Category Archives: Opinion

YOUR DOCTOR’S POSITION on OBAMACARE

What’s your doctor’s opinion of Obamacare?  Most doctors are tight-lipped with patients who ask where the doctor stands on Obamacare.  With political issues are as tense as they are today, any discussion has the potential of becoming a contentious one.  Doctors are there to heal, not to open wounds.  So we must look elsewhere for the answer to the question and we find your doctor’s opinion is decidedly negative.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was for more than 160 years the primary organization representing the interests of physicians in America.  It is the medical association most often quoted by the media.  The AMA supports Obamacare.  Doctors are leaving the AMA in droves.  Fully 47% cited their reason for discontinuing their membership was the association’s support for Obamacare.  After the exodus, only 17% of doctors practicing in America continue as members.  Now that’s a statement!

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) does take a haircut out of reimbursements to physicians for services rendered to Medicare and Medicaid patients.  But to say that this is the only reason for their opposition to the Obama/Pelosi plan would be to indict the whole fraternity of physicians as unable to keep their priorities straight.  Such is simply not the case.

Sally Pipes, writing for Forbes:

More than three times as many doctors believe that the quality of American health care will “deteriorate” rather than “improve” under ObamaCare.  Nine of ten physicians think ObamaCare will have a negative impact on their profession.

Another gripe is that nothing in ObamaCare addresses the problem of defensive medicine that physicians feel forced to do as protection against frivolous lawsuits.  There is no tort reform in the new law.  Physicians are there to heal, not to practice law.  They do not like putting their patients through procedures for legal reasons, procedures they would not do for health reasons.

So now you know.  Unless your doctor is one of a small minority, he has a very negative view of Obamacare.  But he will be slow to tell you that.

CORPORATE, VIOLENT and HUFFY PEOPLE

Around the blogs

If Corporations Aren’t People, How Can They Be Greedy?
Mitt Romney has taken a lot of flak from the general press for his statement that corporations are people.  John Hinderaker responds:

The managers who run any company have a fiduciary duty to try to maximize returns for their company’s owners–that is to say, profits. If a company’s executives decided not to be “greedy,” but rather to operate their company at a break-even level so as to avoid profit, they would be violating their legal duties and would be subject to shareholder lawsuits.

Is this “greed?” Of course not. It is progress. Do liberals really want the rest of us to be lazy; to be uncompetitive; to squelch change; to be inefficient and to pass the costs of that inefficiency on to our customers? Well, yes, actually, they do–just as the federal government passes the costs of its inefficiency on to its customers, the taxpayers.

Violence is Coming
Andrew Breitbart explains why he thinks that violence will be coming from the Occupy movement. The rhetoric anticipates violence. Many videos made at the protests attest to that.

All Huffy, Joe Biden Stands By Rape Reference to GOP
A reporter from Human Events asked Joe Biden about his comments that the number of sexual assaults would increase if Republicans don’t sign on to Barack Obama’s jobs proposal.  Slow Joe went ballistic.  The Bidens of this world are not accustomed to being questioned by the press about their nonsense

OCCUPY OAKLAND – THE MOST TELLING

This is a powerful video.  If you still have questions in your mind on what the Occupy movement is about, this is the video will remove all doubt.

The existence of sizable groups of people embracing the beliefs expressed in the video is not a new phenomenon.  As Stanley Kurtz explains in his book  RADICAL-IN-CHIEF, Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, this is the world Obama chose in his youth.  The question is did he ever leave it?  His actions as President are consistent with the notion he did not.

PERSONAL REPORT from OCCUPIED WALL ST

The OCCUPIED WALL STREET JOURNAL

Once every year, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) joins with the St John’s University School of Law to host a triathlon where senior law students compete in a series of mock negotiations, mediations and arbitrations.  This year I was asked by FINRA to serve as a judge.  It takes place on a week end and the dress code is specified as business casual.  Every student wore a suit and tie.  Every suit was black.  But for the lack of sun glasses the event could have been mistaken as a gathering of U.S. Secret Service men and women.

The competition takes place in lower Manhattan, just a short walk from Zucotti Park, better known locally by its former name, Liberty Square.  This, of course, is the camp grounds of the people who call themselves the 99 and Occupy Wall Street.  With a 2 hour lunch break, you know what I did.  Two blocks up to Broadway, hang a right, walk past St Paul’s Church and there it is, Zucotti Park.  St Paul’s, by the way, was opened in 1766 and bills itself as Manhattan’s oldest public building in continuous use – a place where George Washington worshiped and where 911 recovery workers received around-the-clock care.

