tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13056314695823977632024-02-20T08:29:39.199-05:00Orthodox ConservativeAn oasis of wisdom, in this vast desert of fatuity.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-67476680131089250412009-11-13T15:38:00.002-05:002009-11-13T15:44:36.854-05:00Pelosi's House of HorrorWhile many people were at the movies this past Saturday night being scared by Paranormal Activity, Nancy Pelosi was putting on her own scary movie in Washington D.C. Those of you who have seen Paranormal Activity know how scary it was, (and for those of you who have not yet seen it, I highly recommend you do,) and also know that the House passing this bill is much, much scarier. These two frightening ‘bills’ (yes, going to the movies does indeed rack-up a bill these days [I think it is Bush’s fault, but I digress]) are not so different.<br /><br />Paranormal Activity is about a demon who is taking over the lives of a young couple. The demon makes their lives difficult, and uncomfortable. What a coincidence. The Nancy Pelosi House of Horror is not very different. As I have pointed out before, not only would the government having a big stake in the healthcare industry obviously have a large effect on the healthcare we receive, it would also result in the government having a say in every aspect of our lives. What we eat, how much we do, can we smoke (I am not saying smoking is good, as a premed student I really do understand how bad it is, but that does not make it the power of the government to stop me from doing so,) and so on. They will have their hands in all parts of our lives, and it will not be pleasant. All with the claim of ‘we are responsible to make sure you live this way based on how we feel it will effect the costs of healthcare, which we are responsible to keep down.’<br /><br />They will change how our physicians and insurance companies deal with us. It is not possible that they will be cutting Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians, and regulating to a higher level the types of procedures that they are able to do, without it having an effect on the way the doctor manages his whole practice. [On that note, are physicians going to be able to opt out of accepting Medicaid once they see the new low payment system? Would you be surprised if they would not be?] <br /><br />They will be regulating who the insurance companies must cover (pre-existing condition, extending the age one will be covered by the parent plans, to name a few.) This will most definitely have an effect on us. Obama is claiming that the reform and the public option will lower costs? If you are forcing the Insurance companies to take more risks, and cover more people, how could it possibly result in costing less? Because of the increased competition you say? Not everyone will be eligible for the public option, so the insurance companies will be able to continue to charge those clients the same as before. Especially since those who do not want insurance will be forced to purchase a plan anyway and if they are not eligible for the public option this will actually give the insurance companies a free hand to charge them what they please since they will now be forced to have coverage. Bottom line, it is not the job of the government to regulate the healthcare industry, nor do they have a constitutional right to do so. <br /><br />There is however one very big difference between the Paranormal Activity and the House bill. Paranormal Activity cost less than $15,000.00 to produce, but yet as made around $100,000,000.00 so far! I know! The House bill is a little different in this respect. There is no profit to speak of here. In fact, it will cost approximately ten times more than Paranormal Activity made. This is not exactly what I would call a good idea for a country with a national debt of over 1 trillion dollars and growing. The government is not supposed to be spending money on things like this. Yes, I know that they do, and have been for a long time, but that does not make it correct. However, so many people (mostly liberals,) base what they believe the government was set up with the power to do, on what it has done in the past. <br /><br />This is one of the reasons I am so nervous about the government passing a bill of this size. Specifically, since it will be containing the mandate forcing the uninsured to purchase health insurance. It will open up the door for so many other bills of such proportion to be passed, on the grounds that ‘this is what the government does, just look at the healthcare bill.’ And with the mandate, just imagine what that could lead to. Related to healthcare you could see things such as ‘vitamins are good for you, you must purchase them,’ [I should not give them any ideas.] stemming from, ‘look, they did it with healthcare reform.’ Or maybe we will all have to buy Barack Obama’s book? I mean if we do not all buy his book; the government will have to buy it for us, right?<br /><br />Of course, let’s not forget how wrong it is in its own right for the government to have such a big hand in our healthcare system. As I have said before, there is no reference to this in the Constitution, (although I fear that no longer matters). We can not afford this right now, and even if we could there is no reason for it to be done in a way that will affect the whole country. If we had a large surplus, and taxes were at a nice low rate for all, and the government chose to set up some clinics for low income families I would have no problem with that. But when it is a system that will affect the level of everyone in the country’s healthcare, and put mandates on individuals and businesses, all while putting the country deeper in debt.<br /><br />Paranormal Activity does not have a pleasant ending. I will not spoil it for you, but trust me when I say this is not a ‘feel good’ movie. If this bill gets through the Senate I am fearful that its ending will not be any more pleasant than the ending was in the movie. Oh yea, there is one more big difference: This is real life!J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-75471453093963163322009-11-06T00:17:00.001-05:002009-11-06T00:19:11.059-05:00A New Jersey (and Virgina)<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJOSHUA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJOSHUA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJOSHUA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJOSHUA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJOSHUA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJOSHUA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073741899 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style=";font-family:";" >On Monday, the day before this week's elections, the White House wanted to make sure we all knew that the results of the elections were in no way a reflection on Obama. In fact, on election day the press secretary even said that the President would not be watching the results. [I am trying to figure out how it would be good for Obama’s image to say that he was not concerned with what was happening around the country, specifically in races for which he had spent so much time campaigning. But then again why am I assuming that they actually thought this through and some how concluded that it would be good for his image. And you know what they say about what happens when one assumes. (It kind of feels like Obama is assuming all day long.)]<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><span style=";font-family:";" >This indicated to me how fearful Obama was that the Governors he spent hours campaigning for would lose. Also, he is not a stupid man and he knew that it most certainly did have to do with him. What amazes me is how he could not let himself be associated with a loss. Like a small child who needs his parents to remind him that it was not his fault that the team lost, for he pitched great. I think it is his oversized ego that was the motivation for this disclaimer. He needed to make sure that everyone would be saying (and he knew that his media pets would be saying whatever their master told them to,) that it was not him who lost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style=";font-family:";" >
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style=";font-family:";" >They were trying to say that people were voting here based on the economy. Well Mr. Obama, the economy is you. You have made this very clear. With your stimulus, your banks, and your car companies. I mean after all you are the President, you are responsible, right? In fact, you won your election, in a big part because of how you promised you were going to fix the economy. Evidently people are not happy with how you are following up on this promise, which can be seen with Christie's win in New Jersey, and McDonald's in Virginia. These are both states that are usually blue, yet now they are red. If people were satisfied with how you were doing your job, would they not have listened to your phone calls and voted for your candidates? If they liked what were doing would they not have made sure to elect Governors who were claiming that they would be doing the same? Specifically now with healthcare reform, since there is talk of individual states being able to opt out. If people really wanted your healthcare reform would they not have made sure not to risk that (even if you do somehow take over the lives of many Americans) their state would not be included?
<br />
<br />I think what is really happening here is that you have properly shown people what democrats really are, and they don't like it. There are many people who vote democrat with the (unfortunately false) belief that they are performing a good deed by doing so, and you are losing their support for your party. I personally have heard lifelong democrats say that 'they want to be a democrat, but that they are now finding it so difficult to do so.' You are showing them what the left truly is, and they are running <i>right</i> back home. I know these results are a direct reflection on you; those who voted know this, and so do you. Are you going to blame this on Bush? (Of course that would make it worse, but habits are hard to break.)
<br />
<br />America was founded as a Conservative country, and it has, and will always be one. You prove that statement as well as anyone could. True we might get caught up in a historical campaign and make a foolish mistake (also proven by you.) But the fact that the most liberal President ever can make the country as conservative as ever, guarantees that we will be forever, no matter how hard you try to change it, a conservative nation.
<br />
<br /><b>PTP</b>: One of the recent health care bills includes a provision that will penalize physicians who give their patients too much care (no rationing, right?) This is done to ensure costs will be kept down. This practice used to be done by insurance companies until it was ruled a risk for the well being of the patients. Really? Why is it then not risky now? Maybe this was banned from the insurance companies solely to harm their business? Or is this just proof that the government does not really care about you, and that the push for healthcare reform is not about making sure that Americans are well cared for?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <span style=""><o:p></o:p></span> J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-86764618981039175622009-10-14T12:56:00.006-04:002009-10-14T21:49:41.823-04:00I'm Only Asking for Some Common SenseI would first of all like to apologize for the long break since my last blog. But I have a good excuse. I was accepting my Noble Prize in Medicine. Yes, I know I am young and have only just begun the process of applying to medical school, but they gave it to me because they thought that maybe sometime in the future I might make an important discovery. But now I am back, so have no fear.<br /><br />A few weeks ago Republicans in the senate asked for a bill to be instated that would require any non-emergency legislation to be posted on the internet for the public for at least 72 hours before the senate voted on it. This notion was denied immediately. John Kerry, broke through his Botox frozen face to claim that this was just an attempt by the Republicans to try to waste time. Really? What would the purpose of that be Mr. Kerry? Why would they want to vote on Thursday instead of Monday? Or would it be a problem for you if they had extra time to read the whole bill? It would be difficult to sneak in last minute legislation, like the over 250 pages that were added to the Cap-and-Trade bill the morning it was voted on. How can our representatives be voting on things they have not even read? And do not mistakenly think that the only reason they didn’t read it was because of the last minute additions. They hadn’t read the other 1200 pages either. Maybe some of it, but for sure not all of it.<br /><br />Some democrats gave a reason for not posting the legislation online before the senate voted. They said that the bills were written in a very confusing language and that if people were able to read it, it would just result in them taking things out of context. Is that so? Is it our fault that you are writing bills in a way that we can not understand so that you can fool us into accepting your agenda? Thomas Paine addressed confusing language in legislation in his work Common Sense, over 200 years ago:<br /><br /><em>Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.<br /></em><br />So by giving this reason for not wanting us to see the bill they are in fact letting us know that they are even worse than we thought. They are not just irresponsible, but they are also part of a system that is comparable to the one this country was established to avoid. A system where the government has the power, and uses it to control many aspects of our lives. A system where we are kept outside the decisions made by few, that have very personal effects for many. I know that we can not all be present at every vote done by the house, but we should at least have the ability to give some insight to our representatives as to how we feel about the matter. They are there to make sure our voices are heard in Washington. How can they do this if we do not even know what they are doing there?<br /><br />Our representatives in a way do not really represent us anymore. They spend most of the year in Washington making deals with each other, unfortunately using us as pawns. They have full time jobs in a part time field. They rarely take the time after they are elected to hear what we think. They have so much free time that they can sit there and write 1500 page bills, with confusing language and hidden rules. They can search and search for new areas in which they can write those bills and control our lives. They should be meeting a couple of times a year, to vote on a few issues that have come up since their last meeting. They could possibly present bills at the January meeting, to be voted on in the July meeting. Bills that they have time to read, and time to hear from us what we think of them.<br /><br />If I were a member of Congress I would do this, and I would try to lead by example that this is how Congress should be run. I would not spend my time writing long bills, and finding new areas of life to regulate. I would not take a salary and work full time. I would keep my job, and be a member of my district. I would go a few times a year, (or more if necessary to fight some possible legislation,) and express the opinions of my constituents. I would have a website, where my people can see the bills I will be voting on, and have ample time to let me know what they thought. Maybe I would even have them vote on the website so I can really see how they feel, and I could therefore truly bring their desires to Capitol Hill with me. Bottom line is that I would be a regular guy just making sure my neighbors voice is heard in Washington.<br /><br />When people read my plan they will think I am crazy. What I am describing is so foreign that it seems like a joke. But this is in reality how all members of Congress should be acting. They should not be writing legislation so long and confusing that their votes are all based on party loyalty, instead of expressing our, and in some cases even their true opinions. If a bill is so long and confusing they should refuse to accept it until they had time to read it, and speak to us about it. In fact I would say that if legislation is so confusing it should be required to be rewritten in a concise simple manner. In fact I would dare go even farther (which I can for this is my blog,) and say that if a proposed legislation needs a bill so long and confusing to represent it, then that is an area of our lives that should not be governed.