreens nearly dumped new Medicaid recipients in Delaware. Walgreens withdrawal underscores that the poor and the weakest in society are the first to suffer under government control of the economy.

The drugstore chain’s Washington decision relates to ObamaCare, which would expand Medicaid by at least 15 million people, posing a problem for Walgreens in Washington, where Medicaid drug reimbursement forces drugstores to sell drugs at a loss. In a statement, Walgreens refers to the state’s “continued reduction in reimbursement.” Businesses in Washington are not alone; CNN reports that Georgia companies that cooperate with Medicaid are going out of business. In fact, Medscape reports that, nationwide, doctors are bailing on Medicaid just as the recessed economy is making more Americans dependent on the government program. ObamaCare, if passed by Congress, will increase the burden on businesses and Walgreens knows it. Effective in mid-April, new Medicaid recipients will be rejected at Walgreens (two other pharmacy chains have already stopped) in Washington.

The backlash to ObamaCare has begun.

Last summer, I compared the arguments about health care reform to the battle over slavery. By fall, I observed that “President Obama will do anything to force this morally bankrupt idea into law.” In November, I urged every American to “speak out immediately, repeatedly, and often, and seek to stop this monstrous legislation. If it passes, it will become necessary to coordinate intellectual, economic, and political counterstrikes, such as organized boycotts (of any business or group that supports it), strikes, legal challenges, efforts to repeal, state-by-state opt-out legislation, marches, protests, and other measures, including a demand that any local, state, or federal political candidate take an oath to work to repeal the law as the highest priority. Silence implies consent and now is the time to speak up.”

Four months later, with the federal executive and legislative branches ignoring the nation’s founding principle, individual rights, and threatening the entire country with a fascist medical system, a Constitutional crisis, and events which could lead to outright revolt and secession by individual states of the union, it is not too late to speak up.

On the Brink of Socialized Medicine

16 March 2010

As Barack Obama and his thoroughly corrupt Congressional comrades conspire to pass an historic bill to enact socialized medicine, despite the risk of total economic catastrophe given the nation’s precarious financial condition, FoxNews reports that the President’s latest sob story, an emotionally-driven appeal about a woman in Ohio, is a fraud.

The Leukemia patient, who chose to drop her health insurance after premiums were raised, is apparently eligible for existing government programs. Read about it here. The story reminds me of Winifred Skinner, an old woman in Iowa who was the impetus for then presidential candidates Bush and Gore to propose the largest expansion of socialized medicine for seniors (Medicare) since the program was enacted in 1965 (later, Bush shoved Medicare drug subsidies down our throats by one vote). Click here to read an article I wrote about Skinner and the push to expand Medicare, which was fully supported by conservatives. The fact is that medicine is becoming increasingly costly, as the President argues. As many have pointed out, the cause of the higher costs is government intervention. What we need is more capitalism, not more government control, in medicine and insurance. According to this Democratic Congressional leader, what we’re going to get is a government takeover of both health insurance and medicine (some forecast a vote for Saturday, March 20).

Political Rumor and Reality

22 January 2010

A few afterthoughts on Scott Brown’s upset in Massachusetts: his victory does not kill socialized medicine, which we already have; it merely delays implementation of the latest attempt to fully impose it. Obama, speaking in Ohio today, used the term “fight” 14 times according to MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews, as in “fight’ for a tax on banks that did not take Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) subsidies, banks that did and paid it back, and banks that did and have not paid it back. And, of course, as in “fight” for government-run health care. Already in California, Democrats are advancing a bill for the state to seize control of the Golden State’s medical profession.

And then there is the problem of the Republicans, isn’t there. Beware of Scott Brown’s commitment to promoting capitalism: he refuses to disavow socialized medicine, which he supported when Mitt Romney imposed it on Massachusetts, he advocates banning certain abortions, and he hasn’t said that health care is not a right. But at least he’s part of a trend, attracting secular independents who oppose Obama’s economic agenda like those victorious GOP candidates in New Jersey and Virginia. Brown is a potential threat to the Republican Party’s slate of religious conservatives, Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Jindal, Gingrich, all of whom explicitly seek more government control of the economy and religion. The reality is that Tuesday’s victory in Massachusetts has yet to play out.

