Iran Attacks Mourners at a Cemetary

Not content with murdering Neda Agha Soltan, the Iranian government banned holding a memorial for her and for other protesters murdered by the Iranian government. A memorial was held anyway despite the ban and people were beaten up by the police.



Meanwhile, Obama still thinks he can negotiate with these murderers who have a history of lying to protect it's development of nuclear weapons.

Health Care Reform

I listened to much of Obama's so called press conference last night. How can they call it a press conference, when the press is hardly involved? Any question that Obama gets, he carries on for ten minutes until nobody has any idea what the question was in the first place. On top of that, he hardly ever answers the question that was actually posed.

The reason he does this is because his health care proposal is going to cost us more money than the current system, and take health care away from the elderly, and give it to the illegal immigrants.

Now, there's no question in my mind that something has to be done about health care in this country. People need to understand, however, that our system is pretty good. So why would we completely blow it up and start down a socialized path? Why not make some minor adjustments? Then, if that doesn't work, it would be way easier to roll it back and try again. Once you go down the socialized path, it would take a generation or more to fix.

I've listed some very basic ideas that I think should be included in health care reform. Most of the ideas involve the free market, give more choice to individuals, and empower doctors to make choices that would be in the best interest of the patient. I also reject the number that Democrats like to throw out that 50 million or so people are uninsured. As I've explained in a previous post, most of those uninsured are illegal aliens, don't want health care insurance, or become covered again within four months. Keeping that in mind, here are some ideals that should be included in any health care reform.

Tort Reform - Doctors pay so much in malpractice insurance. The reason is because they can get sued for just about anything. This would keep doctors from driving up costs by ordering every test under the sun, just to make sure he doesn't get sued, and lower costs because of lower insurance expenses for the doctors. A good starting point for tort reform would be to force the loser to pay for the winner's court expenses. Don't hold your breath on this one. Many democrats in the house and Senate were trial lawyers before running for office.

Stop Fraud and Abuse - Medicare and Medicaid are riddled with fraud and abuse. Some have suggested that 20% of expenditures under these programs are from fraud and abuse. Even if it's only 10%, that still translates into billions of dollars a year. Private companies are much better at stopping abuse, and could be used by the government to help in this area.

Provide the Consumer with more options - At the state level, an insurance exchange could be created that could give consumers an easy way to compare insurance policies, if they choose to buy one. States could also put their own regulations in place to help prevent fraud, abuse, price gouging etc.

Health Savings Accounts - Allow everyone to create a HSA and invest untaxed money in it every year. Employers as a benefit could also contribute to an individual's HSA. The money could be used to pay for medical care if uninsured, or to pay premiums to insurance companies, and then deductibles when receiving health care. I would not be opposed to the government giving a tax credit, as an advance or refundable, to help jump start individual's HSA's

Disaster Insurance - Individual's who don't wish to purchase insurance for every little thing, and would rather pay out of their pocket for their medical expenses, could purchase, for a reasonable price, insurance that would cover them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident.

Encourage Innovation - In both the medical field and the insurance field. Help insurance companies empower the individuals they serve. Reward companies or individual for medical breakthroughs such as curing diseases like Alzheimer's or AIDS.

Transparency - Create a public/private board that can publish and enforce quality and price information.

I'm sure they're more ideas out there that I haven't even thought of. I'm open to those ideas, as long as they give the individual more power in making health care choices, help us become a healthier nation, and limit the influence the government has on us.

Check out the Patients' Choice Act of 2009 for these and other ideas.

House Wants to Limit Free Speech

Bill in the House seeks to make it illegal to be mean to someone on the internet. HR 1966, Sec. 3, Sec 881A says, "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years or both." I can't wait to see how a liberal judge interprets "substantial emotional distress." Free speech is dying int the United States. I know that this would never be considered in the current Congress, but the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Good thing we have a constitutional scholar in the White House who will surely veto any unconstitutional laws. But wait, Obama says that the Constitution is a "living document." Obama resists the temptation of following Justice Scalia's view of the Constitution that we should strictly follow the original understanding of the Constitution. If we follow Obama's practice of ignoring the original intent of the writers of the Constitution, that means the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, that means we can ignore the First Amendment and pass all sorts of crazy laws!

The Future of American Health Care

Steven Crowder explores the future of American health care by looking at Canadian health care. If you like long waits, crappy health care and high taxes then you will love Obamacare.

Obama's "Not Unprecedented" Welcome

Funny video of CNN's Don Lemon asking a leading question designed to get the other reporter to say how Africans worship Obama. Watch Lemon pop in the air as he gets the unexpected answer.

Health Care Bill Outlaws Private Insurance

One of the concerns of those who oppose government run health care is that this will drive private health insurers out of business. After all, as of 2006, 89% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. But don’t worry, honest Obama is here to reassure the public, “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.” In an interview with Diane Sawyer Obama clarified, “I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the health care plans that you provide your employees.' What I can say is that the government is not going to force you to, your employer or you to join a government plan, for example. If you're happy with it, and your employer's happy with it, keep it."