<br /><br />It is things like this that remind me how far we have come from the founding of our country. We are seeing the very same things done by our government that our founding fathers were complaining to the British Empire about. I have said this before, and I will say it again. If George Washington saw this government today, he would not know he was in America. If Thomas Paine could see the way our government was being run now he would write another Common Sense, and the saddest part is that it probably would not be very different then the one he wrote in 1776.<br /><br /><strong>PTP:</strong> We elect representatives to make sure our voices are heard in Washington. Do we elect them solely to vote along with the of the majority of his or her constituents? Or by electing them are we saying that we trust them to make decisions for us?<br /><br />In other words: If a representative takes a poll of his or her constituents, and actually knows what the majority of them want, but feels that they are not correct, and that down the road they would regret this decision, can he go against the majority or must he follow the ‘direct order’ of his people?J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-39359762042519540602009-10-02T11:34:00.008-04:002009-10-02T17:08:45.220-04:00A Big StickGeneral McChrystal asked President Obama to send 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He said that he does not see America winning the war without them. The President is now in the process of deciding if he will fulfill that request or not. What is he thinking about? Does he think that the General might be requesting something he does not need? Or does he think that he knows how to better manage a war (I do not think that even his ego is that big)? Or is this decision going to be based on, as it always seems to be, <em>politics</em>?<br /><br />I hope it does not come down to politics. This decision should only be based on what will be better for the troops that are fighting there now, and for our efforts in winning the war. I, however, am not sure if winning the war is indeed a priority for our President. He seems to have made it very clear that he was not in favor of this war. He has also made it his business to make sure the rest of the world knows that. Most recently he did this at the U.N. two weeks ago. Regardless of if he agrees with this war, he must put that aside and act as a commander-in-chief who is interested in winning. He is not on the campaign trail any more. It is time to step up to the plate, stop pointing fingers and act like the President he constantly reminds us he is.<br /><br />He speaks often about how concerned he is with the way the rest of the world views America. This is why he is so busy telling them he is against the war, and that he will try to fix our mistakes and get out us of there as soon as he can. This is also why he made it one of his first actions as President to close Guantanamo Bay. Well, believe it or not I also am concerned with how the rest of the world views America. I am concerned that the rest of the world will begin to see us a weak country that will cave in to the orders of other nations, specifically those who present threats.<br /><br />Teddy Roosevelt said we must ‘speak softly and carry a big stick.’ This means that we should not fight if it is not necessary, but at the same time our enemies must know that if they force us to we will hit, and hit hard. We could accomplish this by winning in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If we can show the world that we can and will eliminate those who we view as threats, it will go a long way in making sure that other groups are less likely to choose to threaten us. This is very important with Iran now officially being able to develop nuclear missiles. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he would be more than happy to use these missiles, not something I would like to see. If we do not make sure that we emerge victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if other nations do not think we would make that type of strike again if necessary, we no longer have our big stick.<br /><br />Obama has a chance here to make sure America’s stick is nice and big. If he sends these troops to Afghanistan he can show the world that we are committed to eliminating our enemies, and that we will not back down when the going gets tough. He acknowledged that he does not approve of Iran having the ability to make these missiles, but not even in the speaking softly sense. He said that Iran must display its intentions with deeds of peace. ?!?!?!? Until one actually uses the missile is there not always peace? The point of stopping someone who has the ability to harm you is to remove that ability. So what does letting them know that we are expecting them to be nice accomplish? If we are going to wait to see if they do something harmful before we do anything it will be too late.<br /><br />Obama missed the chance to speak softly to Iraq. He was not the President then. Now, he has the obligation to finish these wars whether he originally agreed with them or not. He must show the world that we do still carry a big stick. If he keeps letting people know that he does not approve of us fighting Iraq, then people will not be afraid that we would attack someone else in the future, meaning we do not have a big stick. If he does not send the troops, giving the Generals on the ground the resources they need to win the fight in Afghanistan, he shows the world that we are not committed to winning our battles and to fighting those that present a threat to us. He should be concerned with how the world views us. He should be very concerned with making sure that they world knows we do indeed carry a very big stick. He has made it clear that he is a big fan of diplomacy. But he must remember that speaking softly only works, if he is carrying a big stick.<br /><br /><strong>Words of Wisdom: </strong>During his appearance on Leno, Rush made a very important point about why the Government being involved in healthcare is so scary. He said that if the government is involved in our healthcare they can then control every single aspect of our lives by claiming that it is because of how it will affect the cost of the healthcare, which is funded by our tax dollar. What you eat, what you drive, everything. Doesn't sound so nice, does it?J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-69230273292838392472009-09-26T23:23:00.006-04:002009-09-29T12:01:09.864-04:00Color CodedAbout two weeks ago Jimmy Carter (or as Rush calls him, "The hemorrhoid of our country") said that the anger towards Barack Obama is a result of his being an African American. Why would he say that? What could his motivation be for ‘playing the race card’ now? There is the obvious reason of trying to silence the opposition. Since the democrats are having great difficulty in winning the debate on healthcare via substance, they defer to petty distractions. Also it has the added benefit of gaining a few votes from people who are scared that if they disagree with Obama they will be called racists. [Of course these people are indeed racists, and we call them ‘racistaphobes.’ Yes, I made up that word. Their fear of being viewed as racists stems from the fact that deep down they do have racist thoughts and they are trying to hide from them.] I, however, feel that ‘our hemorrhoid’ and all of those on the left say things like Carter did for another reason.<br /><br />In order for me to explain this reason I must first discuss racism. A common misconception about racism is that it means thinking negatively or generalizing negatively about a certain person / group of people because of their race or ethnicity. In reality doing anything to a person because of their race is also racism. So, if for example one were to vote for someone because they are black this is an act of racism. Basically racism means viewing people as part of a race or ethnic group, instead of just as person.<br /><br />This includes labeling people by their race or ethnicity. So when the media refers to Obama as the first black president, they are indeed committing an act of racism. Why is this a problem? Because by doing so they are keeping race an issue in our country. As long as people view others memebrs of a race they are working to keep racism an issue. (I do not mean solely as a way to describe someone. So if for example one would say to their co-worker ‘do you remember my neighbor Joshua? You know, the Latino guy.’ That would not be racism. For it would be used as one would use the descriptive word, tall or thin.)<br /><br />In fact I believe that labeling is what leads to the worst part of racism. It causes the labeled group to feel that they are separate, in a way, from the rest of society. It makes them feel vulnerable - that at any moment their group can once again be singled out and treated differently. (I am of course speaking about present day America, where we have righted our wrongs and no longer have laws allowing legal segregation. In segregated America obviously the worst part of racism would be the segregation.) This mindset that is created by believing that the country views you as a separate group does a great deal of damage, and as long as big figures keep these ‘labels’ alive, this mindset will be present.<br /><br />This being said, as long as people like Jimmy Carter, and Al Sharpton keep discussing race the way they do, their actions / statements keep racism a big issue in this country. Not only that, but they also are the ones causing the worst effect racism can have. When they make their comments about things being done only because of race, they get people into the mindset I was describing, that they are separate and vulnerable. So as these people come out ‘defending’ minorities, they are actually holding them back and preventing them from <strong>feeling</strong> like equal members of the society.<br /><br />Now to get back to the original discussion. I believe that one of the reasons the left talks so much about race is in order to keep it an issue. Why? In order to make sure that the minorities still believe it is an issue, resulting in them having that feeling of vulnerability and separation. This allows the democrats to swoop in as the ‘defender of minorities’ and get their votes. I have said this so many times, it all comes down to votes. By constantly reminding minorities that they are minorities, and by repeatedly making comments about race they are able to make the minority feel that they need to be protected lest the country turn on them once again.<br /><br />Will racism ever be eliminated from our country? On an individual level, unfortunately I would say probably not. But on a national level, I hope so. In fact, I believe that the main thing holding it back are those who pose as defenders, but in reality are doing just the opposite. So when Jimmy Carter comes out and says that people are opposing Obama because he is an African American, he is causing so much harm. Not because he is completely wrong, as there are certainly individuals who are opposing the President solely for that reason, just as there are those agreeing with him solely for that reason, but because he is making it an issue that hurts the whole nation.<br /><br />(This article is obviously not adressing actual situations in which people are beaten, discriminated against or put down because of race, ethnicity or religion.)<br /><br /><strong>PTP</strong>*: This one is really for Peanut Jimmy. Did Barack Obama tell Governor Patterson (D- NY) not to run for another term simply because he is black? And does Michael Steele oppose Obama because he is black?<br /><br />* I know I said I would not define it any more, but since we just had a recent flood of readers due to my appearance on the Mark Levin Show, I will define it once again. PTP= Point To Ponder.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-56992220760451268872009-09-21T18:14:00.013-04:002009-09-21T22:45:44.200-04:00Weekend Showdown: President Obama vs. The Orthodox ConservativeI do not have 5 T.V. networks who will host me. Nor do I have a Spanish voice-over man to follow me around; so I am left expressing myself on this blog. (By the way, do you think that Obama’s voice-over guy had his own teleprompter?) In order to try to compete, however, I will respond to Obama’s tour of Sunday morning T.V. with 5 points. True, 5 points is a bit shabby when compared to appearances on 5 of the major networks, but hey, I am but a mere pre-med student sitting in my dorm room, so work with me.<br /><br />1) Word Games: President Obama seems to be a little confused as to the meaning of the word ‘punish.’ We all remember he used it when discussing abortion, saying “if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.” Then yesterday he said that he would not want to see people who could not afford health insurance be punished. I think he has confused the word ‘punish’ with ‘face reality.’ I am not saying that I want to see people in need who can not find help, but I would not call it a punishment for them to not be GIVEN care. For him to say that it would be punishment for one to not receive care, is working with the starting point that all people are entitled to receive that care, and we would be taking it away from them. That is not the case. The care comes from someone, and is given to others. So if one was not able to get care, it is an unfortunate thing, (and we should, as individuals, find a way to help someone we see in need) but by no means are we punishing those who are not able to afford healthcare by not giving it to them for free. Nice try to make us who are against government overhaul of healthcare seem like evil people ‘punishing’ those who are in need. But it is going to take more than that to get by me, Mr. President.<br /><br />2)The President also said that he did not view taxing the ‘Cadillac’ insurance policies as a tax to the middle class, even though there are people in the middle class who do indeed have these plans. I say who cares? There is a much bigger problem here then if he is sticking to his campaign promises or not. (We found out long ago that he would not be doing that.) To me the big issue is the way he is so openly speaking about taxing some in order to give to others. Now I know that he did not introduce this concept and that it has been around in this country for many years. But I feel the way he is speaking about it so up-front is not a good thing at all. [I will not even get started on why I feel it is morally incorrect to tax some to give to others, and how it is by no means allowed by the constitution.] He started it on the campaign when he spoke of spreading the wealth, and he has continued it now as he attempts to force through his healthcare reform (or is it insurance reform? You know what here is a blank fill it in whenever you are reading this and have heard his last name for the process of changing healthcare:_____ reform.) When you speak about it like this, you create a very distinct class system where the lower class envies and despises the upper class, and begins to feel that they have been stolen from. This creates a dependency on the government to go and take for them what is rightfully theirs. But this is a good thing for Obama and the democrats, for it creates a voting group who needs to vote for them in order to make sure they ‘get what they deserve.’<br /><br />3)When asked about ACORN, Obama said that he was not really following that story. He also said that he was not aware that they were getting a whole lot of government money. I find this hard to believe, as he spent a whole lot of time with ACORN on the campaign. But regardless, the point I would like to address is how he blew off the question. He made it seem like it was a small little issue that did not deserve to be spoken about. This displayed to me that he was making it very clear that he is in charge of these interviews and that only the things he wants to speak about are on the table. Or maybe it was him not wanting to dwell on the subject, for we all know how connected he really is with them? Either way, as he keeps saying, he is the President, so when there is news like this, and Congress has just voted to defund ACORN, he should know what is going on. And you can not tell me that the reason he did not answer the question was because he was only doing a talk about healthcare, for he did speak about other topics. But his answer that there are more important things for him to be dealing with now, might have worked had he not proceded to answer a question about the fate of his favorite baseball team.