A march had started and was coming up Broadway from the park.  A motley, but not too motley crew was holding the usual signs, “BANKS ARE OUR ENEMY NOT IRAN”.  “WE ARE THE 99”, AND ‘FREE PALESTINE” were about as offensive as they got.  There were no Nazi signs, no call for blood and almost no profanity, but they weren’t Tea Party types either.  The marchers looked more like a roster of the perpetually unemployed and perpetually protesting types.  They stood in stark contrast to the triathlon competitors just a few blocks away.

I asked a marcher for a copy of  The Occupied Wall Street Journal.  As he handed it to me he wanted me to know it was the official paper of the movement.  I folded it and tucked it away for future reading.  When I reached the corner of Viscotti Park there was an official looking man sitting at an official looking table with a sign – INFORMATION.  The man was about 40, clean-shaven and respectable looking except for his cap.  Now I’ve seen a lot of grimy caps.  I’ve even worn some, but never like this one.  It looked like he could wring it out and get enough to change the oil in his car; but he probably didn’t have a car.

He had copies of the same newspaper on his table.  I asked if it was the official paper of the movement.  He said “there is no official paper of the movement”.  I asked if there was a connection between Occupy Wall St and the international movement Occupy Together.  He hadn’t heard of Occupy Together.  I asked if his group had a list of their demands.  He answered “No. we are still creating one in the General Assemblies”.

“Where are the General Assemblies held”?  I asked.  “Right here in the corner of the park.  We gather every evening and the people decide by a democratic process what the demands should be.” he replied.  Then he turned away.  I guess he was embarrassed because of his hat.

The “angry mob” doesn’t seem so alarming up and close as they do on the TV news.  They simply are not achievers like the law students.  However they do vote.  They also serve well as a propagandic public relations platoon in a politician’s Army of Useful Idiots.

As long as the country continues to produce law students like those I saw and judged at the triathlon, we as a nation have nothing to fear.  Our greatness is currently under threat. As to the threat “This too, shall pass.”

UPDATE
Please read later posts on the subject of the Occupy movement.  Things are changing very fast, and not for the better.

OCCUPY LA, IT GETS WORSE

When the Tea Party rose on the scene it was no mystery who they were and what they were all about.  Oh, of course there were some who didn’t have a clue.  They were the people about whom we’ve been saying for years “they just don’t get it” and they don’t.  Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  Who are all these people who call themselves Occupiers?  I just don’t get it.

Gradually we are finding out.  At least a few of them are hard line Marxists; at least some of the organizers are.  Los Angeles can be added to Atlanta in the come-the-revolution category.  Here are the videos.  Judge for yourself.

Occupy LA

In this video a young women is leading the group and calling out :”Where’s our bailouts”? Apparently she’s one of the disappointed ones who still have to make their own mortgage payments.  Note the lingo as she speaks; she rails on about infrastructure, healthcare and corporate greed.  “Corporate fat cats have to go”.  Where have you heard that before?  It’s straight out of Obama’s book.  And it’s not just some words he throws out occasionally; it’s a drumbeat he plays in speech after speech. 

“Bloody violence will be necessary and it is coming to achieve our goals, yes a revolution”.  Those may not be the exact words but they are the sum and substance of what the speaker said.  Barack Obama may have no direct connection whatever to the Occupy people, but he held out the welcome sign, opened the door and is holding it for them.  He has given them the words to say and pointed out the enemy he wants them to attack.  Community organizer extraordinaire.  Saul Alinsky must be smiling in his grave.


There have been many claims made recently that Obama is competing with Jimmy Carter for the title of worst president ever.  In reality, there is no competition.  Carter just did a lousy job but he was an American president, whereas Barack Hussein Obama’s administration is, as Pamela Geller declares in her book, A Post American Presidency.

More OCCUPY posts to come.  In the meantime, get a copy of Geller’s book.

 

THE HIDDEN GOP DEBATE

It was the most significant primary debate thus far and may prove to be the deciding debate of the GOP primary campaign.  At least it had that potential had it not been hidden under the basket of a television channel many people can’t receive.  Here’s our list of winners, losers and humorists.

Winner — Mitt Romney
Romney came across more presidential than ever.  There is a refreshing contrast between this man with class and grace and the one now in the White House who has a habit of putting his feet on our furniture in our House.

Second place – Herman Cain
Cain did very well in the debate, but Cain has made one big mistake.  It’s his 999 tax plan.  He makes a good argument for it but it will never fly with the voters.  The fact that it introduces a brand new tax, a federal 9% sales tax is something only a Democrat could love.

