WHY THE BLATANT LIES?: Hubris, ineptness, and sheer arrogance are the short answers In light of all the astute observations on the thread of this post what is always overlooked in discussions of our healthcare delivery system in the U.S. is the role of insurance. We all know the system of tying healthcare insurance to employment began during WWII and evolved into what it is today. But insurance is being asked to do something it is not meant to do namely administer healthcare delivery. Insurance in all its iterations is a tool to mitigate catastrophic loss. In the healthcare industry we have forced the insurance industry to become the very same bureaucratic nightmare Obamacare has designed to enable the government to take over and make the all decisions now made by the insurance carriers.
THIS, IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: It cannot be laid out better than in this analysis by Andrew McCarthy
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
HYPOCRITES: Read this newspaper at your peril Some things never change. I found it hard to read the NYTimes when living in NYC in the '60's and early '70's so pro union and far left was it at that time. This paper, who hired and supported the Pulitzer Prize for the Stalin-loving Walter Duranty, is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the far left wing of the Democrat Party. What pass for journalism in this country today is embarrassing. End of story.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
SETTING THE RECORD RIGHT: The leftists are on a crusade to eliminate all reference of a Deity from the consciousness of the electorate as an important step toward the elimination of any belief that interferes with the idea that human rights and political rights emanate from the all-powerful state. This is the long standing credo of the socialists, fascists and communists and it is the belief of Obama and his acolytes. Believe it.
ALEXANDER'S COLUMN
Getting Gettysburg Right
Lincoln v Obama -- Words Matter
"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their arts may be more dangerous than their arms. Let us then ... under God trust our cause to our swords." --Samuel Adams (1776)
This week, we marked the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, a three-minute speech delivered by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. That battlefield was the site of the bloodiest conflict in the War Between the States, a three-day battle in July of 1863 that resulted in 23,000 Union casualties and 28,000 Confederate casualties.
Lincoln was a self-taught man whose formal schooling added up to less than one year. But he penned this remarkable, concise and eloquent address, which not only captured a pivotal moment in a war-torn nation, but also paid tribute with words that honored all Americans. And he managed to say it without teleprompters.
One notable catalyst, which sparked this horrific war, was the abolition of slavery. Lincoln's party was Republican, but in a tragically ironic twist of fate, the Democrat Party has now mastered the cowing of 95% of black Americans as its most loyal constituency. They accomplished this transition by instituting social policies that have enslaved generations of poor people on urban poverty plantations, and then ensuring their fealty with massive redistributive handouts and victimization indoctrination promoting dependency on the state.
Barack Obama, who used Lincoln's Bible for his inaugurations and who envisions himself the finest legacy example of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation -- though he has no slave ancestry on this continent -- was narcissistically compelled to chime in on the anniversary recognition.
Notably, Obama offered up his videotaped recitation of the Gettysburg Address for historian Ken Burns' 150th anniversary Web dedication to Lincoln's timeless words.
In his recitation of the address, however, Obama predictably omitted two key words. Lincoln said, "that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." But Obama altered his recitation, leaving "under God" out.
For the record, Ken Burns recited it correctly. George W. Bush was also among the handful of participants for Burns' project, and he recited it correctly. Even Democrat National Chairwoman, ultra-leftist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, recited it correctly.
For a little historical perspective, Lincoln's use of "under God" is sometimes disputed -- mostly by those who object to those words today. The words do not appear in two historic drafts (Nicolay and Hay) but do appear in three drafts (Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss). However, the best evidence of what Lincoln said is the verbatim text of his speech, which was telegraphed by numerous journalists to their newspapers on the very day he delivered his address.
Among the journalists in witness were Joseph Gilbert with the Associated Press, John Young with the Philadelphia Press (who would later become Librarian of Congress), Charles Hale with the Boston Advertiser, and other reporters from the New York Tribune and The New York Times. Each of their telegraphs included the words "under God," and as noted by historian William E. Barton:
"Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery."
Indeed, as reported by The New York Times the day after Lincoln's delivery, he included the words, "under God." (That original text is posted here). Historians may debate Lincoln's legacy as president, but there is no disputing his religious devotion and his very deliberate use of "under God" at Gettysburg.
So why did Obama choose to omit these essential words?
Barack Obama has a long history of omitting references to God, such as his repeated omission of "endowed by our Creator" when referencing the Declaration of Independence.
So what is Obama's overarching objective?
Under the pretense of "religious tolerance," Barack Obama's administration has been quietly advancing his mandate to remove all expressions or manifestations of faith from government forums -- excepting Islam. This eradication serves the Left's strategic objective of replacing God-given Rule of Law with the rule of men -- because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty "endowed by our Creator," while the latter asserts that Liberty is the gift of potentates and presidents.
Obama's administrators are constantly endeavoring to drive wedges between Liberty and its inherent foundational endowment. Most notably, he has done this in those spheres where he can exercise power and influence without legislative and judicial precedents -- such as our military.