<br /><br />4)Fox News. Yes, they are still around. I know you were thinking they shut down since you saw the President on every other major news network except for them yesterday, but do not worry, they are still here. The President choosing to not go on Fox News disturbs me because the White House clearly said it was payback for them not airing the President’s press conference two weeks ago. This shows us just how the media is in the government's palm. Not only is the media biased for the left on their own accord, but they are almost being forced to be by the White House. The media is not supposed to be working for the President. The media has a very important job, and by being affiliated with different politicians they are not doing their job properly. (Which is allowed. They can choose to report any way they please. But when the President is involved, and the White House is working so closely with them there must be some form of proper journalism that is upheld.) So, when this type of relationship is displayed between the President and the different networks where ‘you show my speech, and I will give you an interview’ we see that the system is broken. But then again, each time the President goes on national T.V. it seems his ratings are dropping, so good for Fox News that they were able to stay clear of this, since the Obama administration like to call anything not going perfectly - a crisis.<br /><br />5)On the very same day that we saw the President displaying for us how he expects the news to be catering to his desires and reporting the way he wants it to, with consequences for those who do not, there was talk about bailing out the newspaper industry. First off this is absurd. Just because the world is changing, and newspapers just might not be as effective as they once were, we are to bail them out? Today we have the internet, cable T.V., and satellite radio to compete with newspapers as a source of news. If they can not keep up, sorry. Find a way to be successful with your paper online, and if you can’t, then move along. Nothing lasts forever. Are we to begin bailing out the long forgotten world of radio soap-operas? They are having a great deal of trouble competing with T.V. let’s help them out. This would obviously be absurd, for after they ran out of the money that was given to them their troubles would resume. It is not like you could get the papers back on their feet and then move out, like with the auto industry (I am not endorsing the auto bailouts.) They are struggling now, because the world is changing, and no bailout can help with that. But what would really make me nervous about this is the government having their hands in the news industry even more that it already does. Yesterday Obama was mad at Fox News so he didn’t go on their channel for an interview, they will survive. But imagine if the threat was ‘report this story as we say, or no more bailout money for you.’ They would have no choice. They would shut down with out the money. I think it is pretty clear why the government should not have a hand in the news industry.<br /><br />Well, I hope you enjoyed my 5 points. I think that even though it might seem small compared with Obama’s journey through the 5 major networks yesterday, if you analyze what we said, it might actually turn out that my 5 ‘things’ were greater. But then again, just like the networks President Obama spent time with yesterday morning, my opinion is biased. Oh, and for all of you Spanish speakers waiting for me to respond to the Univision interview, I apologize for all I can give you a simple <em>hola</em>.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-27891532307249734952009-09-17T18:48:00.006-04:002009-09-20T20:12:36.084-04:00Spender-Confused GovernmentIf one would look solely at the way President Obama has been speaking about wanting to cut spending on our defense they would come to the conclusion that this is an administration that does not spend money easily. They would be under the impression that our government is going to be very careful about spending our tax dollars, and is very concerned with our national debt. This is what one would think if they only looked at the way Obama speaks about spending on our defense.<br /><br />But then one might look at all of the debate about healthcare reform. One might see that there has been almost no attempt to cut spending and that the CBO has reported huge increases in government spending on healthcare, should any of the bills they had reviewed become law. One might look at all of the stimulus bill spending. One might happen to notice our national debt is indeed rising, and all projections show it will keep rising.<br /><br />I find this to be very interesting. While the President plans to cut spending on one of the few things that the government is empowered to spend on, according to the constitution, he is speaking about increasing spending in areas that should have nothing to do with the government.<br /><br />And it is not as if there is no reason to be interested in making our military strong at this time. Just look at the recent headlines in the news. You will see news about how Iran can now make a nuclear bomb, and about how Russia and Venezuela are becoming very friendly with Iran. You will read about China possibly being able to undermine our operations in the Pacific. And there is talk about cutting spending on our defense? This is one of the main reasons why our government exists.<br /><br />The problem is that the government is slowly being molded with the community. The government’s job is to provide defense, a judiciary system and so forth; while it is the job of the community to deal with things such as healthcare. People should work together to take care of each other, and make sure that people who need help can get it, but that is not the job of the government, nor was it given the power to do so. That is the job of the community.<br /><br />When the government speaks about less spending on defense, but more spending on things such as healthcare, it shows me that they are forgetting who they are; that they are switching from being the government to being the community. The community, however, is not able to become the government. And, the government is much too large to be a community, and brings along with its ‘community actions’ laws and restrictions that infringe on peoples private lives. One of the beauties of a community is that everybody pitches in optionally, and no one is forced to do anything.<br /><br />So as the government becomes more and more like a community, we loose our ability to function independently in our own communities. This leaves us with a government that infringes on our private lives, and at the same time damages our ability to effectively take care of the very same things they are claiming to be helping us with. And all this, while neglecting to do the things they are supposed to do as our government.<br /><br />SHOUT OUT: I would like to take this opportunity to thank The Great One, Mark Levin, for letting me plug my blog on his show last night.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-53269630338687462082009-09-14T19:39:00.005-04:002009-09-15T13:07:46.623-04:00School, Guns, and the InternetLast week, as I am sure you all know, President Obama gave a speech to children in schools across the country. There was a great deal of controversy around this speech. As the speech was approaching, many parents were even threatening to keep their children home from school that day. Why? What was so upsetting about a speech to children in school that was causing such a response? I did not see such a problem with the President’s idea to give this speech. A President is supposed to be a leader, and hence should have the ability to inspire many. The children of the country are a great audience and certainly a body that can be inspired and motivated to do great things; especially if being spoken to by our president, who is looked up to by virtually every child in the country, and rightfully so. So, why would this speech not be seen as a good thing?<br /><br />There were many parents complaining that this was not a proper use of school time. I did not see this as such a problem for a few reasons. First, because of what I just explained, that there is the potential for a speech like this to have a very positive impact on the children. Second, the time it would take to have this speech in the big picture of things is so small and negligible as part of the whole school year.<br /><br />This being said, I was not happy about the speech. Well, the speech itself I was fine with, it was what the White House sent along with the speech that disturbed me. They sent a short email to schools providing suggestions for how the schools could deal with the speech. They said teachers should discuss the speech with children before and after it was given. They were even nice enough to give a list of suggested questions to ask the students, and this is what got me. The questions suggested, really showed me the true agenda of this speech.<br /><br />Some of the questions that really stood out to me were: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? And Why it is important that we listen to the president and other elected officials?<br /><br />To me, these questions were an attempt to get the children to think in a certain way, mainly that the government is who to turn to for everything. I see these questions as trying to lead the children to believe in big government as a way of life. By trying to get them to think about listening to elected officials and what they are telling us to do, they are leading the children to view the officials in a specific light. They are attempting to guide the children to view the elected officials as the heads of the country, and the ones who should be telling us what to do. True, the president is in many ways the head of our country but not when it comes to how we should behave, and certainly not when it comes to how we should think.<br /><br />This is not an isolated event. I believe that there is a very strong push by the democrats to create this mindset in all Americans. It does many things for them. It makes it easier for them to pass controlling, and regulating legislation. I also believe it allows them to more easily further their agenda of ‘spreading the wealth.’ By making the people feel that the government is the true head of the country, it is easier to convince them the government has the right to take from one and give to another; for they would feel that the government is truly in control of everything anyways. This has been going on with the democrats for a very long time, and as I have said before has worked wonders for getting votes.<br /><br />There are a few other things that have been popping up in the news in the past few months that I believe are part of this attempt to change, (and in some, enforce) the way people view the government: As the owners, and controllers of every aspect of the country. Two things that really stand out to me are gun control, and this recent story of trying to give the President the power to take control over the internet.<br /><br />First I will deal with the talk about stricter gun control. It does not really matter if the government does indeed come along and take away everybody’s guns. As long as they have created a fear that they would, they have done enough to further this agenda. How, you might ask? Well, lucky for you I can answer that question. We must look at why ‘the right to bear arms’ is such a crucial part of the constitution. We must look at what the founders were taking into consideration when setting up our great country, and mainly to create a government that does not own, nor control its citizens (as had been the case in the land they were coming from.) By allowing the people to bear arms, they were making it clear that government’s powers did not include having any control over the citizens. That they would not be able to do things by force, and to take over people’s lives as they had been doing under the King. So keeping this in mind, [and I am not implying that the democrats are trying to use force to take over the country and control us and rule over the people,] but I am saying that they are trying to make people think of the government as a body that can do that. I believe that they want Americans to view the government as the owners of the country, instead of themselves as being such.<br /><br />The same thing is with this talk about the president being able to control the internet. If the president is able to control such a public, free thing as the internet, where does his power stop? No where. And this is what they want us to think. They want us to view the President, and all elected officials for that matter, as true rulers. As people who are in control of the land, and even in control of the people.<br /><br />Now many of the democrats get caught up in different ideas that can be further pushed by thinking like this, and can almost forget about what else it implies. They see for example, healthcare for everyone, and can see it as a feasible government option because they view the government as the true owners of all in the land, and hence a body that can take from some to give to others. They do not have the time to see that this also means that the government can take away what is theirs, mainly because they are too caught up in their goal.<br /><br />But this internet thing specifically troubles me because of the recent events that took place in Iran. The government was killing and beating peaceful protesters in the street, and if not for the internet no one would have known about it. Imagine, the protests were nothing compared to what happened on Saturday in D.C (G-d bless those people who attended,) and the Iranian government was brutally murdering innocent people in the street. Imagine if not for the clever use of Twitter and Facebook , no one outside of Iran would have known about what was going on, and who knows how long it would have continued if not for the international pressure that was put on them. So, how would anyone talk about our President being able to stop us from getting out those Tweets if something like that were to occur in our country? Again, not that I am even in anyway suggesting that it would, but the fact that we would know that if it did, there would be nothing for us to do, would put people in the mindset that ‘the government is in charge here, and they control our whole lives.’<br /><br />I believe that this was the true motivation behind the speech to the kids in school, and for the talk of giving the president to power to control the internet. I think it is all part of the attempt to make people think of the government as the rulers of the land. To slowly remove from our society the truth that our government is for the people by the people, and that the country is owned by the citizens. To flip the table and create a land where instead of us being in charge and the government working for us, where the government is in charge and we work for them.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-30177468083017289862009-09-09T23:17:00.002-04:002009-09-10T00:52:30.905-04:00More Speeches?First kids in school. Now grownups eating dinner. Thankfully I had class tonight so I was only able to catch the end of the President’s speech. I did hear him say something though that really confused me though. He said that in order to keep things fair, if someone was able to afford insurance he would be obligated BY LAW to purchase a plan. He said that this was because otherwise it would make us all suffer because we would then have to cover his emergency room bills. That is absurd. It is like scratching your right ear with your left hand.<br /><br />The correct way to deal with the problem the President mentioned is not by forcing all to purchase insurance; it is by removing the emergency room laws that require all emergency rooms to be open to all. These rules end up costing the hospitals and us millions of dollars a year, and do play a big part in the high costs of healthcare today. So if the President is concerned about the high costs of the emergency room, why not remove those laws? Why address it by forcing others to spend money? Those people might never even go to the E.R., but now they would have to spend money on insurance anyway. The problem would be solved by removing the E.R. laws just the same, without forcing people to spend money.