The rumor, according to a reliable source, is that Walt Disney Studios chief Robert Iger wants to pull out of Disney, move to the Empire State, and become a United States senator from New York (which could mean he wants to become President of the United States). Iger, who has gone ballistic tearing up what was once Hollywood’s best movie studio, has been dismantling Disney’s independent creative pipeline and stocking up on secondhand material since the economy tanked. He’s ditching the studio’s classic Disney ideals, themes, and stories for generic fare which instantly qualifies him as a politician. Another modern politico, Obama’s belligerently foul-mouthed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is rumored to be gunning for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Power-lusting Emanuel apparently wants to be mayor and seize control of that toddlin’ town. Mayor Emanuel? Senator Iger? President Romney? Anything’s possible in these uncertain times … including socialized medicine and worse.

Republicans Shedding Anti-Gay Positions

21 January 2010

First, Vice President Dick Cheney said same-sex marriage should be left to the states.

Then, Massachusetts’ new Sen. Scott Brown said the same.

Now, the McCain women refuse to be anti-gay, with Sen. John McCain’s wife, Cindy, and his daughter, Meghan, actively opposing California’s Catholic, fundamentalist Christian, and Mormon backed anti-gay ballot proposition, which singled out homosexuals and prohibited them from marriage. Cindy and Meghan McCain are supporting the campaign to overturn that terrible law. In my 1999 interview with the Arizona senator during his 2000 presidential campaign, Sen. McCain steadfastly opposed applying certain rights to gays.

With Obama and the Democrats now the party of the status quo, stubbornly opposing gays in the military, which even former chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican, now supports, and pointedly sanctioning anti-gay Christian crusader Rev. Rick Warren, perhaps the GOP is on its way to becoming the party of separating religion and state while the Dems continue to preach puttingĀ religion in government. I warned that the Obama administration was opposed to the rights of gays last year in this blog post, and pointed out in my movie review of the excellent motion picture, Milk, that it was an elected orthodox Catholic Democrat, not a so-called ‘wingnut’ Republican, that assassinated the San Francisco gay activist.

And it was the late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a Republican not a Democrat, who passionately endorsed individual rights for gays, including allowing gays to serve in the military, before he died. Sen. Goldwater, the party’s 1964 presidential nominee, was also pro-choice on abortion and he opposed mixing religion and state. Apparently, the wife and daughter of the man who holds Goldwater’s seat in the Senate do, too.

From Brooke to Brown

20 January 2010

Yesterday’s historic election in Massachusetts is a repudiation of the entire first year of the Obama administration; its bailouts, its bank tax, its so-called ’stimulus’ package and, above all, its plan for a total government takeover of the health insurance and medical professions. State Senator Scott Brown soundly defeated Attorney General Martha Coakley in what liberal, pro-Obama TV pundit Chris Matthews described as “the biggest political upset of our time.” Matthews added that voters went with the 50-year-old Brown to, in his words, “kill health care reform.”

He’s right and he’s not the only one to notice. Responding to rumors that the Democratic Party plans to delay seating the senator-elect in order to manipulate the legislative process and pass the President’s highly unpopular socialized medicine, Sen. Jim Webb, (D, VA) promptly issued a statement urging the Senate to cease consideration of the controversial bill until the nation’s newest U.S. senator takes his place in Congress. Sen. Webb was joined by liberal House Democrats Barney Frank and Anthony Weiner among others who warned Democrats and the increasingly Manchurian Barack Obama to either postpone such obstructionism or halt ‘health care reform.’

In Massachusetts, according to the Associated Press (AP), more voters showed up at polls than in any non-presidential Massachusetts general election in 20 years. Citing his opposition to Obama’s ‘health care reform’, one 38-year-old registered independent Brown voter told the AP: “I voted for Obama [in 2008] because I wanted change. … I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading.” The Senate seat had been held by John Quincy Adams, who was also an American president, Henry Cabot Lodge, who ran for vice-president on the Republican ticket with presidential contender Richard M. Nixon in 1960, and the late longtime advocate of socialized medicine and 1980 presidential candidate Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy. To her credit, defeated Democrat Coakley, whom Obamautons like Rachel Maddow are already eagerly throwing under the bus, delivered a classy concession speech.

