Views on the News
Views on the News*
June 7, 2014
If one sets out to destroy the core pillars of a society, to incrementally break down the values of a country, and to dishearten its inhabitants, then Barack Hussein Obama has been a sterling success. His actions are deliberate, and his goals are in direct opposition to the vast majority of the American people. He knows exactly what he is doing, and far too many people still don't comprehend or want to believe the machinations of this man and his underlying political arc. Obama is doing what Obama said he would do: He is transforming this country into the mold he wants – a weakened America, a demoralized American people, and a vast playground that he can ultimately demolish should he become head of the United Nations. What gives Obama an almost Teflon-shield protection is that he is neither a bombastic leader like Hitler nor quite a sociopath like Stalin. It is mandatory that we play the same game as Obama and company, but our net result is to save the country, not destroy it. Obama cannot abide the capitalistic urge for independent creation of money; thus, he has been successful in stymieing business in this country. He concocts high-sounding responses to an audience that has no understanding of the evils of communism. As a result, they mindlessly parrot his ideas without even acknowledging that they will be the ones most to suffer. Consider that Obama is hell-bent on bringing America to its knees. His is not a hidden agenda. Obama has been particularly astute at dividing this country. The tension among races is palpable. The phony war on women is a constant drone that stops any rational conversation based on logic, reason, and sheer evidence. Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports sharia, the most misogynistic law on the face of the planet. His gay supporters need to see the hanging of their gay brothers in the middle of the town square in Islamic-supported countries. His black supporters need to be reminded of the slavery that is thriving in these same countries. Instead, we find Obama and Eric Holder coddling Muslim jihadists while also exhibiting outright racism against white Americans. Obama has succeeded, because the "good people are doing nothing." Congress has the means to impeach this man for any number of reasons, but they refuse. A change in tactics is critical because the November 2014 is the last chance to save this country from a downward trajectory that will radically and adversely change the landscape of America.
(“A Most Successful President” by Eileen F. Toplansky dated June 1, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/a_most_successful_president.html )
Clearly, no amount of unprecedented unlawful power-grabs, narcissistic behavior, blatant lies, and ignoring of the Constitution will sway the mainstream media and the Democrats from their loyalty to Obama. Obama is black, which makes him their ultimate weapon of mass destruction, able to nuke traditional America. Obama's mission is to cram his radical socialist/progressive dream for America down our throats. Obama’s reign of terror is but a mere preview of things to come if the MSM and Democrats are successful in duping Americans into handing Hillary Clinton the keys to the Oval Office. Just as Obama has ruled as America's first king, Hillary will be our first queen. Those who dare to criticize or oppose Queen Hillary's radial liberal agenda will be branded sexists and severely punished, subjected to a high-tech lynching, their politically battered carcasses left on public display to ward off other outspoken conservatives/Republicans. The frightening inconvenient truth is the MSM, the Democrat Party, and Obama consider American suffering and loss of life acceptable collateral damage to protect Obama and implement his agenda. His black skin provides perfect political cover, similar to an impenetrable suit of armor, providing the left with a unique golden opportunity to implement all of their unsellable liberal utopian fantasies. Despite Obama's multiple crimes and misdemeanors against the American people and the Constitution, serious opposition to the first black President is simply not an option for many in the GOP and MSM. It is plain to see the pattern of behavior of Obama and his minions, is to protect Obama and further their agenda at any and all cost while engaging in maximum exploitation of his skin color for perfect political cover.
(“Because He is Black, Americans Suffer and Die” by Lloyd Marcus dated June 6, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/because_he_is_black_americans_suffer_and_die.html )
No day passes without a Democrat politician, a left-wing commentator, or a left-wing academic’s labeling Republicans and conservatives racist. Given the power of repetition, one consequence is that many Americans, especially young ones, believe that one side of the political spectrum, the Right, is racist. The charge of conservative racism is so easily refuted that it is difficult to imagine how anyone without a vested interest in libeling conservatives could believe it. The fact is that, compared with a person’s values, conservatives couldn’t care less about a person’s color. Large conservative audiences have been asked if they would prefer a Supreme Court composed of nine white male Christians who were liberal or nine black secular lesbians who were conservative. There has never been a single vote for the former. While there are liberals and leftists who are not racist, I have come to understand that many are, and here are some proofs:
· First, white liberals state that America is a racist country, and that all whites are racist. The only difference among whites is some are racist and some are not; it is that some acknowledge their racism and some do not. That answer admits that liberals are racist.
