The Private Sector's Doing Just Fine

Yesterday on national television President Obama announced that "The private sector is doing fine." This wonderful news has come as a great relief to the millions of middle and lower class families facing unemployment, collapsing home values, increased taxes, a stagnant stock market, and crushing national debt. Later in the day, President Obama offered a clarification of his statement in the form of a this stirring ballad, just in time for the annual Country Music Television Music Awards:

-Barry O and the Good News Band-

The private sector's doing just fine.
It was ruined by George Bush but it's much better since '09.
The middle class is feasting on caviar and wine,
'cuz the private sector's doing just fine.

The private sector's strong, as you know,
even if investor confidence is low.
Those bankers are the problem and they really need to go.
I'd love to get my hands on their dough.

Some claim that unemployment's too high.
That's only 'cuz we're lacking jobs and now I'll tell you why.
Republicans would rather that those jobless folk just die,
so I sit here in the White House and cry.

I've got re-election on my mind,
but the economic indicators indicate a bind.
So I'll simply say that things are getting better all the time, that's why
the private sector's doin' fine.

Yes, that Mormon fellow's causing my pearly whites to grind,
but the private sector's doing just fine.
We could use more public spending, let's increase my credit line,
but the private sector's doing just fine.


(All rights reserved.)

Busting out the economy -since 1934

 

1934 Cartoon from Chicago Tribune

"What's past is prologue." -William Shakespeare

Illinois bureaucrats above the law

Abortion foes upset over delay in parental notice law - Chicago Breaking News

What authority does the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation have to "delay the enforcement" of a law that has been upheld in federal court?

This law has been on the books for 14 years. Hasn't it been delayed enough?

President Obama's opponents are violent racists?

Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment - CNN.com

"'I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American,' Carter told 'NBC Nightly News.'"

Does this mean that everyone who has expressed any strong disapproval of the President Obama's policies and actions is motivated by racism?

The CNN article states that Bill Cosby agrees with Jimmy Carter, so it must be true. And Nancy Pelosi warned us yesterday that the president's opponents are inciting violence.

Is there a coordinated effort to silence and discredit the president's political opponents by smearing them as violent racists?

Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?

A few thoughts...

The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.

The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.

Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.

Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:

• The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
  
• Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
  
• Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
  
• The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
  
• Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
  
• Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
  
• Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
  
• The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
  
• Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
  
• And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
  

These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.

White House disables e-tip box

White House disables e-tip box - POLITICO.com

"Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box - flag@whitehouse.gov - that was set up to receive information on "fishy" claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan."

Apparently the White House received more than a small outcry of opposition to its "tip box".

Congress treads upon a dangerous serpent

Column: 'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com

"...These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views - but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

-Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Speaker Pelosi, here are some facts that You seem not to want to acknowledge:

The American people don't trust You, and they don't trust the plan for nationalized health care that Congress is hellbent on ramming down their throats.

Increasingly, Americans are horrified by the federal government's insatiable hunger to dominate the health care industry and other private sector industries. We're appalled that our government has become so insatiable, so overreaching, and so reckless in piling unsustainable debt upon future generations. And now it seems to be shedding any pretense that its members are required to listen to their constituents and represent their concerns. Rather, we are lectured about the predefined goals that Congress "must reach", "despite the disruptions" of a majority of citizens who strongly oppose the plans.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all members of Congress, should take heed. Their actions are causing cries of alarm to sound throughout the nation: the alarm of citizens who see that their government is increasingly out of control, increasingly deaf to their voices, increasingly menacing to the future prosperity and security of the United States. The rising voices have an edge of defiance and patriotic anger that only fools will attempt to dismiss as "manufactured" and "organized". Common cause has organized this uprising, and a domineering government has started the machine which is manufacturing the newly minted resistance.

Continue to tread on us, and we will strike back. We will sweep You from office, we will find new public servants who will share our ideals and represent our concerns. We will find a way to restore democracy and rid government of those bad apples who view public office solely as a path to power and profit.

Press on, Congress, show Yourselves... and discover what mettle still stiffens the spine of the American people.

When government turns ugly

Peggy Noonan: ‘You Are Terrifying Us’ - WSJ.com

To: flag@whitehouse.gov

President Obama,

I call on You to disavow and shut down the flag@whitehouse.gov program, which is so clearly intended to intimidate and stifle voices critical of Your administration.

Until You shut down this program, and for as long as pursue Your nationalized health care plan and other programs harmful to this country, You can expect energetic opposition and loud criticism from me and many others who will not be cowed into silence.

Until then, You can add my name to the Dissidents List.

Sincerely,
John Robin
(address and phone number provided)

Is the White House building an "Enemies List"?

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment - The Note

Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
-ABC News

To: The White House, flag@whitehouse.gov

Subject: Is the White House assembling an "ENEMIES LIST"?