Brown, supported by independents, unhappy Democrats, and Tea Party activists, ran on one central idea and campaign promise: to kill Obama’s “health care reform”. The crowd during his victory speech roared with the cry: “Forty-one! Forty-one! Forty-one!” It means he had better deliver on his promise and lead the charge to stop socialized medicine. But there he stood with former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 presidental candidate Mitt Romney, a moralizing Mormon who forced his conservative Heritage Foundation plan, a carbon copy of Obama’s plan, on the state (Brown supported RomneyCare). Brown also supports Obama’s plan to send more troops to be sacrificed in Afghanistan, seeks a ban on late term abortions, and is thoroughly mixed on favoring individual rights and capitalism. During his victory speech, he did not once mention fighting for man’s rights, free market capitalism, or liberty, and his opposition to ObamaCare is entirely based on practical objections, i.e., that it costs too much, not that it is a violation of rights. Sen.-elect Brown also joked at his daughters’ expense and showed that he has the capacity to be terribly unserious.

In today’s Republican Party, filled with religious conservative presidential wannabes who have all favored government intervention in the economy, FoxNews opportunist Palin, FoxNews Face in the Crowd type Huckabee, Pawlenty, Jindal, Santorum, Romney, and the worst of them, former Speaker Newt Gingrich who single-handedly squandered the 1994 GOP landslide, Brown should fit right in. As long as he votes No on ObamaCare, his election buys the equivalent of a few minutes on the clock before we leap toward dictatorship … and there’s plenty one can do to stop that from happening, as I wrote here. Moreover, Brown’s victory is an undeniably positive sign that President Obama’s agenda is rejected by America’s most liberal voters.

In the meantime, congratulations to the people of Massachusetts, and to their duly elected proxy against the administration’s fascist “health care reform”, Senator-elect Scott Brown. He happens to be the first Republican senator from Massachusetts since the nation’s only black senator not from the corrupt, bankrupt state of Illinois in a hundred years: Edward Brooke. Welcome to Washington, Scott Brown. Stick to opposing government-controlled medicine, stay away from the Heritage Foundation, and get the job done to Kill Obama’s “health care reform” dead.

Make it fast.

Massachusetts Showdown

15 January 2010

The Senate contest between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown has turned into a referendum on the administration’s fascist “health care reform”. Should challenger Brown, a state senator who voted for former Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s fascist “health care reform” for the state, who has declared that he will vote against the President’s health care bill, actually score an upset and defeat Coakley, the state’s Democratic secretary of state has already vowed to defy the election results and take his legally alotted time to delay certifying the election results. This will backfire and further undermine the legitimacy of what is arguably the nation’s worst law (though it isn’t law yet) since slavery. As with the monstrous bill, which is incidentally hugely unpopular, it is independents not the Republican Party driving resistance to Big Government. Stay tuned.

Here Comes (More) Socialized Medicine …

10 November 2009

Amid contentious debate, a divided nation, and widespread opposition, the House of Representatives narrowly approved legislation enacting total government control of the medical profession. The close vote, in which 39 Democrats joined near-unanimous opposition among Republicans (a New Orleans congressman was the only Republican to vote in favor of socialized medicine), was called in the darkness of Saturday night. The historic bill, which I compared to slavery and forecast earlier this year, represents the culmination of the President’s long, never-ending seige against what remains of free market medicine. If this bill is approved by Congress, Americans will be forced to buy what the government defines as “health insurance” at gunpoint, and private medical care as we know it will be forbidden and/or cease to exist. The bill now goes to the United States Senate.

I’ve been writing about health care policy and warning my fellow Americans that we already have government-controlled “health care” and that the idea must be actively opposed and stopped for decades but it is nearly impossible to get people interested in the topic, especially conservatives who accept the moral premise that health care is a right and some Objectivists, who refuse to engage in any form of activism and think politics is utterly beneath them and therefore not worth the expense of effort. If this bill becomes law, which is entirely up to the American public, it will take us irrevocably toward totalitarianism.