· A second proof that racism has a home on the left is the Left’s primary argument against requiring all citizens to show identification when they vote. The liberal-left-Democrat argument, repeated by almost every editorial page, columnist, and news outlet, and by every Democrat, is that such a requirement would greatly suppress the black vote. People who assume that voter ID would suppress the black vote have to believe that millions of blacks are uniquely incompetent citizens. Most liberals do not believe that whites have any difficulty obtaining an ID, but they are certain that millions of blacks find this too onerous.
· Third is the liberal and left-wing advocacy for lowering standards for blacks, aka affirmative action. White liberals never advocate lowering professional or academic standards for Asian immigrants, often without money or any knowledge of English.
· Finally, there is the Democrat and liberal opposition to school vouchers that would enable many black parents to send their children to schools superior to the awful ones that the (liberal-run) educational establishment has provided black children. Most blacks want school vouchers, but most liberals vehemently oppose them because what is good for teachers’ unions is more important to the Left than what is good for blacks.
By their own admission, and by the policies they pursue, the answer as to who is racist is the people who call themselves progressive.
(“Who’s Racist?” by Dennis Prager dated June 3, 2014 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379401/who-racist-dennis-prager )
The problem with the VA system is the system, a single-payer model, because that is the way single-payer systems work - the norm, not the exception. Newspaper headlines shrieked outrage over unconscionable wait times to see a doctor; inadequate operating rooms; and needed medicines not available. This should come as no surprise, since we can look to our north for proof, to the single payer system in Canada where fifteen years ago, patients were dying needlessly, while waiting for authorized (but not funded) care. There was good hard medical data to back up the claims, showing that there were not enough operating rooms, too few nurses or doctors, and insufficient medicines, all due to a government budget allocation process. The phrase applied to these patients, equally appropriate for our veterans, was death-by-queuing. The current VA scandal comes as a surprise to many, but it certainly shouldn’t. In 2003, a task force established by President G.W. Bush reported that at least 236,000 U.S. veterans were waiting six months or more for a first medical appointment or initial follow-up, and nothing was really changed in eleven years. In 2011, a former VA administrator stated before Congress that our VA hospitals were “gaming the system,” cooking its books. Rather than solving the problem, the VA administration was simply spinning the data so that it appeared as though there was no problem. The reason they cover up the problems rather than implement a solution is because solving the VA health crisis would force them to admit that the system is the problem. A single-payer healthcare system is a government-run monopoly over health services and goods. The government pays what it chooses, when it chooses. The consumer has no say. The care a patient receives is determined by bureaucratic rules and budget allocation, not by the doctor in concert with the patient. There are no free market forces in a single-payer system. Supporters claim that single payer will dramatically reduce administrative costs and eliminate the obscene profits that commercial insurance companies make, but there is no proof that this is correct. A recent New York Times headline blamed our veterans’ deaths-while-waiting-for-care on a doctor shortage. There a shortage of providers in VA system for two reasons: money and red tape. As the government-controlled (single payer) system fixes prices, market forces drive suppliers of service, doctors, out of the market, whether VA or private sector. The doctor shortage is less about money than it is about red tape. Excessive administration, reason-robbing regulations, mandatory time-wasting, intrusive oversight, and bureaucrats practicing medicine are what drive more and more doctors to quit clinical practice. Bloated administration, gross inefficiency, overwhelming regulatory burden, and cost overruns are the norm for all bureaucratic, government-run programs. The needs of the end-user, aka the “patient,” are unimportant in a single-payer system compared to the budget process and regulatory compliance. The VA system here and the national health systems of Canada and Great Britain are all single-payer systems. They protect the budget and the bureaucracy over the welfare of a sick patient. Advocates of single payer option and Kool-Aid drinkers everywhere, beware: There are rising costs, fewer doctors and nurses, less care, poorer health, and premature death in your future.