<br /><br />He also made a point to mention that there would be stricter rules forcing companies to provide health insurance for their employees. He said that those companies who did not would have an unfair advantage over those who do. I ask how? By making their company less desirable to work for? Obviously he means by saving on the extra cost of providing coverage for their employees. This would of course mean that they would have more money to spend which could lead to more people hired. Something you would think the President would want to see with the unemployment number where it is now. <br /><br />I addressed this a few months ago. I said that if people, who otherwise did not want to, would be forced to buy insurance they will for sure go for the public option as it will be cheaper. This will force more people into the system and hence make the segue into a single-payer system easier. Same thing with the companies that did not plan on providing the coverage. If they are forced to, they would go for the cheapest thing they can, the public option. Ironically, the President cited the creation of a public option as a proof that the government is not really trying to take over the system. I would love for him to try to explain that one. Uh uh uh uh uh.<br /><br />This is just another example of a government that has become so large and overpowering. If George Washington would see this government he would be very confused. Abraham Lincoln would be in shock. Americans being obligated by law to purchase health insurance? Obama compared it to the requirement to have auto insurance. Not a good comparison though, because the requirement of the auto insurance is that it covers the party you damaged. The comparison he could have made would be obligating all to purchase home owners insurance. That would not have worked though, as it is not (and rightfully so) the case. <br /><br />Each time the President speaks about healthcare the polls turn more against him. It is clear why. The more he says, the more people realize that they do not want this. That while our system may not be perfect, no system is, and at least ours is the best. <br /><br /><strong>QUOTE OF THE WEEK:</strong> "I prefer a thief to a Congressman. A thief will take your money and be on his way, but a Congressman will stand there and bore you with the reasons why he took it." -Dr. Williams<br /><br /><strong>PTP: </strong>Why would Obama want to be able to control the internet? Could it have anything to do with how well the citizens in Iran used it while their government was making some changes that they did not like?J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-69313257388184147002009-08-31T20:29:00.005-04:002009-09-07T02:26:32.687-04:00Myths or Facts?Much of the talk about healthcare reform recently has been about the so-called “myths.” The democrats say that the republicans have made them up just to try and start trouble. The republicans do seem to bring written proof from the proposed bills, but that does not stop the President from claiming they are ‘myths.’ (This could be a result of him not having read the proposed bills himself, but let’s not go there now.) I would like to address two of these ‘myths’: the ‘Death Panels,’ and the coverage for illegal aliens.<br /><br />The President keeps saying that he has no idea where this idea of the ‘death panels’ has come from. The idea might have come from taking a peek just north of us, or across the Atlantic and witnessing the rationing of care that goes on in those countries with socialized medicine. Where older people find it extremely difficult to get procedures done, which are offered more readily to younger people. This can be called ‘death panels,’ for the older people who have been denied that certain procedure, might have really needed it, and only did not get it because the government has decided it is not worth it for older individuals to receive such care.<br /><br />But, this is not the only place where the idea might have come from. The idea might have come from the President himself. During one of the first of the ‘town hall’ meetings the President has been hosting, the topic of end-of-life care was discussed. (For those of who are interested, this was the one that was aired on ABC on June 24th.) The topic was introduced by a physician from the Mayo clinic in Rochester who said this “I'm Dr. Michael Jenson at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I see too many patients who have terminal illnesses or no hope of recovery who receive weeks or months of intensive care unit treatment, only to prolong their death. I find this approach very distressing and the waste of money is appalling. We just can't afford to provide all treatments to all people.”<br /><br />This frightening introduction was followed by a woman who spoke about her mother, who was told that she was too old, and that it would not be worth it to do a certain procedure on her. But the woman and her mother felt that she really wanted it, and that after meeting with the physician, the physician decided that the lady had such a strong spirit, that he would go along with the surgery. The woman was 100 at the time of the surgery and she is now 105.<br /><br />President Obama responded by saying this “I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.” How about we make judgments on what the patient and physician feel they want to do? The patient wanted to try the surgery, and the physician felt that he wanted to do it. The President responds by saying that he is not sure if under his system this woman would have been able to get the care. That there would have to be guidelines that deicide specifically who gets care and who does not. I ask you, is this not a ‘death panel?’ If, like Obama said, the panel would have decided if this lady would have been able to get her surgery or not, (and if not, let her die,) then the panel would be exactly what they are being called.<br /><br />The president said, don’t worry no one is going to pull the plug on Grandma. Now, that is probably true, at first. But mainly because Grandma would not have even been plugged-in, to start with.<br /><br />The next ‘myth’ I would like to address is the coverage of illegal immigrants. The President has denied this claim, but I am not sure how. Let us remember that the root of this healthcare reform is, as the late Ted Kennedy said, that all people have a natural right to healthcare. If this is truly what the call for reform is based on, then how can we deny a natural right to someone just because they have not filled out their papers yet? Just like we can not kill an illegal immigrant, it would be wrong to deny one of healthcare coverage (if healthcare is a natural right.) So, since this is the premise the democrats are working with, I do not see it feasible for them to not feel it necessary for illegal immigrants to be covered as well. Which is why I would be shocked if they did not make sure to include it in their bill (as many democrats have said they intended to.)<br /><br />If the call for reform was more along the lines of, ‘as a whole our country is in good shape. Thus, it would be such a shame if we would have people who needed healthcare but could not receive it. Let us work out a system in which we could get healthcare to people who need it.’ Not based on them being entitled to it, but based on the fact that it we have devised a system that would give them the privilege of receiving healthcare in an economically sound way. If this was the case then, non-Americans who are not members of our society would not fall into the category of people, the Americans who are struggling, who we are seeking to help out. Help being the key word. For the reform would be based on physicians willing to generously give treatment to those who were not able to afford it.<br /><br />This is sort of what Obama was claiming during the campaign when he said that as the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that we have people without healthcare coverage. Well, I am not sure he can still make this argument. We are in debt, and the debt is growing. So, based on his own words, I think it would be a fair claim to say that until we fix the debt, any system that would increase debt, or hurt the economy is out of the window. The CBO has reported that all of the proposals so far have only shown increases in the national debt possibly reaching a trillion dollars.<br /><br />So, if a system is proposed that would not cost any money and raise our debt, then maybe we can talk. When a system is suggested that is based on the generosity of physicians who are willing to participate, maybe we can have further discussions. When a system is thought of, that accepts the idea that being treated is a privilege and not a right, some progress is being made. But until then do not get fooled when Obama brushes aside republican attacks as ‘myths.’ For the only true myth is that a system that will not ‘damage our healthcare system or ruin us financially’ is being proposed.<br /><br /><strong>Bumper Sticker of the Week: </strong>'Annoy a liberal: Work hard and be happy.'J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-57010478998847808652009-08-25T13:31:00.003-04:002009-08-25T18:42:51.624-04:00Presidential VacationAs I am sure you have all heard the Obamas are on vacation. Many people seem to be upset by this. People are saying things along the lines of ‘How can they be vacationing in that expensive place, while the economy is in such shambles?’ (I can not tell you who is saying this, but I am sure someone is.) I could not care less if they want to go on vacation. In fact, I prefer they go on vacation because it means we will have a break from all the town halls and press conferences. But none-the-less, being the widely read and relied upon writer that I am, I know that it is my duty to discuss the situation.<br /><br />Let us address the complaint that most people seem to have: That it is wrong for him to vacation while a large number of people in America are barely able to make ends meet. I do not agree with this complaint. It is not his job to suffer alongside his constituents. While it might be a good leadership technique, and might work to raise his popularity, (which has been sinking, and for good reason,) he is not responsible to halt his leisure because others might not be able to vacation themselves (as long as he is doing his job.) However, with this particular president I do find myself a little upset to see him on vacation because of his attacks on the financial industry C.E.O.s. He said things along the lines of ‘they could see what the rest of America lives like for a while.’ If he is going to be knocking them living a wealthy lifestyle, he should be refraining from splurging himself.<br /><br />To those who keep saying that George Bush also took many vacations, I want you to remember this: President Bush stopped playing golf in the middle of his first term in office, because he felt it was wrong to be out having fun while his troops were fighting overseas. Just want you to keep that in mind when you try to compare Obama to President Bush.<br /><br />Another thing about this that upsets me is the principle of the government spending money on anything other than the country. It has been reported that the Obamas are picking up the tab for their accommodations in Martha’s Vineyard (about $35,000.00 a week.) But remember, when you are President you can not just go on vacation. You bring a very large entourage with you. The Obamas are not paying for them to come along. I do not think they are paying for their or the entourage’s airfare on Air Force One. So, in the end, this vacation is costing us money. True, in the big scale of things not very much, but it is the principle that matters. Why should we be paying for the President to go on vacation? The Constitution very clearly says that the politicians get a compensation for the time they spend away from their regular jobs in order to serve the country, but does not talk about getting money to go on vacation. But this is right in path with this administration’s slogan ‘spend spend and spend.’<br /><br />His spokesperson said that since he had been working so hard he deserved this vacation. That is not our fault. Our government should not be putting in full time the way they do. If they were not putting in so many hours they would not be coming up with so much controlling legislation. If they did not have so much free time they would not be able to write 1500-page bills describing how they will control our lives. Not to mention the fact that even with being on a full time salary most of them do not even take the time to read those 1500 pages before voting on the bill.<br /><br />And take this the right way Mr. President; we would have been a whole lot better off if you had not been working so hard.<br /><br /><strong>PTP</strong>: Last week Obama said that the Republicans are only fighting the healthcare reform because they think it will lead to them winning back the house in the midterm elections (like they did in ’94.) Let me ask you, if the country does indeed want the reform, wouldn’t the Republicans fighting it hurt them? And if the country does not want it, then is it not good that the Republicans are fighting it? So if Obama is thinking that opposing the healthcare could win them elections, he should also realize it is because the country does not want the reform, and he should halt it himself. Well, if he cared what the country wants, that is.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-18075149487458036642009-08-16T10:08:00.005-04:002009-08-19T04:46:42.491-04:00Democrats: The Party of Mercy?Last blog I posed to you a question, and as promised I will now answer it. For those of you who forgot, (I say forgot because I know it is not possible that there is anyone who did not read it,) the question was as follows: If Obama's goal in increasing welfare programs, and for pushing the healthcare reform was truly to help those with less, then why does he propose to remove the tax cuts the upper brackets receive when giving charity? If he really cared about getting aid to those in need, why would he try to do something that would surely reduce the amount of charity given?<br /><br />[Excuse me, I am going to answer my phone..................Ok, I am back]<br /><br />In order to answer this question we must dig deep into the mind of the liberal politician. The liberal party has strategically created an image for itself as the party who cares for the less fortunate. (If we look at much of what they do and say, it would be very clear that they are not the pious men and women they pretend to be, but continuing.) This was a very smart plan, and it has worked wonders for them. By posing as humanitarians, and protectors of the poor, the liberals have been able to tap into two voting groups: those who think they are doing a morally good deed by voting liberal, and those who are set to gain financially by liberal policies. I would like to analyze these two groups.<br /><br />First we will look at those who think they are doing a morally good deed by voting liberal. I do not necessarily blame them. The liberal politicians do a pretty good job at performing their act. They speak about lowering taxes on poor people (who already do not pay taxes, so they are not really saying anything,) about increasing entitlements, about working towards healthcare for all, among other projects. To the untrained eye, these all seem like great deeds. But, one must look at what they are actually voting for. No matter how much one wishes to help the needy, the way to do it is not to take from others. When the story is told about Robin Hood, I do not think these 'morally compelled' liberal voters would feel he is doing a good deed as he steals from the wealthy. So, let me ask them, why is this any different? Why when it is called 'taxing,' does it change the situation? If we believe all people were created equal, why would one be entitled to something another earned? I am not questioning, that many of these voters are in truth under the impression that they are doing a good deed. I just think that they are blinded by the picture that is painted for them, without thinking about how the artist acquired the paint.