As commander in chief, Obama has certainly succeeded in suppressing religious expression by uniformed Patriots in our military service branches. However, his subversion of faith expression in the military is not going without objection.
For example, last year The Patriot uncovered what appears to be a legal setup by Obama's DoD civilian administrators and their surrogates, which has the potential to force the removal of "so help me God" fromall military oaths. That strategic ploy starts with the 2011 removal of those words from officer, enlisted and cadet oaths at the Air Force Academy. Three weeks ago, we published a detailed account of that strategy. This week, in response to that column, 28 members of Congress issued an official letter of inquiry to the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy asking for "a detailed explanation as to why [they omitted] 'so help me God' from these oaths, despite the fact that the phrase is used in the very statutory language of the United States Code, and was part of the military oath drafted by the Founders themselves."
(A Fox News report notes the AFA's Public Affairs Office claimed yesterday, "It was an editorial oversight," however, a Freedom of Information Act request will be filed tomorrow in an effort to determine if anyone outside the AFA had a hand in the alteration of oaths.)
Typical of the "expert opinion" syndicated across the nation about our nation's Godly heritage, is that of Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Mark Thompson, who posted an op/ed in Time magazine on the "So help me God" issue. Thompson's Pulitzer was earned for a series he wrote that led to enhanced military helicopter safety. Clearly it was not earned for his limited knowledge of civilian and military oaths.
Thompson asserted, "The formal American embrace of religion in civic government is a fairly recent phenomenon: 'Under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. 'In God We Trust' became the nation's official motto in 1956. In 1957, 'In God We Trust' was added to U.S. paper currency."
He got the recent dates right, but his assertion that references to "God" are a "recent phenomenon" is patently, stupefyingly, incorrect.
Thompson should recall that the words "under God" were in the Gettysburg Address, as noted, but it is undeniable that the roots of that attribution date to our nation's inception and were inspired by the enlightened manifestos of natural law long before that.
The most formative words in our nation's seminal foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, assert that Liberty is "endowed by their Creator," not the gift of man, as Barack Obama and his Leftist cadres assert today.
The Continental Congress established its first military oath in 1776 and revised it in 1778 -- both ending with "So help me God."
The words "So help me God" were prescribed in oaths by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789. But five months earlier, George Washington elected to use those same words in conclusion to the first oath of office as president.
Invoking faith was a common theme for Washington and most other Founders, as in these words from his farewell address in 1796: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. ... Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths..."
The words "In God we trust" first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864, long before it was added to currency in 1957. And one of the earliest references to "In God We Trust" was in the last verse of our National Anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner." During the War of 1812, Francis Scott Key penned the words, "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust,'" after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814.
But Obama and his like-minded Pulitzer-wielding pontificators are busy redacting references to our Creator.
Next week, we observe with reverence our timeless Thanksgiving holiday, which has been celebrated appropriately throughout our history. We do so as a nation, because a month before his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln officially designated a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens," on the fourth Thursday of November.
In his proclamation, Lincoln referenced the "ever watchful providence of Almighty God." He noted of our innumerable blessings, "No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God," and recommended "offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him," that we all may "fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace."
Of course, the first Thanksgiving proclamation was issued by George Washington in 1789. He declared, "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God," that all Americans should "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions..."
That history notwithstanding, last year, as with all his previous Thanksgiving addresses, Barack Obama refused to credit our Creator in acknowledgment of Thanksgiving, just as he has omitted God from other historic references.
At the conclusion of his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln affirmed, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That reference was to our constitutional republic, not Obama's vision for the People's Socialist Democratic Republic.
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Wednesday, November 18, 2013
SUCCINCT ANALYSIS:
In the coming years, a solid majority of Americans outside of committed liberals will begin to acknowledge the hard truth that Barack Obama has been a failure as a president. It isn't merely that his signature reform was sold with lies and managed to exacerbate the problems of the health-care system instead of solving them. What else will be Obama's legacy? This terrific economy we're enjoying? The out-of-control domestic-surveillance programs at the NSA? Partisan abuses of the IRS?The national debt more than doubling under Obama's presidency? The partisan fury in Washington? Eight years of ignoring the ticking time bomb of entitlements as the Baby Boomers begin to retire?
This isn't even touching on foreign policy. Yes, President Obama authorized the bin Laden mission and got U.S. troops out of Iraq, but the Middle East is a bloody mess, Israel feels besieged and abandoned, our allies are alienated by our NSA activities, we're spent enormous amounts of blood and treasure in Afghanistan for inconclusive results, Russia is on the march, and we appear to be desperately trying to get a deal with the Iranians that the French think will allow Tehran to pursue a nuclear program. He has no warm relationships with any other world leader.