Loser – Rick Perry
Perry wasn’t given much air time and when he did speak his responses were weak.

Best humor – Jon Huntsman
Huntsman, (he’s someone from Utah, I think), said he thought Cain’s 9.99 was a pizza price.  It was said and taken in good fun.  At least now Huntsman has name recognition.

Special mention – Michelle Bachman
Bachman gave a superb performance, but it’s too late.  She also gets second place for for humor with her follow up on Huntsman’s 999 poke with her observation that 999 stood on it’s head becomes 666 and the devil is in the details when it comes to Cain’s plan.

Hardest hitting — Newt Gingrich
Gingrich really socked it to them, Washington that is.  There should be a place for him in the government.  It just won’t be as president.

Also ran – Ron Paul
Paul is an anti guy.  He was a bit out of his water by virtue of the rules of the debate restricting the subject matter to the economy and the debt.  He did manage to lay a good and proper lambasting on the Federal Reserve.

Worst of the night – Rick Santorum
Santorum was way below his usual self.  Very disappointing.

Charley Rose of PBS moderated the event.  The format was very different.  No podiums, the candidates all sat at a big round “kitchen table”.  For the last half hour the candidates were not questioned by the moderator.  Instead, they were assigned the task of rebutting each other directly.  The idea worked very well; look for more kitchen tables to come.

OCCUPY ATLANTA Part II

We have our answer to the question of whether or not Occupy Atlanta is a Marxist movement.  Here is second video from the same event where John Lewis was turned away. This is the essence of what the facilitator tells the demonstrators.

We say to those of you who are with us, you may disagree with us and you may leave us.  But you should know that if you leave us you will be joining those who want to kill us.  Remember when the battle comes, you will be on the other side.

Then quoting verbatim:

“I’ll say one more thing, as a Marxist student what I am saying here is not out of my own head.  It is out of the history of the revolutionary movement international”.

For some reason the video would not embed. To play it click on this link.

Now the question becomes, is Occupy Wall Street a Marxist operation like Atlanta?  At this point, it appears they are not.  The Atlanta operation is frightening but less dangerous than it appears.  Their methods are too extreme to gain a wide following.

Now the question becomes, is Occupy Wall Street a Marxist operation like Atlanta?  At this point, it appears they are not. The Atlanta operation is frightening but less dangerous than it appears.  Their methods are too extreme to gain a wide following.

OCCUPY ATLANTA – IS THIS THE FACE OF MARXISM?

No doubt you have seen the video.  Scary, isn’t it.  Raises goose bumps.  The weirdness of it raises many questions as well.  Who are these people?  What’s their agenda?  Are they connected with Occupy Wall St?  If so, then how?  Who was the man at the microphone?  Who was his sidekick in the crowd?  Where are they from?  Are they or are they not a typical Occupy group?  If they are part of the liberal left, why did they deny John Lewis a chance to speak?  Could they be a conservative group?  Why was there a paucity of blacks in the crowd?  Is this or is it not the face of Marxism?

We will try to answer some of these questions.  It is too soon to come to any firm conclusions but it is not too early to examine the evidence.  Let’s ‘go to the tape’

The first thing that we notice is the use of the cultish technique of speak and chant.  The technique accomplishes several things.  It slows down the presentation and allows the speaker to stay in control.  It allows the speaker to lead the crowd in the desired direction and fool the crowd into thinking that the decisions were theirs, and not those of the facilitator.  Chanting mesmerizes the mind, blocking out independent thinking.  Chanting together in a crowd unifies the members creating the impression of universal agreement.

Next we notice the raising of hands in the air.  This gesture is reminiscent of religious practice more common among the more fundamental denominations.  The reason given here for the raising of hands at the demonstration is because clapping prevents people from being heard.  That reason is absurd.  The people were clapping to hear someone speak, not to shut them up.  Nevertheless, the programmed crowd chants the reason back.  With that, they have verbalized agreement with the leader, bypassing individual thought.  And so it goes with decisions on other matters as well.  If someone in the crowd speaks up with an opinion that is contrary to the leader’s position but popular with the crowd, there will be no clapping.

Watching the video, it is abundantly clear from the start that many in the crowd wanted to hear John Lewis.  In fact it certainly appeared like the majority wanted to hear him.  Majority or not, just “many” should be enough unless the minority is to be denied a voice.  There was very positive finger waving in the beginning when the facilitator asked the crowd how they felt about John Lewis.  There was also a lot of clapping which prompted the facilitator to restrict any more of that.  Nevertheless, the leader and his sidekick in the crowd were successful in maneuvering the people to get behind them and deny John Lewis the opportunity to speak.

