Finally, it’s not business as usual

We’re seeing it all over, in federal government and state governments. Here’s an example:

Kansas’ decision to take federal family planning funds away from Planned Parenthood has put the state in a vise.

That any state, and there are now several, would dare to challenged an entrenched NGO like Planned Parenthood is amazing.The states that have done so are now being challenged by the federal government, setting up a conflict there as well.

We’ve got a long way to go before we get back to sanity in this country, but at least it’s not business as usual.

Paul Ryan, family guy

Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, probably the most level-headed and maybe smartest guy in the GOP, has ruled out a run for president in 2012, says The Weekly Standard. Interestingly enough, one of the qualities that would make him a good president is also one of the reasons that he won’t run: his priorities.

But the 40-year-old congressman has consistently tried to quash the notion that he might run for president and did so again last night during the $50 per person fundraising cruise on Lake Geneva. “No, no there isn’t,” Ryan replied when asked if there’s any chance he would run for president.

“I want to be a normal person,” Ryan continued. “Other people can run for that thing. Other people can’t do this,” he said, pointing to one of his three young children sipping a kiddie cocktail.

Many politicians say they won’t run for higher office because of their family, but Ryan really seems to mean it. “I lost my dad when I was a little kid,” he said. “So I’m very sensitive to that issue. I’d be on the campaign trail in a month, and I’d be crying myself to sleep because I hadn’t seen my kids for eight or ten days. Right now, I can handle it when I don’t see them for three or four days.”

It’s a shame that, thanks to the news media, running for president is a no-go if you value family like Ryan does. That’s not saying that politicians with young children, like Barack Obama, are cheating their children of their father if they run for president. But Ryan’s not taking any chances.

The (Superstitious) One

According to Time magazine in June 2008, “Amongst the things that Barack Obama carries for good luck are a bracelet belonging to a soldier deployed in Iraq, a gambler’s lucky chit, a tiny monkey god and a tiny Madonna and child.” (via Has President Obama run out of luck? – Roger Simon – POLITICO.com)

This is the man who is the most powerful in the free world? A “tiny monkey god”?

And how many of his supporters trash Christians for being supposedly superstitious?

What? The Ø lied?

After last night’s joke speech, the Left is finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama is incompetent, an empty suit. Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show (recorded before the speech), pointed out something more onerous.

He’s a liar as well. Always has been, always will be.

Surprise!

N.J. Dems seek override of Gov. Chris Christies veto of millionaire tax | NJ.com

This cuts to the heart of the problem in politics today. Ideological politics doesn’t work. It has to be adapted to the needs of both the moment and the future, even if you’re a free-market guy like me.

You can’t be a slave to ideology, or you soon lose a grasp on reality.

“As Democrats, we believe that we must stand tall for what we believe ideologically,” said Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver D-Essex.

via N.J. Dems seek override of Gov. Chris Christies veto of millionaire tax | NJ.com.

NY Times’ story on Blumenthal flawed

I’d never heard of Richard Blumenthal, a Senate candidate in Connecticut, until today, when the New York Times ran a story that he had lied about serving in Vietnam.

I say that to point out that I have nothing for or against Blumenthal.

But the NYT story by Raymond Hernandez that raised the accusations had some classic biased journalism. In this case, biased against a Democrat, for a change.

What it is, though, is sloppy journalism.

Many politicians have faced questions over their decisions during the Vietnam War, and Mr. Blumenthal, who is seeking the seat being vacated by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, is not alone in staying out of the war.

But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.

Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the Times is a bastion biased reporting and all of that. I’ve read Bernard Goldberg’s books, I’ve read the Times for years. But this is simply over the top. In the middle of an alleged news story, Hernandez, without the slightest hesitation, decides to characterize Blumenthal’s actions.

He goes on to cite instances of Blumenthal having claimed to serve in Vietnam, but apparently didn’t want to let the reader come to the conclusion on his own about whether Blumenthal had been misleading. He is in essence quoting himself on whether Blumenthal’s language was untrue, and decided on his own whether “the impression left on audiences can be similar.”

This is another example of how horribly unprofessional the Times can be. Do reporters have opinions? Of course they do, they’re human. Should they or their editors allow them to put them in their news stories? Of course not. Not, that is, if they’re trying to claim some type of objectivity. If they’re the National Review Online or the Daily Kos, they’re not going to worry about creating a sheen of objectivity.

But that reporters can unblushingly write such garbage is pathetic.