We on the right argued that America made the wrong call in 2008. Barack Obama is naïve in his view of the world. He did not and does not understand what causes businesses to hire people. He has way too much faith in government spending's ability to create jobs, and is ultimately comfortable with the practices of crony capitalism. He never foresees the failures of the federal bureaucracy and rarely is upset about them for long. Scandals like Fast & Furious, the IRS abuses, and Benghazi percolate under him and congressional demands for accountability are dismissed as partisan witch hunts. His cabinet is a collection of egomaniacs and tired pols who are incapable of instituting a culture of responsibility for taxpayer dollars. He is ultimately incurious about the world and has resisted reevaluating his approaches. He wings it at the worst times, instituting 'red lines', then hastily retreats from his commitments.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: She had real insights It was and is a legacy of communism and academia loves it
CUTTING TO THE CHASE:
CUTTING TO THE CHASE:
Lies, Damn Lies and ObamaCare
Last week I was informed by the agent who handles my firm’s health-care insurance that, come 2014, our group plan will be cancelled and replaced with an ObamaCare plan.
Never mind that President Obama, his spokespeople, and Democratic Congressional leaders all stated over and over that Americans happy with their health-care plans would be able to keep them. Never mind that none of that was true.
Now those same leaders – not to mention all sorts of political talking heads – are saying that the only plans being cancelled are subpar plans that don’t meet the minimum requirements of ObamaCare. They’re saying the cancellations will only affect a small percentage of individual plans.
None of that is true, either.
Our plan is a small business (2-50 employees) group PPO plan with low deductibles, out-of-network coverage, the whole nine yards. Read my lips: it’s not a subpar plan. And you know what it’s being replaced by? An EPO plan – a new designation with no out-of-network coverage at far higher premiums with a fraction of the number of doctors.
Here’s the thing. I’ve had PPO health-care coverage for decades. I don’t want to get into personal details here, but suffice to say that, without out-of-network coverage, I probably would have lost a loved one many years ago.
As I understand it, under ObamaCare, Blue Shield of California will no longer be offering PPO plans in quite a few California counties such as Alameda, which includes Oakland and Berkeley. Let me tell you: that’s a very big deal that will impact a lot of people.
When it comes to ObamaCare, everyone’s mincing words these days. They’re afraid to say our leaders lied. And they’re afraid to say they’re still lying. That’s entirely understandable. They want to be accurate. They want to be truthful. They want to be honest. Well thank God somebody does. Nobody in Washington seems to.
Well, here’s how I see it. It sure looks to me as if the President of the United States, members of his administration, and Democratic Congressional leaders didn’t just lie. I think they intentionally perverted the truth. And I think they did it because, if they didn’t, they knew the bill wouldn’t pass through Congress.
And Congress passed a bill it knew would dramatically impact Americans' rights – you know, our inalienable constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – without even reading it. And they subverted the constitution by using the Commerce Clause to ram it through the Senate without a single Republican vote.
If that isn’t enough, the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate as a tax, even though President Obama and congressional leaders clearly stated it wasn’t a tax. Had they proposed it as a tax, they never would have gotten it through Congress.
I wish this was just about lying, dishonesty, and accountability. To me, it goes way beyond that. To me, and apparently the Merriam Webster dictionary, this is fraud:
fraud noun \ˈfrȯd\
a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
If a CEO or CFO of a public corporation pulled something like this, it would be fraud. The only difference is this fraud was committed against the American people. Not a small percentage of the American people. Not just the ones with individual coverage. Not just the ones who had subpar plans, whatever that means.
We’ve recently seen reports that, way back in 2010, the Obama administration knew ObamaCare would dramatically disrupt private health insurance plans. They knew that at least 93 million Americans would lose their health plan coverage. And, by some estimates, the actual number will be much higher.
According to the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register, in addition to individual plan disruption, “The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013.”
Perhaps more importantly, under ObamaCare we will have fewer choices, higher premium costs, and far fewer doctors. Let me spell that out for you: fewer choices + higher costs + fewer doctors = poorer health care.
I’m no constitutional expert but it sure looks to me as if at least two branches of the Federal Government – branches that are supposed to provide checks and balances to keep each other from overstepping their bounds – committed fraud by perverting the truth and subverting the constitution to get Americans to give up some of their rights.
Let me tell you something, folks. We’ve seen this sort of leadership behavior before. We’ve seen it at companies like Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Adelphia. If you’ve ever wondered what makes powerful executives commit fraud, the answer is simple. They think they’re above the truth and the law. They think they know better. And they think they can exert their will over others without being held to account.
When that happens, it’s called absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s what I think we’re seeing here. The organization of our federal government into three unique and autonomous branches was supposed to keep this sort of thing from happening. It didn’t. It failed.
How can we the people let this stand? And if we do, what’s next?
Steve Tobak is a Silicon Valley-based strategy consultant and former senior executive of the technology industry.
Contact Tobak; follow him on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)