<br /><br />Now to those who are set to gain financially by liberal policies, I can not really speak for them. I understand why many of them are compelled to embrace that which they would be given, but how they really feel comfortable to take mystifies me. How the liberals were able to convince them that they are entitled to be given something taken from another I will never understand. How they were able to tell people, 'we will spread the wealth and take money from your neighbor to give to you,' and have the people take that money is amazing. But they were able to, and continue to do it more and more. This past campaign you had Obama telling millions, 'I will give you money, and healthcare, and college and this and that' it was no contest.<br /><br />This is the playbook of the liberals. They have devised this strategy to make themselves the 'party of mercy' and it has worked. They have fooled millions into believing it. But it is not their real philosophy. Their philosophy is to have government involved in as much of our everyday lives as possible. Part of that includes having the power to manage a large percentage of our money. But even more than that, they use this illusion of mercy to gain the votes. They need votes to get power. It would be hard to say 'we are going to step in, and manage most of your everyday life.' But when they can say we are going to help the poor, it is a lot easier. They get the votes of those who think they are doing a good deed, and the votes of those who they are saying they will be giving to.<br /><br />But, they have begun to go even further. They have been working to create a polarized country where you have rigid classes, and an envy of classes. Where you have people believing that they are entitled to that which another has earned. Where people are angry and despise those who have more than them. And it is all fueled by the fact that we have the entitlement programs. So wisely named to create this mindset: that 'I am entitled to another's money.' This is where the anger comes from. If one believes they are entitled to it, than the only reason they do not have it is because someone else does. So the anger, and hatred of the wealthy sprouts from the fact that they were led to believe that the wealthy is in possession of what is rightfully theirs. This enables the liberals to keep this bloc of voters for eternity, for it becomes part of their life, and frequently the lives of their children; that the government is there to make sure what is rightfully theirs gets given to them.<br /><br />This is the same reason why the liberals are such strong supports of providing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and for making it so easy for immigrants to move here. They do not see poor underprivileged people, they see voters. That is what we all are to them: voters.<br /><br />How do I know this, you might ask. How do I know that this is really what they are motivated by? To me it is simple. Just listen to them. F.D.R.,when he was trying to establish a single-payer system said that it was all about politics, not about getting healthcare for those who need it. And look at Obama now; seeking to remove the tax cuts the wealthy get when they give charity. This will reduce the amount of charity given. So why would it be something a man who cared about the poor would ever talk about? The reason is because he sees the poor as votes, not as people. This leaves him with one simple question: what will make the country think that the liberals being in power is directly resulting in more being done for the lower class? People giving charity, or the government providing healthcare? When they say 'look, I gave you healthcare,' they know they can count on votes from the recipients.<br /><br /><strong>It's a numbers game: </strong>The last poll showed about 40% of Americans support the government having more control of the healthcare industry. The same percentage of Americans who don't pay taxes.<br /><br /><strong>PTP</strong>: In one of the townhalls last week Obama said that the government will just be keeping an eye on the insurance companies and making sure they are being fair. But he made it clear that they would not be taking over the system. If, and he said this, the government will be regulating who the insurance companies must provide for (not allowing them to deny coverage because of a pre exsisiting condition,) and saying how much they can charge, and saying what they must cover, then I ask you, what part of the system is the government not controlling?J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-73364313328505094132009-08-12T09:38:00.002-04:002009-08-12T10:27:10.136-04:00Obama, Man of the People?During the Iraq war there were many people who were expressing that they were not happy with its development. The media as well as various politicians were jumping all over this. They were constantly reporting about the 60, or so percent of Americans who did not approve of what was happening in Iraq. The media was using this number to try and make the President out to be distant from his people, and not caring about their desires. Politicians were using it to try and raise their personal approval ratings by stating that they were part of that 60%.<br /><br />Then Senator Obama, was one of these politicians. During the campaign he told us so many times that he was one of the members of the government that were against the war in Iraq. That he was like the over 60% of Americans who were against it. Well, now he is the President (as he likes to tell us,) and now there are polls being taken about the approval of his policies. The candidate Obama seemed to care very much about public polls. He was always there to show that he was on the same side of the majority of Americans on various issues.<br /><br />How is he handling the polls now? Well, he is seeing his overall approval rating drop, as well the approval of many of his policies. One such issue being the healthcare reform. The polls now are showing that 52% of Americans are against the government increasing their roll in the healthcare system. This time, however, the President does not find himself agreeing with the majority. So does he speak about the leaders not being in touch with the people? Does he begin to listen, and maybe back off his strong push for change?<br /><br />Not that I have seen. All I have seen is Obama pushing his agenda even stronger. More press confrences, more townhalls. I do not think Bush was on T.V. this much during his whole 8 years. But there is Obama, day in and day out trying to convince us that we are wrong. Trying to tell us that we do want more government involvment in our lives. Because he knows better, right?<br /><br />And what about the media? Are they jumping on this and saying how Obama has lost contact with the people? Are they using this to show that this administration does not really care about what the American people really want? That they are really radical idealogues seeking to push their agenda, and increase the control of the government? They are not. Why is this any different? In both cases you have the polls showing that the majority of Americans do not agree with what the President, and his administration are trying to do.<br /><br />There is actually one difference. The polls taken that were showing most Americans to be against the war, were mostly taken after that war started. These polls, however, are being taken before the healthcare reform has taken place. So this time, there is an oppurtunity to listen to people. This time the President can say, 'look, I was wrong. This is not what the people want.' But will that happen? Do not count on it, for one simple reason. For that to happen, Obama would actually have to care about what we want. <br /><br />PTP= Obama says he cares about the middle class. That he cares about helping the less fortuante in our country. If that were true, then try to explain this: His proposal for increasing government revenue has been to remove the tax cut wealthy people get when they give charity. If he really cared about helping people who have less, why would he want to decrease the amount of charity that would be given?<br />(Stay tuned..... This PTP will be given an expert answer from yours truly.)J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-91091628713574030172009-08-10T08:34:00.004-04:002009-08-12T05:18:50.191-04:00Bipartisanship?During the campaign a big topic was bipartisanship. Barack Obama said over and over again that he wanted to end politics the way they were and create a Washington where both of the parties worked together. He said many things during his campaign, and this thing turned out to be no different. There is no bipartisanship going on here. Just look at the healthcare reform. Democratic memebers of the government have made it clear that they have the votes, and that they do not care if they get the legislation passed without the republicans being involved. The President himself has said that he would be willing to do so in order to force his healthcare reform through. Does this seem like bipartisanship? Does this look like the type of administration Obama was talking about during his campaign? I don't think so.<br /><br />At a town hall in Virginia last week the President said that 'he does not mind being held responsible to fix the problems we are facing in our country now, because he is the president.' (How many times do you think we are going to hear him say that he is the President? He loves hearing those words. 'I am the President.' Do you think his children still call him daddy, or has he told them to call him President? But getting back to the subject at hand he continued to say) 'but I just want those who made the mess to get out of the way and not do the talking, so that we can fix their mess.'<br /><br />Who do you think he was reffering to? Do you think he was reffering to Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi? After all they playted a huge part in creating the housing crises, which is at the heart of these economic problems. Was he telling them to be queit? Maybe Chris Dodd? Or maybe even himself. I mean he has seen the deficit rise nearly 200 billion dollars, under his leadership this past month alone. Could he possibly have been telling himself to stop asking for more spending and asking for permission to raise the deficit even more? I do not think so. If he would be quiet who would be there to remind us who the President is?<br /><br />I think it is pretty clear that he could only have been talking to the republicans. This does not seem very bipartisan to me. But would you have realy expected anything different? If he would be listening at all to the other side how would he be able to go ahead with any of his radical left agendas?<br /><br />I for one am not a big fan of bipartisanship anyway. If one party were to give in to the other party, would that not remove the purpose of having the other party? The point of having a party is to make sure your beliefs get carried out. So if your party gives into the other parties agenda, you having your party is almost pointless. But that is a discussion for a different time.<br /><br />The only thing that the President has to do with bipartisanship is his phony call for bipartisanship. For some reason or another, a majority of Americans want to see bipartisanship in the government. Obama knows this and he plays with it. Whenever he is trying to get something forced through the government he will say something along the lines of 'I hope that party politics will not come into play here and keep the republicans from voting for this.' He makes it seem that the only reason someone would oppose him would be because of party loyalty. What he forgets to mention is that the reason the republicans would oppose him is because what he is trying to accomplish goes against their philosophy. He did this over and over again when he began introducing Sotomayor, and he has done it plenty of times when talking about healthcare.<br /><br />He knows what he is doing. People get mad when they are told that the republicans are keeping the government divided. They hear him say that the republicans are playing party politics and ruining everything, and they fall for it. They fail to see that this is the essence of what they should be doing. As the republican party, their job is to make sure that the republican beliefs are addressed. When a judge is nominated for the supreme court, they are not going to oppose her because they want to fight with the democrats. They will oppose her if they do not agree with how they feel she would act on the bench. Same thing with the health care reform. They are not dissagreeing with the democrats for fun, they are diagreeing because they feel the democrats plans are wrong and would not result in posisitve outcomes.<br /><br />The President will not stop doing this until it stops working. We need to stop just listening to what politicians say and taking it as fact. We need to think about what they say. Think about what they do, and hold them accountable for it. Remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.<br /><br />NEWSFLASH: I reported last blog about a project to spend $200 million dollars on planes. I was wrong. I appoligize to you congress. You would not be so skimpy. The number is now $550 million dollars.<br /><br />PTP*: During one of the presidential campaigns the nominees were asked if healthcare was a privaledge or a right. I was a little puzzled by this. Healthcare is not a magical thing that falls from the sky. It is a service provided by one person to another. So I ask (and here is the PTP for all of you keeping score at home,) how could one person have a right to be taken care of by another person?<br /><br />*PTP= Point to Ponder^<br /><br />^This is going to be the last time I define PTP. So you better learn it. Write it on your hand, paste it on your fridge. I do not care what you do. But remember what PTP means... trust me, you will be happy you did.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-33429838129128698932009-08-07T06:18:00.004-04:002009-08-10T06:59:13.059-04:00New Planes for the Government?!?!?!?!The Pentagon's bugdet was just passed last week by the house. Hidden deep inside the 636 billion dollar budget is about 200 million dollars in order to buy three planes for members of the government to fly around in. Yes, you read it correctly, 2 followed by 8 zeros. The three planes are fancy private jets to be used to transport members of the government around the world. This is absurd. Where and when did the government get the ability to spend our money like this? Especially with the government deep in debt, and getting deeper with all of the new spending. Instead of talking of raising taxes, how about stop spending money!!!!<br /><br />I think this is part of a trend in which the style of our government is changing. Let us look into the representaion system our country has set up. Obviously in a country where millions of people are living, not every single person can have the society run the way he or she chooses. Nor would anything be accomplished if we were to have all of the people in the country spend time, as the members of the house and the Senate do, as legislation is reviewed and passed. So, we have representatives, sent to represent the people of the country and speak on their behalf at these meetings of the house. The contstitution allows these representatives to receive compensation for the time they spend dealing with these matters. It is clear from the constitution that they did not view politics to be a career, but that is not a discussion for now.<br /><br />The point I am trying to make is that congress, and the Senate should be very carefull when spending our money. It is clear from billis, such as this one to purchase these planes, that they are not. They forget that they are only supposed to be meeting in Washingotn to make sure that our voices are heard, not because they are the owners of this country. When one individual takes anothers money to buy himself a toy, there is a big problem. Congress has no power to spend money on planes for itself. It has power to tax the people in order to raise an army, and to make sure order is kept in the land, but not much more than that. As I said they can take some compensation for the time they spent <em>away from their jobs</em> and serving their districts by meeting in Washington. Our government is so far from this, that I am sure many of you think I am crazy as I speak of a politician's occupation being something other then being a politician. But at least I would hope you agree with me when I say that the House does not have the authority (or at least is not supposed to) to order themselves planes with money we earned.