Exactly why the organizers didn’t want Lewis to speak remains a puzzle.

In case you are wondering, the facilitator was asking what the block or blocks have said, not what the blogs have said.  He used the term block to mean the Occupy group.  At the end the repeated chant was “mic is dead”, meaning Lewis will not be given a live microphone to speak.

Now play the video again to see how much you agree with the assessment given here.

TO BE CONTINUED

AROUND the BLOGS. HUNGER, POVERTY and a MACHEAVELLIAN PRESIDENT

Thomas Sowell had this and more to say about the Hunger Hoax.  “The Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets.”  What’s wrong with the Republican politicians?  Why don’t they counter with this kind of evidence and expose the Democrats when they rant about a level of poverty and hunger that doesn’t exist?

[T]he great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air-conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and own either a car or a truck.

Why are such people called “poor”?  Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats.  Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want.

Those who believe in an expansive, nanny state government need a large number of people in “poverty” to justify their programs. They also need a large number of people dependent on government to provide the votes needed to keep the big nanny state going.


David Limbaugh is the mild mannered reverent brother of bombastic irreverent Rush.  Here is what David had to say about our President after listening to Obama’s press conference on October 6th.

Our chief executive either is a mastermind at Machiavellian manipulation or has deep psychological and emotional problems.  I’ve never seen an adult in an important leadership position — especially not the president of the United States — show such frightening immaturity and self-absorption.

Strong language for David, he doesn’t usually talk like Rush.  To see what led him to make that statement, read his entire post here.

OCCUPY WALL STREET, GRASS ROOTS OR ORGANIZED FROM THE START?

Both sides of the media are reporting that the movement known as Occupy Wall Street is a serendipitous event, something that just sprung up naturally from a garden of discontent.  But did it?

On September 17, 2011 a few students sat on the sidewalk in lower Manhattan and called their little protest group Days of Rage (DoR).  Supposedly this was the genesis of the larger movement now known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS).  If OWS was a spontaneous outgrowth from DoR how do you account for the fact that occupywallst.org was registered as a website domain on July 14, 2011, a full two months prior to the first day of the Wall St Days of Rage sit in ?

OWS appears to be a well planned fully orchestrated program in response to the Tea Party.  Make no mistake, OWS is a national operation.  Just days into the launch at the Brooklyn Bridge nearly 900 local community organizations from Florida to the State of Washington are up and running with event dates and websites.

.

Locations of OWS operations

A long list of supporters was posted on the website at www.occupywallst.org on Oct 4th but the page appears to have been taken down.  The SEIU and a NY Local of the American Federation of Teachers were among a list of ten to 15 unions.  MoveOn.org was one of the well known names on the longer list of advocacy groups behind the movement.

OWS is developing as a mirror image of the Tea Party, well dressed non-violent, heavily middle class and united behind a cause.  The Tea Party argues for less intrusive government and for getting federal spending under control.  The Tea Party is a force moving the country to the right.  OWS demonstrates against the rich, against the banks and against the financial foundations of capitalism.  OWS is a force that would move the country to the left.  At this nascent stage they appear to have a great deal of popular support, particularly from the middle class.

Socialist leaders have long known that a large and satisfied middle class is the greatest obstacle to gaining control in a democratic nation as prosperous as the U.S.  As long as the middle class is content with their status they will reject the appropriation and redistribution of their assets that socialism requires, supposedly for the common good.  One answer is force, i.e. violent revolution.  The other, and far better answer, is to foment unrest, build anger to the point where there is widespread dissatisfaction within the middle class.  And then present free markets as the cause and socialism as the cure.  The voters will do the rest.

Anger requires a target.  The rich, the banks and Wall Street suit the bill perfectly.  The rich are a defenseless minority that engender very little sympathy.  All that’s needed is a strong community organizer to set them up as the target, someone with some clout, someone with a bully pulpit.  Enter stage left – Barack Obama.

Saul Alinsky taught that socialism’s path to power is like a three act play.

Act I is join the crowd, gain respect, gain acceptance and legitimacy.
Barack Obama has done that.

Act II is the development of anger and the spreading of discontent to enroll as many supporters as possible for Act III.
By intent or not, Barack Obama is doing that.

Act III is the final wresting of control of the government from the establishment.
Barack Obama won’t be doing that, but it’s not for lack of trying.

There is no way to know the President’s real goal, but if it is the establishment of a socialist state he’s doing everything just right; and that includes Occupy Wall Street.