Re: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html

I call upon President Obama to shut down this surveillance program in which citizens are asked to report directly to the White House (flag@whitehouse.gov) when they encounter private communication critical of the president's proposals and policies. Such a program, if it does not directly abridge the right to free expression, at least undermines and threatens this right, because it raises a legitimate concern that one's exercise of free speech, rightly or wrongly interpreted, may result in being counted a member of a government "enemies list", a target for harassment and retaliation.

Even if there is no intention to assemble such a list, the program reasonably can be perceived as a heavy-handed effort to stifle political opposition and intimidate those critical of the government. Is this really the image that President Obama wants to cultivate?

The president should shut down this citizen surveillance program immediately.

Sincerely,
John F. Robin
(address and phone number provided)

Independence Day: why do we celebrate?

U.S. independence from England came at a high price, as did uniting the colonies into one nation. The HBO mini-series "John Adams", based on David McCullough's biography, is a fascinating insight into the life and times of one of the key founding fathers.

We live in momentous times. It's important to be clear about what's important, and what was important to those who devoted their lives to founding our nation.

McCullough's book is excellent. So is the HBO mini-series.

John Adams mini-series

Does prohibition of gay marriage deny the fundamental rights of gays?

Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead

California's voters, not its courts, are the final judges of same-sex couples' right to marry. And even if they're barred from marrying, gays and lesbians are not the victims of unconstitutional discrimination...

The main legal argument by Prop. 8's opponents - two groups of same-sex couples, local governments led by the city of San Francisco, and a collection of civil-rights, gay-rights and feminist organizations - was that the state Constitution contains a 'core guarantee' of equality that limits voters' amendment powers. A minority group's fundamental rights, they argued, should not be subject to repeal by majority vote.

The opponents of Proposition 8 have a point: that a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. Yet for the public to take measures to preserve the ancient, heterosexual institution of marriage does not do anything of the sort.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting heterosexual civil marriage, and among these protections are regulations about who may enter into it with whom. A man may not marry his four year-old son. A woman may not marry her father or brother, or a chimpanzee. A man may not marry a dead woman, or three other women simultaneously. These restrictions do not deny my rights, but promote the good of society by respecting and favoring traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Yes, a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a majority of the people should be forced to tolerate a redefinition of traditional civil marriage to accommodate the demands by a vocal minority, demands which undermine both marriage and weaken society.

And most people in most states oppose redefinition of marriage in this way.

Conservative talk show host banned from U.K.

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

I have heard Michael Savage express many strong opinions, but I have never heard him advocate violence outside of legitimate warfare. For years his mantra has been the preservation of "borders, language, and culture", and has opposed those who desire the hostile overthrow of western culture.

It's ironic that the UK should single out such a talk show host and bar him from entry, in light of the fact that the UK has become increasingly a major producer of radical islamists who espouse violence... one of the very threats which Savage warns against.

Sad and worrisome. Freedom of non-violent speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. In the UK as well as in the USA, this cornerstone is being rapidly eroded by the forces of statism and those who determine that edgy political commentary at odds with state policy must be suppressed.

Gov. Quinn: 'Better to keep Burris than to let the people decide'

Gov. Quinn backs off special Senate election to force Burris' hand | Clout Street - local political coverage

Governor Quinn reveals himself to be very much a 'team player' in the corrupt Chicago democratic machine. Clearly he thinks it's better to let the counterfeit (but democrat) senator Roland Burris remain in office than to risk a special election that may flip the seat to an underdog. With public fury as hot as the sun, who knows? ...even a republican could win.

Governor Quinn, this is not an auspicious way to begin Your partial -and likely only- term as governor.

Obama - buying the presidency with untraceable donations

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

...and the money pours in.

Vote Your conscience

CatholicVote.com

What kind of a Catholic are You?

Obama gaining support from felons, cartoon characters, and the deceased

24,000 Felons Getting Ballots, Despite Eligibility Questions -KIRO Seattle

Mickey Mouse for Obama? -Economist

FBI investigates ACORN for voter fraud -Breitbart

About 200K Ohio voters have records discrepancies -Breitbart

Democrats brush off vote fraud claims -IndyStar

Believe the anger, John

Anger Is Crowd's Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally


"...McCain advisers dismissed the crowd's angry tone as an exception and not representative of most of the campaign's events."

Senator McCain, You should heed that anger and dismiss those advisers who downplay it. Anger and a desire for justice are profound and widespread, and are focused especially upon those in the Congress and executive branch who brought about this economic collapse. I don't think this flash of anger is a fleeting thing that can or should be glossed over. It signals something of greater significance, something that will not dissipate without being addressed.

A sleeping giant has awakened to find his house in shambles, plundered by pirates. He's not likely to be appeased by some token tax cuts while chaos reigns. His fury will drive him neither to rest nor relent until he halts the rape of the nation's wealth, prosecutes the pirates, and restores order to his home.