<br /><br />Their argument for the passing of this bill was that it might not be safe for the government officials to fly on the regular planes with everyone else. I can hear that concern, but there are other things to do than buying planes for $200,000,000. They can charter small private jets, that only costs a few thousand dollars. Or they could sit in first class and get on the plane last and leave first; no one would even know they were on the flight. Or maybe, just maybe, the President could share his two huge planes with the rest of the government. Why don't they drive? What I am saying is that this is not a real reason for ordering the planes. They could have found many other cheaper ways to solve their problems of security concerns. But in order to make it seem okay, they say it is becaue of security. Am I suggesting they are lying to our faces in order to spend our money? Yes, yes I am. And unfortuanately it is not a surprise to me.<br /><br />Especially since they were so mad at the CEOs who were flying in their company planes. Why was it wrong for the CEOs to use planes bought with money they earned, but okay for the government to buy planes with our money? And what about all of the polution? The government is trying to pass laws restricting our use of fossil fuels and here they are buying themsleves big new planes. They could fly on the plane with the rest of us, but instead they ae flying themselves, and using a whole flight of unnecessary polution.<br /><br />But none of this surprises me. The members of our government now almost never include themselves in what they try to force us to do. Most of what they do is based on the fact that they think they are superior to us, and that we need them to run our lives for us. That is why they are constantly trying to pass bills restricting how we live our lives. Maybe if they were regular memebers of society, like they were supposed to be, instead of career politicians they would think differently. Maybe, if they would have to follow the rules of the new healthcare reform they are trying to pass, they might not want to pass it. Maybe if the payments for the planes would be out of their pockets they wouldn't buy them. And maybe if they would once again be represneting the town they come from, and not just doing a job miles away, bills like this would not even be thought of, let alone be passed.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-84429847717030399082009-08-04T10:15:00.005-04:002009-08-13T05:59:35.048-04:00Health care reform = economic recovery??It seems that every time a government official is asked about the economy, no matter what the question is, the answer is always something along the lines of 'the economy is in a deep recession now, and the way to fix it is through health care reform.' Every time, without fail. The only time someone applies such great effort to get their point across is when they themsleves know that it is not really true. So, in order to make sure that they will be able to convince others that it is indeed true, they keep on repeating it with the hope that if you hear it enough times you will begin to believe it.<br /><br />We are not that foolish, however. We will not fall for their tricks. (Unless we are libs of course.) Let us take a little time to think about this statement. If the economy is in trouble, and the government is in debt, how could the first step to recovery be spending more money? How will businesses start to see profits once again if they find new expenses ( such as mandatory coverage for employees)?<br /><br />It in fact makes no sense (just like everything else this administration is doing.) The government is saying that it might need to even raise taxes on the middle class. [They of course tried to deny it, but they made it pretty clear Sunday morning, that it is really an option. This might be a shock for some, but did you really believe Obama when he kept saying 'no one who makes less than $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes?] If they are in such finacnial trouble, (which we know they are,) this health care reform will for sure make it worse. The CBO has stated that they have not even seen any attempts, in the government's discussions on the health care reform, to save money. This being the case, I think it is very clear that healthcare reform is not the first step to recovering our economy. (In fact, I do not even think it is the last step.)<br /><br />Medicare is bankrupt, as is Medicaid. Part of the healthcare reform seeks to expand their coverage. This will only make things worse. For a few reasons. First of all, with the government in debt, obviously more spending is certainly not a good idea. Second, one of the ways Obama is saying he would like to generate some revenue for his health plans is to raise taxes on the "wealthy." (Do not even get me started on how wrong this is on so many levels. Let's just stick to our discussion here.) A large amount of these "welathy people" are job providers. As I have said many times in the past, if you take their money one way, they will find a different way to save money somewhere else. An easy way, fire people. With unemployment nearing 10% and rising, how is any part of the recovery a measure that will lead to more people loosing their jobs?<br /><br />As usual, the questions do not have answers. As we have been seeing so frequently with this young administration, their claims do not add up. Obama might be right that health care reform is the first step to economic recovery, if the reform is to reduce the number of people covered by the government, and to lower taxes on those that provide jobs.<br /><br />PTP*: Part of the reform calls for a law mandating people to purchase healthcare or see a fine. How does the government have the power to do this? How can they force me to purchase healthcare for myself? Is that not a personal choice for me to make on my own?<br /><br />*PTP= Point to PonderJ. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-34582926026652780262009-07-26T10:51:00.005-04:002009-07-30T17:39:20.228-04:00President Obama: Doesn't mingle?As the uprising in Iran was beginning, and claims of a rigged election were becoming very loud our President made it clear that we do not mingle in the affairs of other countries. He said that it is not our place to step in and interfere in their election, and that it was Iran's business to conduct it's own election. I am not sure why this is the case. The man who "won" the election, Ahmadinejad, is in the process of obtaining nuclear power. (Something Obama seems to be fine with.) He has also stated very openly that there is a country he feels should be destroyed completely. How could we not step in and do everything in our power to try to remove this man from a position that allows him to pose this kind of threat. The kind of man who speaks about erasing a country from the face of the earth, is not someone who should be allowed to remain in a position that would allow him to do so.<br /><br />Nor did Obama seem to react very quickly in letting Iran know that the way they were treating the protesters was unacceptable. He did eventually say it, but it was clear that it should be known that America is not going to be mingling in the affairs of other countries.<br /><br />However, from Obama's own actions it seems clear that America does indeed mingle in the affairs of other countries. He has spoke out many times telling Israel to halt its settlement building in the West Bank. If we do not mingle in the affairs of others, why would he be saying this. Not to mention the fact that one of the times he said it was in Egypt, while he was in essence speaking directly to the Arab world. Why would he say that Israel was at fault for building the settlements, and that they were doing a great deal to slow down peace processes while speaking to those who are fighting against Israel? Who in their right mind would, while speaking to those very people who were not very long ago shooting rockets into civilian areas, say this, thus giving them an excuse for doing so.<br /><br />Why was the mention of Israel not completely focused on reprimanding those instigators of violence? Why did he not make it very clear that as long as any type of terrorist actions were taking place, America would not be dealing with those taking part in the terrorist acts? The answer is because Obama does not believe this. He does not think that America does not deal with terrorists. In fact he has made it very clear that we do just the opposite. What a bright idea. This lets other countries know that 'if you want to get America's attention, start causing trouble.' He could let other countries know that in order to speak to America you must behave, but he chooses the opposite.<br /><br />I am not left with many choices when it comes to interpreting these two actions of Barak Obama. On one hand, when an evil threat is gaining more power, and killing people in the streets of his own country, Obama says we do not mingle in the affairs of other countries. While on the other hand, he time and time again speaks out to Israel, telling them to stop building houses in their own land. (Imagine if England called on the U.S to stop building houses in Texas.) So he says we do not mingle in others affairs in order to allow an evil man to continue to be a threat to the world, and at the same time works to give terrorists more control over land in Israel. (The same terrorists who were shooting missiles into Isreal earlier this year.)<br /><br />I do not think I need to say anymore. The only one who needs to explain this contradiction of his stated foreign policy is our President. He needs to explain why he is working to help terrorists, instead of our allies, for I sure as hell can not.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-41271194462111973082009-07-22T16:44:00.006-04:002009-07-26T10:50:51.927-04:00Global Warming = Global CorruptionGather around children, it is story time. There was once man who spent a lot of time convincing the world that blue shirts are better than green ones. He explained that in blue shirts one can move faster, think better, and even lose weight. He was so convincing, that he even got the government to make laws enforcing the wearing of blue shirts. Everyone was so proud of him. He won awards for his great contribution to society. There was one thing that everyone managed to overlook though. This man owned a company that manufactured blue shirts. Did anyone stop to think that maybe he had an alternative motive in promoting the wearing of blue shirts. That maybe he was not doing it to make people healthier, but in order to make his company a whole lot more valuable.<br /><br />Well, this story is not true. But it is very similiar to one that is. Al Gore, a man sent here to save us from the horrible threats of world disaster, and to rescue us from the oncoming horrors of global warming, is very much like the man in this story. Did you know that Mr. Gore is one of the partners of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a firm who has a large amount of money invested in developing "green" products? Or that he founded the company Generation Investment Managment, a company also heavily invested in global friendly products? Maybe, just maybe, he was thinking of these compnaies while he making his documentary. Maybe he was picturing the potential earnings of a eco-friendly company, specifically in a world that fears for the future of its planet. A fear that he himself did a great deal to promote. Now, I am not saying he invented global warming, (this is not the internet we are talking about,) but I am suggesting that he found a way to capitalize on it. Just look at how he lives and you will know in a second that he does not really care for the cause he is constantly preaching about. Look at his 20 room mansion equipped with a guest house and a pool. Take a look up to the sky to see him fly by in his private jet. I am not saying he should not have these luxuries, but if he is going to preach about conservation and cutting back on energy, he sure as hell better be doing the same himself.<br /><br />Especially if his works are going to lead to government enforced regulation on the rest of our energy usage. The Waxman-Markey bill will devastate the economy. It will raise taxes on companies, and we will feel the brunt of it. Some of us will feel it when we get fired due to downsizing to make up for the new increases in expenses. And all of us will feel it as the prices rise for many products for the very same reason.<br /><br />The bill also has corruption written all over it. There are a few question I would like to have answered. (Although I do not think the answers would come quickly since I doubt any of the congressman who voted for the bill even read any of the over 1200 pages it consisted of.) Who will determine how many 'energy shares' each company gets? What is stopping the government from giving fewer shares to companies it seeks to harm, such as ones that might not be 'green' enough for them?<br /><br />Waxman-Markey is not the only way the government has recently been stepping in to control our energy uses. There are laws passes now that will regulate the make of lightbulbs we use. There is legislation that will the miles per gallon a car gets. Just wait, it won't be long before there are rules regulating how much energy we can use in our own homes. Before the government will have the power to shut down our power if we go over our limit. Or before NASCAR becomes illegal for its cars drive to fast and use too much gas.<br /><br />Bottom line, these bill is no more than another way for the government to control our lives. It will give them the power to break down many companies, and boost up their friends. It is just another step towards the type of government that Barack Obama is trying to create. The type of government that has its wings spread over every part of our lives, and suffocates us while it itself expands.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-90114007786768693232009-07-19T01:23:00.002-04:002009-07-19T02:36:16.835-04:00Healthcare Part 2Sorry it has been so long since my last post. I was a little busy these past few days. Well, enough of the small talk. Let's get to business.<br /><br />If you remember, and I am sure you do, one of the main points I made the first time I spoke about health care was that this push for reform by Obama is mainly to serve as a segue into socializing the system. As more information surfaces, and as details from the proposed plans are becoming known, I am more certain that this is the case. <br /><br />There would be a law that would require all people to purchase insurance, and that all those who do not purchase insurance would be fined a percentage of their income. (Now do not even get me started on this. How can one be obligated by law to purchase insurance? It is amazing that this is even being discussed, forget that fact that with the Democrats having the votes, it likely to be passed. The fact that the government is trying to take this much control of our lives is very frightening. But I digress.) As I have been saying, the reason for this would be to force people into the government option. The only people that would be affected by this are people that would not otherwise want to purchase health care. So when they are now forced to, they will obviously seek the cheapest option, the government option. Mission accomplished, more people loaded on to the system.<br /><br />There would also be some type of legislation stating that if one looses their coverage after the bill is passed, they would have to join the government option. Again, more people forced into the system. Oh, and what happened to keeping your own insurance if you liked it?