(“Single payer is Root Cause of VA Deaths” by Deane Waldman dated June 4, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/single_payer_is_root_cause_of_va_deaths.html )
Revelations of the failed Veterans Affairs medical system give new insight into how ObamaCare might work out for the rest of us if we don't repeal and replace it with a free-market, doctor-patient-driven alternative. The VA horror of misdiagnoses, staff indifference and interminable waits for doctor visits all presage what we will surely experience under ObamaCare unless we end it soon. The VA medical system was intended, in its conceptualization, to be a demonstration of national commitment to those who have served in U.S. armed forces to keep our nation free, but it is clear that the hundreds of VA hospitals, clinics and nursing homes are a bureaucracy out of control. We must go beyond the VA scandals and use the lessons learned from them to end the systemic abuses in ObamaCare, Medicare, Indian Health Service and Medicaid, because these government-run medical programs are all rife with fraud, waste and failure. We now know that at least dozens of Americans have died premature deaths because of these failures. The necessary solution is the same for all of these programs: return them to the private sector and to state and local governments to administer. Provide the necessary help for all those in need in the form of a voucher or tax credit that can be used to help pay for the private health insurance of the beneficiary's choice, including health savings accounts (HSA). HSAs are the only innovation in health care that has been proven to reduce health costs in the real world without empowering some third party to deny health care. With HSAs, backed up by higher deductible, catastrophic health insurance policies, Americans will become cost-conscious consumers of health care services. This not only maximizes freedom of choice and control by each person over their own health care, it involves market competition and incentives to ensure that the system best serves each patient and consumer while controlling costs. Replacing the employer mandate with a universal health insurance tax credit encouraging workers to buy the health insurance of their choice would promote growth by eliminating the negative economic effects of the mandate. It would also promote portability of (non-job-related) health coverage. Advocates for the poor have been slow to recognize that empowering them to choose their own preferred private health insurance in place of Medicaid would greatly increase the poor's access to the same high-quality health care as the middle class, because such health insurance pays adequate fees to health care providers, ensuring access to quality care. National advocacy groups, conservatives and liberal, would serve their constituents well if they strongly advocated private, doctor-patient alternatives to the VA and other government-operated medical systems and facilities.
(“VA Failure Shows Privately Run Health Care is Better” by Lewis K. Uhler and Peter J. Ferrara dated May 30, 2014 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/053014-702806-va-failure-sign-of-shortcoming-of-government-health-care.htm )
Until last week, some had hoped that, having failed to develop a credible foreign policy, President Obama may at least be capable of engaging in serious debate with his critics, but Obama’s West Point address dashed that hope. In it, he showed that he has become prisoner of a narrative in which his critics are cast as warmongers who need to be restrained by level-headed statesmen like him. In other words: he just doesn’t get it. Obama accuses his critics of urging the use military force in every instance, but the opposite is true. No one has called for invading “every country that harbors terrorists.” No one invited Obama to invade Iran to stop its nuclear program, nor has anyone demanded that American troops be parachuted into Syria in the midst of a sectarian war. No one has demanded that Russia be bombed either. The problem with Obama’s foreign policy is not inaction either. This administration, especially since John Kerry became secretary of state, has been hyperactive, but only in words. Together, the tandem has made countless speeches and trips. Kerry has visited the Middle East a dozen times after Obama all but promised that he would put a Palestinian state on the map within a year. In the style of a butterfly, this administration focuses on one issue for a short while, and then flies to another. The Israel-Palestine issue, Iran, Syria and Ukraine are not the only examples. Other examples include the fiasco of the global-warming summit that Obama attended in Copenhagen, the all-but-stalled trade negotiations with the European Union, the meaningless handshakes with Hugo Chavez and Raoul Castro, and apologizing tours to various Muslim countries. The criticism is not that Obama has been lethargic; it is that he has been too active for the wrong reasons. He diminished the stature of the American Presidency by making a number of humiliating trips in search of photo opportunities. The Obama-Kerry record is one of setting high goals and consistently failing to attain them. John F. Kennedy had advised leaders who win office to keep their ideals but lose their illusions. Obama and Kerry have done the opposite, becoming prisoners of their rhetoric. As for al Qaeda, the group had been smashed as an organization as early as 2002. However, under Obama’s watch, more than a dozen new al Qaeda franchises have appeared in Asia and Africa with recruiting branches in at least eight European Union countries. Building a foreign policy based on braggadocio is dangerous, especially for a “superpower.” This is why the first damage-limitation move should be a reduction in the rhythm and tempo of Obama’s finger-waving “don’t make a mistake” threatening rhetoric. Here is a piece of advice for Obama: if you don’t wish to do anything, and then do nothing and that includes not talking too much.
(“Obama speaks loudly and carries a small stick” by Amir Taheri dated May 31, 2014 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2014/05/31/obama-speaks-loudly-and-carries-a-small-stick/ )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:
· Agriculture at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/agriculture.php
· Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php