Legislator flunks with effort to tie school attendance to driver’s license

The South Carolina Legislature is looking to become the latest state linking the right to drive for a person 16-18 years old with whether they’ve stayed in school.   The Digitel reports that:

A new bill proposed by freshman lawmaker Rep. Tom Young and co-sponsored by 45 House members would punish teens who drop out of school or habitually skip their classes by taking their drivers license away until they’re 18.

Young is calling the bill “a short-term solution to the state’s long-term problem of too many students not graduating.”

At least 20 states have passed similar laws, but a House Education panel postponed voting on the bill last week stating that too many questions remain.

It’s good that they’re asking questions. Several points came to mind for me: 

In most states, by dropping out after age 16, they’d be doing something legal, although I’m not sure if the action requires a parent’s consent. Ultimately, it should be left up to the parent whether they want their child up to age 18 to continue in school or drop out. So if you’re wanting to insure that students all graduate, then make the compulsory age of attendance up to 18 and don’t link school attendance with getting a driver’s license. There’s no logical legal connection. If a parent wants to take away a child’s driving rights for disciplinary reasons, they’re free to do that at any time. The state shouldn’t have the same leeway just because the young person is doing something the state doesn’t approve of but that also is not related to their ability to drive safely on government streets.

This seems to be simply another way for the state to secure its monopoly on education and its control of individuals. Callers to the Don and Roma Show on WLS-AM, where I heard about the proposal Monday morning, emphasized that we have to do something to improve the education of our children and keep them attending school longer. The problem is most kids do graduate from high school, but that doesn’t seem to help matters at all. That’s because our public schools are failures. Keeping students in them a year or two longer isn’t going to help the U.S. public education system–or help the children. While I prefer that young people get a 12-year education through either home schooling or a private school, I have no problem with them dropping out and trying to learn on their own through working in the real world. This is how things in our society worked before the “teen-ager” was invented. People went from being children to being adults through the acceptance of responsibility for their lives.

Enough mandates, already.

How many uninsured? 47 million? 46 million? 30 million? 15 million?

Barack Obama was way off in the beginning when he bought the common wisdom and said that 47 million Americans were without health insurance. As Sally Pipes has shown, only about 8 million of those actually want health insurance and can’t get it. The others either aren’t American citizens, are eligible for government programs and haven’t used them, simply don’t want to buy health insurance or were counted as being without insurance because they changed jobs and may have gone a day without coverage.

But the Ø has revised his numbers downward over the past year, going from 47 million last July to “nearly” 46 million in August, to 30 million in September and, finally, to 15 million in his now-infamous 17-minute answer to a question asked by a Celgard employee in Charlotte, N.C.

At a July 22, 2009, press conference:

This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance at all.

In a New York Times op-ed that ran on Aug. 15, 2009:

I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is.

In a joint address to Congress on Sept. 9, 2009:

There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.

At the Celgard facility on April 2, 2010:

Here’s the bottom line. Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 15 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance.

That “last week” would refer to the passage and signing of the health care bill.

Continue reading “How many uninsured? 47 million? 46 million? 30 million? 15 million?”

Stupak and Nelson: PLINOs?

The other option for Congressman Stupak is even more distasteful. Maybe he was playing games all along? We have seen that routine before when it comes to congressional Democrats and abortion funding in the Obama health care package. Remember the principled stand against abortion funding taken by Senator Ben Nelson? That stand led to the now famous Cornhusker Kickback. After securing his home state pork, it became clear that Senator Nelson was never really standing as much on principle as he was on politics.

via Bart Stupak is either not very smart or he’s not very honest. There really is no other option | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment.

Are Stupak and Nelson just Pro-Life In Name Only?

The amazing Obama flight from reality

George Orwell would have been in awe of Barack Obama, who tops his previous doublespeak every time he opens his mouth.

Obama will unveil his health care legislative plan this afternoon. His remarks are breathtaking in their contempt for the intelligence of the average American.

I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.

Yet this is exactly what the Democratic health care legislation will do on both counts.

I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance.

Yet your legislation will take away that control in an unprecedented way.

I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone.

Note the word “alone.” Need to extend that power to government bureaucrats.

I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

They may be the only ones left after government starts determining health care costs and drives the rest of the medical profession out of the profession or overseas.

The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable.

It makes them partners with the government, which is showing itself in this action to be completely unaccountable to the American people.

It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer.

Which is one of the problems. Third-party payment shields the consumer patient from the real cost of their medical care.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

Unless your employer, which is what this new plan is supposedly built on, drops that plan.

 If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Unless your doctor leaves the profession or shutters his/her practice due to lack of proper compensation. Or unless a government plan or government-approved plan doesn’t want to send patients to that doctor.

This guy just doesn’t get it, and I’m beginning to think he never has.