<br /><br />Another one of the proposals would include expanding the coverage of Medicaid. Let me ask you. If Obama keeps saying, (and correctly so,) that there are huge problems with Medicaid, (and we all know that it is bankrupt,) how does it make sense to add to its expenses? How could it possibly help for it to spend more? As usual, the answer is it doesn't. It obviously does not make any sense for a failing system to expand. But then again, does this administration seem concerned with doing anything that makes sense? <br /><br />Obama has said repeatedly that they will be reducing Medicaid expenses and making it more efficient. By adding on more people to cover? The only way this is even remotely possibly is if they at the same time cut what they cover by a large amount. That's right. All you low income families who rely on Medicaid, and who are so excited to see the government pick up more of your bills will be hurt by this health care reform. The government will be supplying you with less coverage. Less tests, less procedures, less health care. If you wish to keep up your current level of care, you will have to pay some other way. They will not tell you this, but wait and see, this will happen. I can not predict exactly where they will choose to cut back, but they have seemed to indicate that it will be in the area of testing. Maybe they will choose to stop covering a annual mammogram? Who knows. I don't. And to be quite honest with you, I do not think they do either. <br /><br />They keep talking about cutting unnecessary testing. Not once have they given an example. Not once have they said which tests they plan to cut out. So many diseases are being cured today because of early detection. I mentioned the mammograms earlier. In the U.S.A., the survival rate of breast cancer is 92%. In Britain, it is only 78%. This is greatly because of the testing done here. It is also because of more treatment options here, but that is another story. What I am trying to say is that cutting down on testing will more likely lead to a less efficient system, not the opposite as they are promising.<br /><br />And make no mistake. The government knows this would not be economically responsible. They have made it clear that they have no intentions of saving money, and lowering costs. The director of the Congressional Budget Office said that the only thing he has seen from the House, has been efforts to increase spending, and increase government involvement in the system. Interesting, no sign of them attempting to lower costs. Isn't it sad that I am not surprised to hear that?<br /><br />One of the ways they are planning on raising back some of this money is obviously.... increase taxes! The Democrats best friend. Should this bill be passed, there would be 39 states with people in upper brackets paying over 50%. Yes 50%. You make 100 dollars, 50 dollars goes to the government. Highway robbery. People were joking (but it wasn't funny,) that Obama was like Robin Hood, coming to spread the wealth. They were incorrect. Robin Hood would have never even attempted to take over 50%.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-1623321123226502752009-07-15T02:41:00.004-04:002009-07-15T08:20:21.729-04:00Fan mail?I read an article on CNN's website yesterday about the 'wise Latina women' comment made by Ms. Sotomayor. To put it nicely, I did not agree with the author about many things. The author was Dr. Laura Gomez. Using the google, I found her email address at the school she teaches in, the University of New Mexico.<br /><em></em><br /><em>The article</em>:<br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/14/gomez.supreme.court/index.html?iref=newssearch">http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/14/gomez.supreme.court/index.html?iref=newssearch</a><br /><br /><em>My email:</em> (Still waiting for a response. Don't worry. I stopped holding my breath after only a few seconds of doing so.)<br /><br />Dr. Gomez,<br /><br />I read your article on CNN earlier this morning, and I am very troubled by much of what you wrote. The reason I am troubled is because you are an educator, and thus, it is safe for me to believe that you are teaching the same concepts and beliefs which you have conveyed in this article. In the piece you refer to the role of a Judge as consisting of judging with empathy and/or life experiences. This is not the role of a Judge. The role of a Judge is to objectively judge a case with out any input of personal beliefs and feelings. The Judge's job is see that the constitution is being upheld, not to rewrite it.<br /><br />When referring to Ms. Sotomayor's wise Latino comments you provide a defense against the racism claims that have been tied to it. Your first two arguments in my opinion are only word games, which do not serve much purpose. You third defense, however, while I do not necessarily believe to be her true intentions, can not argue against it. By claiming the emphasis was on the word wise, and that Latino women was a coincidental following, it can be said that she was not claiming Latino women to make a better Judge, but rather that wiser people make better Judges (something I think we would all agree on.)<br /><br />However, you go on to do Ms. Sotomayor a disservice when you attempt to explain her statement even further. You go on to explain that she was saying that because of the past experiences of a Latino women, she would be able to bring more empathy into her judging. As I stated earlier, this is not the job of a Judge. Later in the article you go on to say that Justice O'Connor had brought her experiences as a women to the bench with her while Judging, while in fact she said much the opposite. She said that an old man and old women would both reach the same conclusion while Judging. This is true for the Judge's job is to apply the law, and the law is the same no matter the race, sex, or age of the Judge reading it.<br /><br />So, while I can not with certainty say Ms. Sotomayor did not mean to say that as a Latino women she is more suited to be a Judge than a white male, (for it would have been pointless to say it had she not meant it, and if all she was seeking to say was that wise people are better Judges, first of all why waster her breath, for no one would think otherwise. And second, why specifically contrast a Latino women and white male?) I think one thing is clear. You are a racist. Now, remember racist does not necessarily mean one thinks lowly of other races, but it does mean that one feels ones race inherently effect their capabilities. Here are the things you said that make me feel this way:<br /><br />1) You describe the conference in which the famous wise Latino women quote was taken from, to be addressing the crisis if more Latinos do not become Judges. Might I ask you why? If you would agree that all people are equally capable to be a Judge, why would there be a crisis? Unless either you are a racist and feel Latinos make better Judges, or if you are implementing the belief that their empathy is needed to Judge. Being that I am certain of my latter charge, there is room for you to wiggle out of this claim, but don't worry, I have more.<br /><br />2) Later on in the piece, you address the question of if black women would be better Judges than white men. You describe the question as one which needs studying. What is there to study? Only a racist would feel that ones race would make them better able to understand laws. Only one who felt that a persons ethnic background, not their education, would be what determines their ability to Judge.<br /><br />3) You conclude by stating "It's past time our nations highest court looked more like our nation." You claim that it is wrong that 107 of the 111 prior Justices have been white males. If one should be appointed to the position of Supreme Court Justice based on their prior achievements, why are we even looking at their sex and race. Only a racist applies these numbers where they do not belong. You should not be counting how many white Judges there have been, but how many good Judges there have been. Judges that did their job, and made certain the Constitution was upheld. (All though you would probably not consider a Judge who does so to be a good one, it seems.) There have only been two Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court. Am I complaining, or demanding more Jews be on the bench? No, for all I wish to see is good Judges on the bench.<br /><br />So, I am worried that as an educator you have the opportunity to pass your beliefs onto growing minds. I am troubled that you have the ability to mold young lawyers to believe as you do. To believe the Constitutions description of a Judge is wrong, and that race and gender are primary categories to consider when assessing ones capability. I say this respectfully, for I am only a 20 year old premed student, but at the same time I say it brazenly, for you have left me no choice. Should I be fortunate enough to become a physician, I will almost certainly find myself involved in legal matters at times in my career, and I am worried that I could be facing a system that would have evolved into the type of system you would like to see. A system where should I be sued by a minority women, I would find myself fighting a loosing battle for the Judge and jury sympathize with her situation over that of a white male physician's. One where race is the case, and justice is forgotten.<br /><br />Joshua Nabatian<br /><br />P.S. This letter will be posted on my blog. If you wish to respond, the response would also be posted.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-26191217576809263762009-07-13T12:56:00.008-04:002009-07-13T20:54:07.222-04:00Justice Sotomayor? I dare say not!Today the confirmation hearings (or as I would like to call them, the rejection hearings) for the supreme court nominee Sonya Sotomayor began. The committee, consisting of 12 democrats and 7 republicans (a little unequal if you ask me,) each gave opening addresses directed at the nominee outlining how they plan on making their decision. Here is what mine would have been:<br /><br />"Sonia, I would first like to congratulate you on all of your achievements up to this point. You were valedictorian of your high school class, graduated with top grades from Princeton, and went on to do the same in Yale Law school. All, obviously not easy tasks.<br /><br />However, these hearings are not about how well you can take tests. So, as far as I am concerned it does not make any difference which schools you went to. What does make a difference is what you have done in your career since then. The rulings you have made as a judge, and the many different things you might have said.<br /><br />I would like to remind you that the role of a Judge is to see that the law is being upheld. No more, and no less. Just like it would be wrong for a Judge to take a bribe and rule in the favor of the bribing party, it would be wrong for the Judge to 'make' their own laws which lead him or her to rule in favor of one party. And as I review previous rulings you have made in your career, I am inclined to think you are often guilty of the latter. Coupled with the fact that you have said a Judge's job is to establish policy, I find it hard to believe that my inclination is incorrect.<br /><br />President Obama said he felt a Judge's job was to judge with empathy and to consider different events in their life when making decisions. I could not disagree with this more. A Judge's job is in fact the opposite: to completely remove empathy and their personal beliefs when they judge. This allows them to judge solely based on the already established laws. You have made it clear, numerous times, that you feel a person's background helps them to come to the proper judgement. I ask, if a Judge's primary job is to see that the law is being upheld, how does one's background aid them?<br /><br />As a member of this committee, it is my job to ensure that you will work to uphold the Constitution, and that you will not bring your personal feelings, and beliefs onto the bench with you. That you will not attempt to out step the boundaries of the Judicial Branch of our government, and act as if you were a member of the Legislative Branch and attempt to make laws. This is what I will be working to find out."<br /><br />Not bad, if I can say so myself. (Which I can since I write this blog.)<br /><br />The only job of the Supreme Court is to make sure the cases brought before them resulted in a ruling that is constitutional, or if a law brought before them is constitutional. By attempting to make policy, or bring outside feelings and beliefs into account, the Judge would be acting to in effect determine if the Constitution itself is constitutional. Which obviously makes no sense. This 'style' of judging is a very liberal approach, in that it is a way for the individual person to control the lives of many. By bringing their own beliefs to the table, (or bench I should say,) the Judge is acting to impose their beliefs on others.<br /><br />One more thing I would like to point out is that the Democrats are playing the same game they played during this past presidential campaign. The race game. If I had a dollar for every time I heard 'the first Hispanic nominee ever' when describing Sotomayor, I would be very wealthy. (So wealthy I could probably retire from writing this blog.) It is not exactly the same in this case for the public does not get to vote on whether or not Sotomayor becomes a Supreme Court Justice, but it is very similar. And I would like to point out that Sotomayor is not the first Hispanic nominee, and in fact would not even be the first Hispanic Justice. Benjamin Cardozo was of Hispanic decent. True he was born in America, but so was Sonia Sotomayor. (But the media is not concerned with facts.)<br /><br />All I can hope is that enough politicians realize Sonia has no intention in upholding the Constitution, as she has said herself. (Which of course requires there are enough politician who care about the Constitution being upheld. Something I am not to sure of.) For if she gets appointed she will be there for a long, long time.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-13427607048408905172009-07-10T08:08:00.006-04:002009-07-10T11:45:11.276-04:00Universal Coverage?President Obama is claiming that his plan for health care reform is no more than just providing another option for people, that would be cheaper than regular insurance companies. He says one would be able to keep their own insurance if they wanted to. He says this is not an effort to socialize medicine. That having this option available will just serve to keep the insurance companies in check, and keep costs down for everyone.<br /><br />I do not believe him. First of all, I do not think any of his claims as to how the health care industry will look should this 'government insurance company' be created. Nor do I believe that this is not really effort to get closer to socializing medicine.<br /><br />I will tell you why. The reason the President and his cronies are seeking to get this government option created is that it will then allow them in the future to make more and more steps towards socializing medicine. By having this system running, the government can say "look, we have been involved in running the health care for some time now. We are covering millions of people already. Socializing the system, would only be a minor change."<br /><br />I have proof. Part of the health care reform is that ALL businesses will by law have to provide some type of health care for their employees. However, at the same time, the health care benefits will be taxed. This would make it more expensive to provide the health care. So, by forcing businesses to provide health care, and at the same time making it more expensive to do so, the businesses will be forced to seek a cheaper option, and waiting with open arms will be the 'government option'. ( And do not be surprised if there is a special deal for lower taxes on the health benefits for the businesses that choose the government option, as an incentive to get more businesses to join.) If all they were seeking to do was provide another option, and mainly to have more people covered, why would they be making it harder for employers to cover their employees at the same time.<br /><br />Businesses may also choose to balance the increased costs by downsizing. If the expense of covering an employee goes up, the business will choose to have less employees to cover. It can not be expected that when the government raises taxes and makes it more expensive to run a business, that businesses will not find ways to keep their profits up. The easiest way to do this is by lowering the expense of running the business, and the easiest way to do this is by eliminating some salaries.<br /><br />Now, in regards to keeping your current insurance. This might be true for some, but for many this will not be the case. First of all, for the above mentioned reason that many companies will be forced to switch to the government option. And the people who loose their jobs as a result of this induced downsizing will most likely have no option other than the government one, if they want coverage. (They will report this as a sign of how good the system is, by showing the recently unemployed people who are now covered by the government option. They will neglect to mention, however, that it was the health care reform that made those very same people unemployed.)