In the meantime, every American should speak out immediately, repeatedly, and often, and seek to stop this monstrous legislation. If it passes, it will become necessary to coordinate intellectual, economic, and political counterstrikes, such as organized boycotts (of any business or group that supports it), strikes, legal challenges, efforts to repeal, state-by-state opt-out legislation, marches, protests, and other measures, including a demand that any local, state, or federal political candidate take an oath to work to repeal the law as the highest priority. Silence implies consent and now is the time to speak up. The fact that the nation’s Speaker of the House, who happens to be America’s first female Speaker, and the nation’s supposedly pro-choice president, who favors anti-gay conservative Christians, adopted an anti-abortion provision in their socialized medicine is a sneak preview of what’s to come under government-run “health care”: medical care delivered, financed, and controlled by the state, which means dictatorship…which, in today’s context, means religious dictatorship.

Election 2009

4 November 2009

Tuesday’s election offered a bit of good news for advocates of individual rights.

Independents voted overwhelmingly for Republican gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey in yesterday’s election, according to the Associated Press. The decisive Republican victories, Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey, are likely to be perceived as a rejection of the unprecedented expansion of government intervention in the economy sponsored by President Barack Obama, who campaigned hard for both losing Democratic Party candidates. Obama, who carried both states in last year’s presidential election, has spent most of the year pushing for socialized medicine and, with serious losses in states where the supposedly charismatic leader campaigned, his supposedly inevitable plan for government control of the medical profession is reportedly off track, with the Senate’s chief Democrat suggesting that it may not pass this year.

While both new Republican governors-elect are apparently anti-abortion, and, therefore, anti-individual rights and consequently not credible advocates of capitalism, neither McDonnell nor Christie apparently campaigned as conservatives that would mix religion and state, as previous Republicans and, recently, Democrats have done. In fact, the only major, high-profile candidate to run on a conservative platform, anti-gay, anti-abortion Doug Hoffman in upstate New York, who was widely expected to win, lost in a stunning upset by the Democrat after a pro-welfare state Republican had been driven out of the race. Hoffman had been endorsed by nearly every conservative advocate of mixing religion and government, including Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

To the extent one can take any reading from the election, it is possibly a rejection of both today’s economic fascism by President Obama and the Democrats and the religious government proposed by conservatives and the Republicans … which could be a warning to all politicians that anyone who supports increased government intervention in business (such as Obama’s “health care reform”) and personal affairs, such as banning abortion, risks being fired by the people.

Patriotic Parents Pull Kids from School over Presidential Address

3 September 2009

In the wake of news that the President of the United States will deliver a speech urging government control of medicine, a growing number of parents are planning to pull their children from government-controlled schools on Tuesday, September 8, when the President delivers another speech. The White House announced some time ago that President Barack Obama’s address to primary education students would be carried live to the nation’s government schools, with government-established lesson plans, one of which originally assigned students to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” Obama’s speech will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon ET on Sept. 8.

Not to my kids, many Americans are saying.

“Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out,” Associated Press (AP) reports. Government school districts are apparently responding to the opposition. A district near Houston, Texas, plans to show the American president’s speech but, in the words of its spokeswoman, “we would not force them to listen.”

Gee, thanks. This is another example of the Obama administration’s determination to use every available means to indoctrinate the nation’s youth, as the Bush administration did to promote similar expansion of government controls, and use propaganda. This time, patriotic Americans are speaking up, taking action, and actively opposing the government’s rules.

Good for their kids and good for America. We need such principled acts of opposition to government control of our lives more desperately than ever. In fact, the Republican Party, which is dominated by those who would implement government control for God or Judeo-Christianity, should learn a lesson from the patriotic parents. The Grand Old Party (GOP) would be wise to repudiate its religionism, stand united for inalienable individual rights (which inherently means the right to an abortion), and unanimously walk out of President Obama’s socialized medicine speech to Congress the following night.