I was actually pleased to hear Obama say that he “can’t pass a law” about something, this is the first sign of his presidency that shows that he believes there is some limit to his power. But the reality is that a public option will drive private insurance companies out of business and it won’t be long before there is a government monopoly over health care. But the liberals in Congress are not taking any chances. Critics of government health care were concerned about the public option driving private insurance companies out of business, they did not think that government health care would actually outlaw private insurance. Investor’s Business Daily found this gem in the health care bill, "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

Yes, you can keep your health care if you already have private health insurance. But if you don’t have private health insurance you won’t be allowed to get it. If you already have private health insurance you will not be allowed the freedom to purchase health insurance from a different company. You can read it for yourself here. It’s found on page 15, and continues onto 16, the section of the bill is titled, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.” The section would be more accurately labeled, “Destroying the Option to Choose Your Coverage.” Investor’s Business Daily writes, “Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.” Obama says the government will not force you to get a government plan, but it seems that forbidding you from buying private insurance is kind of the same thing.

Universal Abortion Coverage

Senator Mikulski, a democrat from Maryland, has added an amendment to the health care bill that would force insurance companies to pay for abortion. Not sure in the Constitution where it gives Congress the authority to force it's citizens to pay for abortions. As if there wasn't enough reasons already to oppose this crappy government health care bill. If Obama has his way then we can be sure that the government will make sure that every mother will have the right to kill her baby whether before or after birth.

Sotomayor Testifies On Tape

Quote of the day by Sony Sotomayor during her opening statement. “In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law.”

Here is a video of her in 2005 saying that laws are made in the courts, then she says that she shouldn’t say that because she is on tape. Then she tells the “we don’t make laws” joke to much laughter.



Is she lying now or then? Could it be that she realizes she is on tape this time? Or did she finally learn what the role of a judge is since 2005. I think that there is probably a judge in the country who learned what a judge’s job is before he was fifty years old. Maybe it would be a good idea to pick a name randomly out of the phone book, odds are that the name chosen would know that judges don’t make laws.

Mumbai Terror Attack Documentary

Below is a video of an excellent documentary on the Mumbai terrorist attacks. I found this at the Infidel Blogger's Alliance. They got it from Vlad Tepes Blog. They got it from the British channel 4. It's really good, but pretty long, I would recommend finding time to watch it.

Link:

The 14th Amendment

Matt and I were at the Tea Party on the 4th of July that was held at the Capitol. When I arrived, there was a young man speaking at the microphone who is one of the many Republicans trying to win the Senate Seat currently held by Bob Bennett.

At one point in his speech, some guy in the crowd was not happy with speaker guy's explanation that the Constitution provides citizenship for those born in the United States. He said something about jurisdiction. Matt then purchased a Constitution for a quarter, because I didn't have mine with me. We looked at the language of the 14th amendment and after a brief discussion, came to the conclusion that speaker guy was right, and crowd guy was wrong.

Upon reading Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny (again, a great book for those who think the government should actually act within the bounds of our founding documents.) I came across the following passage that sheds some light on crowd guy's arguments, and will be the source of reflection for the next few months. On page 154 it reads: "But does the Fourteenth Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that 'all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United states.' This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment's purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were also subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to empower illegal alien parents to confer American citizenship on their own babies merely as a result of their birth in the United States. Foreign visitors and diplomats are not subject to American jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, as are their children, whether they are born in their home country or the United States."

I thought that was a pretty good explanation. As I've said before, Conservatives are interested in the words and context of the Constitution. The context of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to the emancipated slaves, but not the Native Americans, makes me think that the writers didn't intend for any child to become a citizen by virtue of being born here.

However, since I believe in the rule of law, unlike many liberals, I'll have to go with the Supreme Court's interpretation. I haven't done enough homework to know if there is an interpretation or not, I'm assuming that the high court has ruled that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. I think it would serve our country better, however, if we modified that amendment. I don't think someone should have citizenship just because mommy was able to get across the border before giving birth.

When In Doubt, Side With the Dictator

It's taken a while, but I finally have figured out how Obama thinks.

After the fraudulent Iranian election, thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest. Several were killed or injured. Obama didn't say anything to condemn the tyranny going on over there until the domestic pressure got to be too much for even him to control. It was only then that he was "appalled" at what was going on. He said he didn't want to meddle but...

Manuel Zelaya was removed from his post of president of Honduras for essentially ignoring their Constitution and Supreme Court. He is a dictator that fancies himself as a Hugo Chavez type. Ol' Hugo even provided him with the ballots he wanted to use for his unconstitutional referendum. (I really do have an ax to grind with Chavez. I was there when he tried to overthrow the Venezuelan government the first time in 1992, and I've watched as he's taken a once semi free people, and subjected them to an oppressive tyranny. I really feel bad for those I knew over there who have to deal with this kind of non sense.) How would the average American react if he discovered that his president had not only blatantly gone against the Constitution, but then defied the Supreme Court? They would want him gone from office. That is what happened in Honduras with Zelaya. Obama decided it was time to "meddle". Through the State Department, he called it an “attempted coup,” and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power in order to facilitate the “restoration of democratic order.” There is a good article about both of these loser dictators here.

So what's next? Is he going to sit in on a speech where Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, another dictator, blasts the US for 50 minutes? Is he going to accept an anti-American book from Chavez? Either way, when presented with a choice between siding with people who want freedom, and those who would oppress, Obama has been siding with the latter.

I guess all those shady associations that we weren't supposed to pay attention to during the election did mean something after all. Better luck next time, America.