<br /><br />Secondly because there will have to be changes. The insurance companies will have to deal with the new competition. They will make the money back in some way. It might be by paying the doctors less, which will lead to less doctors accepting your insurance, (or possibly any insurance at all). Or by hiking up your co pays, and or premiums. They might also choose to stop covering certain expensive procedures.<br /><br />The government is claiming that this is a fair playing field. It is not, and this leads to multiple problems. It is not a leveled playing field for two reasons. First of all there is no one to regulate the government option. Second of all, they do not have to make a profit. This is the main problem. By not having to make a profit they can easily charge less than the insurance companies, hence not a leveled playing field. Another thing they can do is provide less quality coverage. They have no burden of attracting customers, so they can do whatever they wish. Your current insurance has to be showing you that they have a wide range of doctors, can cover a lot of procedures, low co payments, and so on, in order for them to entice you to choose them over their competition. The government is not forced to do this, for they are not in the business of making money.<br /><br />This is where the rationing of care comes into play. If the main objective when providing the coverage is not to supply the best product on the market, what will be pushing them to do more? Nothing, and that is just what they will do. They will find people who they choose not to provide certain services to, such as the terminally ill, the elderly, or people that can technically survive without the procedure will find themselves waiting in long lines. The government being involved in the game, and covering a large amount of people indirectly does lead to a rationing of care. When they choose what they will cover, they are deciding what will be done by the medical world. If they choose to not cover a certain medication or procedure it will slowly stop being given or preformed. This effect has been seen through medicaid already.<br /><br />Another thing that bothers me about the government option is the doctors' end. Now, a physician is not obligated to accept insurance, or he can choose which ones he will accept. What will be the case here? Will the doctors be forced to accept the government option? How much will the government pay them? And as I said before, I see this whole change resulting very possibly in a decrease in the pay of doctors. This will lead to a decrease in the amount of doctors, and the quality of the doctors. And remember, not only will the physicians make less, but so will the drug companies. This will result in a decrease of activity from them. Also not a good thing.<br /><br />So do not be fooled by this man and his plans. This is by all means the beginning of the path to socializing medicine. It will not lead to lower costs. And it will result in higher taxes, and more national debt. If the system covering many people now, medicaid and medicare, is in debt and getting worse, how does it make sense to make the coverage larger? It does not. Just like a great deal of what this administration is doing does not make sense.<br /><br />But Obama has a blackberry and is cool, so who cares, right? Soon enough we will have no choice but to care. But by then, it might be too late.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-2856003974311995772009-07-08T07:58:00.006-04:002009-07-08T13:17:37.135-04:00Double FeatureYes, that's right. Two blogs in one day. It is like double <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jeopardy</span>, only better.<br /><br />I) If you have turned on your television or radio at some point in the past 2 weeks, then you know Michael Jackson has died. You probably also know that his funeral was yesterday. There are a large amount of people complaining about this intense media coverage of the death of Jackson.<br /><br />I do not see the problem. The news, in my opinion has one obligation. To report the news it covers unbiased. (Something it failed to do during this past election, and whenever Israel is attacked, and countless other times.) However, it has no obligation in regards to what it must report. We can not forget that running a news station is a business. The more people watching the news the more money the news station can make. Hence, they report the news people want to see. As long as they are not guilty of slander, they have the option of choosing what to report. They know that people want to hear about Michael Jackson, over and over again, so that is what they give them.<br /><br />To me, the real problem is that this is what the people want. The media would not be able to run stories about celebrities like this unless the audience was interested. It is not the reporters who made Jackson's death such a big deal, but rather the people who watch the news. The same thing is with athletes. People often complain about the high salaries of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">professional</span> athletes. If the athlete is able to get such a contract, why should he not take it? Am I <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">disappointed</span> if he or she does not proceed to do some good things with their money? Yes, but I am in no way upset that they got the contract. We can not blame the sports teams for giving these contracts, it is their business and they make money even with these huge player salaries. How? because we let them.<br /><br />Not that there is any problem with that, but I believe there is something wrong when the same person argues at the doctor's office when it is time to pay the five dollar copay, with no problem shells out twenty bucks to go watch a baseball game.<br /><br />The sports industry and the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">entertainment</span> industry survive because we support them. If the general public was not obsessed with the lives of celebrities, those stories would not be on the news. If people did not care about Michael Jackson this much, his death would not have been the headline news. So the blame is not on the media for covering Michael's death to this extent. But on the audience for making this is the news they want to see.<br /><br />II) You did not think I was serious. You thought there would be only one. Well here it is. Number two. If I am good for anything it is my word. (As long as I am not lying, that is.)<br /><br />Fox news reported yesterday of a law suit being <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">brought</span> against a school for making a seventh grade girl take off her pro-life <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">tee shirt</span>. They are saying that by doing so, the school was violating the first amendment right of the student.<br /><br />We have seen court cases in the past in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">regards</span> to students' rights to express themselves in school. The one that comes to mind for me is Tinker V. Des <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Moines</span>, when the school ordered the students to remove arm bands which were displaying protest of the war. The court ruled in favor of the children to be allowed to express themselves and to wear the bands. So what is different here?<br /><br />This time the school can have an easy way out. The t-shirt had a picture of an embryo on it. The school can argue that their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">decision</span> was because of the image, not what the shirt was <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">representing</span>. They can say that the image was disturbing for the younger children in the school. One of the girl's <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">attorneys</span> points out that this image is also in the text books. The <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">attorney</span> forgets though, that the younger children in the school do not see these textbook.<br /><br />I do not know why the school had her remove the shirt. I can guess, being that most school teachers tend to be very liberal, but it would be difficult to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">prove</span> it. How can this case be played out? If the court rules that a school can not stop a student from wearing a pro-life shirt, the school will argue, that they would agree, but the pictures on this shirt were too much for little children to absorb. Then what could come next? The dispute of whether or not the images are too disturbing for younger children is not a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">constitutional</span> one, but an opinionated one to be decided by the school. I am sorry Ms. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Sotamayor</span>, but it is not the courts job to decide if a picture would be found <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">disturbing</span> by little kids, no matter where the judges are from. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Although</span>, I do feel an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Asian</span> man, about 43, with black hair and a goatee would make the best judgement in such a case, were it to be a courtly matter.<br /><br />A school has the authority to decide if an article of clothing is not appropriate to be worn in school. If a student wore a shirt with profanity on it, we would all agree the school can make the student take it off. Is that what happened here, who knows. Does it matter, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">unfortunately</span> no. The school should easily be able to win this one if they play their cards right.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-36190925731710819092009-07-06T19:07:00.004-04:002009-07-08T08:47:43.527-04:00Barack Obama- Kung Fu FighterHave you ever seen those Jackie Chan movies where he ends up forced to fight against 20 guys at once? I have, and I love them. But did you not always wonder, why do they always attack, one or maybe two at a time allowing for him to win. (Of course you know it is because they are following the script, but work with me here.) Why don't they all attack him at once, and they will certainly beat him. Jackie wouldn't even have known what hit him.<br /><br />Well, President Obama might have also watched these movies. He also noticed that when the thugs attack Jackie one at a time, Jackie always wins. He is employing this strategy now, as he works to pass a great deal of legislation, in a very short time. He knows that if we had time to block the punches of Cap-and-trade and health care reform one at a time we would knock them away with ease. But when we are hit by multiple attacks simultaneously, we are caught off guard and loose the battle.<br /><br />These legislations President Obama and his cronies are trying to force through Congress and the Senate will have devastating effects. We know this not by speculation, but by evidence. Look at the other countries, that Barack himself directs us to look at for examples as to how these types of government initiatives play out. He tells us to look at Spain where possibly the biggest energy reform has taken place. He guides us very selectively to see all of the jobs that were created. He forgets to mention that even more jobs were lost. He forgets to mention all of the businesses that were shut down. I see where CNN gets its reporting style from.<br /><br />The health care reform, I can guarantee you will not only result in higher medical bills, higher taxes and increased government debt. It will also result in unnecessary deaths. Again not just a prediction, but fact, as reported by the countries who have very strong government involvement in health care. I will get more into health care in the near future, but just remember, there is a reason people come from all over the world to seek medical care in America.<br /><br />One more point, then I will return to my MCAT studying. (Yes MCAT studying. How do I have time to write a blog and study for the most difficult exam in the world? Yes, I am just that good.) Today we heard Obama's TelePrompter (I presume, I thankfully only heard it, I did not have to see him,) announce that we will be the leaders in cutting back on nuclear missiles, along with a joint effort by Russia. In today's time, with the horrible regimes in Iran and N. Korea, how can we be cutting down on our nuclear war power? Even if Obama really feels Russia is completely not a threat and that as long as we disarm together we will for sure be safe from the Russians, how can he forget about Iran and N. Korea? Does he honestly expect these regimes that beat and kill their own people, to suddenly want to play nice and disarm solely because we are? Does he truly not understand that the only way to control these monsters is to show them that we can?<br /><br />Maybe President Obama was indeed watching those movies when he was younger, while President Reagan showed how to handle hostile regimes, including Iran. He reminded them who the boss was, us. He did not march around the world apologizing for us protecting ourselves. He did not take initiatives, such as reducing spending on defense making us weaker. He understood that in order to keep peace, especially with evil regimes, it must be known that we are strong, and that there will be consequences to those that do not behave. As Teddy said, "carry a big stick."<br /><br />We must not let President Obama get away with this. As Rush says, we need him to fail, for if he succeeds, we do not. Our success, and his are inversely proportional. We must slow him down and take each punch independently, so that we can properly fight them off. We must not let him continue to pile on more and more devastating reform until we collapse. Now is the time to fight back before it is too late. Now is the time to force Barack to fully explain what he is really trying to do, because quite frankly right now, 'no one understands the words that are coming out of his mouth.' And those of us who do, see that he has a quasi hidden agenda to slowly, from within, destroy this great country. We must act now, for if we wait much longer he might succeed, and we will pay the price, literally.J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1305631469582397763.post-21915335224035044512009-07-04T22:59:00.000-04:002009-07-04T23:29:54.398-04:00Sarah Palin- Democrats worst enemyAs I am sure you all know Sarah Palin resigned from her position as Governor of Alaska this past Friday. As she said, a major reason which led her to this decision was all of the attacks she was under by the Democrats. She said that she was facing over half a million dollars in legal bills that were necessary to fight all of the ethics complaints filed against her. (Which she won all of.)<br /><br />This led me to wonder. Why do the Democrats hate her so much. She was constantly under heavy criticism and attacks form the DNC, and the media. What was it about her that made her the recipient of such hatred.<br /><br />I believe it was the fact that by her being in the position she was in, a big name in the Republican party, she stood as a proof against many of the claims the democrats have against us. You constantly hear the democrats say that the republicans are close minded, racists and sexists, and so on. With a woman on the ballot for Vice President, it is kind of hard to say that Republicans are sexists.<br /><br />Another attack they commonly make is that Republicans are out-of-touch with the common class. That the Republicans represent wealthy Americans but leave the middle class behind. Again, she proves them wrong. She is a member of the middle class herself, but yet she finds herself a big force in the Republican party.<br /><br />Bottom line, the democrats hate her because she is a success, and they hate success. With the liberals it all comes down to jealousy. An attractive women, from a small town in Alaska who worked her way up to become a big name in national politics. It is not fair in their eyes. They have not achieved such success, so why should she? Thus, they have an agenda to bring her down to their level to make 'things fair again.'<br /><br />Which is so sad, but yet so typical of the liberal philosophy. Rather than find a way to lift ones self and achieve success for themselves as well, the liberals seek to bring all those ahead of them back to their level and once again 'level the playing field.'J. Nabatianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01989849021640330989noreply@blogger.com0