Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets

The hypocrisy of the left-leaning media is shown again in a wonderful article by Byron York in the Washington Examiner. He starts the article with the following:

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He then quotes Joe Biden and explains that the Obama administration changed the policy in April of this year. The press rushed in to cover the first arrivals but quickly tired of the story.

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided."

The amount of coverage this has received in September is abysmal. No TV. Only one reporter present when allowed. York explains it this way.

On Sept. 2, when the casket bearing the body of Marine Lance Cpl. David Hall, of Elyria, Ohio, arrived at Dover, there was just one news outlet -- the Associated Press -- there to record it. The situation was pretty much the same when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.

Could it be that the press has lost interest since there is a Democrat in the White House and the casualties are mounting? Nah..... they are objective journalists. That couldn't possibly be the explanation.

Socialists are Suffering More

Even the New York Times is admitting that Europe's socialist nations are having a harder time with the recession than are the capitalist nations. They then find an inane way of blaming it on the conservatives. The logic they use is stunningly obtuse. According to the New York Times decades of the socialism is not relevant to their current situations; only the current conservative leaders are to blame. We hear that same kind of logic from the current administration.

John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey would be considered conservatives in today's political climate. In the 1960's they were considered liberals. This is evidence that the whole political spectrum in the US has shifted dramatically to the left over the last 40 years. According to pop culture this has nothing to do with our current problems; instead the Bush Administration (hardly conservative) is to blame for everything.

In reading the New York Times article you have to read between the lines to get to the truth. Focus on the facts and ignore the editorial comments and you will see that socialism is the cause of their problems. Imagine how bad it must be if the New York Times is barely able to hide the real cause - liberalism just doesn't work.

This is Disturbing

This YouTube video shows an elementary school teacher leading her students in a song in praise of the President. This is more than disturbing.

An Unnecessary Operation

A friend of mine turned me onto a wonderful article that factually disputes all of the leading arguments of the left over health care reform as they see it. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard wrote An Unnecessary Operation that gives enough facts to enlighten your left-leaning friends.

Hat tip to Brian McCabe.

Glenn Beck's New Book

Glenn Beck is releasing a new book, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government tomorrow. If it is at all like his other books it will be funny, provocative, and filled with information. I look forward to reading it.

Obama Reneges On Vow To African School

We seem to have bought ourselves another Bill Clinton in electing Barack Obama. In August 2006 Obama was greeted as a hero as he returned to Kogelo, Kenya to find a school named in his honor. At that time he publicly promised the principal, in the presence of Kenya's Prime Minister that "I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so."

The school's principal has been quoted as follows: "Obama has not honoured the promises he gave me when we met in 2006 and in his earlier letter to the school. He has not given us even one shilling. But we still have hope.”

The letter referred to was dated 22 June 2005, signed by Obama, and is hanging on the principal's wall in her meager office. She says that following his letter they made a formal request of the then Senator for his help in raising $105,000 to "bring water to the school by sinking a borehole and building a water tank, erect a perimeter fence, complete the science laboratory and add much needed new classrooms, additional latrines, and a school dining hall."

Since conservatives believe in helping people using their own money, rather than the taxpayer's, maybe we should organize to help these people. What say you? Does anybody know how to organize such a thing?

New Feature

I've added a new feature at the bottom of each posting that allows you to vote on the post. The choices are 1) funny, 2) interesting, and 3) boring. Feel free to comment quickly about a post in this manner. I look forward to your feedback.

Suggestions

What kind of posts would you like me to research and put into this blog? Please comment below.

10 for 2010

Laura Ingraham has proposed a repeat of 1994 when Newt Gingrich led the conservative victory at the mid-term elections with his "Contract for America." She calls is 10 for 2010.

1) Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR). Limit federal spending growth to the percentage in population growth plus the rate of inflation; provide taxpayers the option of filing a post-card sized return using a low, flat tax rate of 25%

2) End Tax-funded abortions. Stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood and prohibit any taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortion

3) Defend American Borders. Complete America's border-protection initiatives using remaining funds from the so-called stimulus bill

4) King Dollar. Preserve a strong dollar so that Americans' savings aren't wiped out by inflation and the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency

5) Empower American Business. Immediately slash corporate tax rates to 15% and scrap the corporate capital-gains tax altogether

6) Defend America. Strengthen America to defend our homeland and fully fund an operational, layered missile-defense system

7) Statism Exit Plan. De-fund czars; immediately cease bailout payments to failed companies; ban future bailouts

8) End Generational Theft. As few believe America's entitlement programs will be able to pay benefits to future generations, provide younger workers the choice of diverting payroll/Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts

9) Restore America's System of Justice. Introduce British-style penalties for frivolous lawsuits, where those who launch unsuccessful lawsuits are liable for the defendants' legal bills

10) American Energy Independence. All-of-the-Above strategy that embraces alternatives, expands and accelerates exploration and production of oil and natural gas, and jumpstarts dramatic increases in nuclear power

I find it hard to find anything wrong with this. If you agree with her, you can send this post to your friends by clicking on the email link below.

Reagan on Socialized Medicine

The following is the text from a recording Ronald Reagan made in 1961. You can listen to it here. Be patient, it takes about 10 minutes.

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I would like to talk about another one because this threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. This would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.

Now Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that.” Walter Ruth said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.

Now let us see what the socialist themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in the particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis and say, “What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?

That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mill bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.

What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is the frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the states to help those people who need it.

Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless if they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time; socialized medicine.

James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

They want to attach this bill to social security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to another.

But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. A doctor begins to lose his freedom, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution just exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves, the God given right and ability, to determine our own destiny. This freedom is built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rules all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minority.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking. Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want. So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don’t tax to get the moneys the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from his constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now and call your friends and them to write. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Hat tip to Elephant Owners.

March On Washington

On Saturday, September 12, 2009 there was a march on Washington DC in protest of the Obama administration's spending and health care plans. It is interesting to notice how different news outlets reported the number of participants in attendance.

The BBC, hardly a bastion of conservative idealism reports that "As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally organised by conservatives claiming that President Obama is driving America towards socialism."

This same event is reported by ABC as "Thousands of conservative protesters from across the country converged on the Capitol Saturday morning to demonstrate against President Obama's proposals for health care..."

What the BBC calls nearly one million people, ABC calls thousands. And that isn't the only instance. CBS labeled the event on their website as "Thousands Pack Downtown DC To Protest Spending".

Not to be outdone CNN at least referred to the group as "tens of thousands" in a blog (I couldn't find a story about it in their regular news section) but they couched it in terms of racism. "Obama doesn’t think the protests and the growing conservative movement against Obama are motivated by racism."

Is it any wonder that we have stopped trusting the traditional news sources and their liberal "agenda journalism"? What the BBC calls a million (the web page's title is labeled 'up to two million march'), American news outlets try to minimize by referring to it as thousands or tens of thousands. Does anyone remember the Million Man March? That event was covered for weeks, always citing the number of one million. Not many actually remember that the actual count was closer to 400,000 men according to the Clinton administration's National Park Service.

Why do you think the disparity in reporting exists? Can anyone say liberal media bias?

Record Number of Contradictions?

Powerline's John Hinderaker has pointed out the incredible number of contradictions contained in the President's address to Congress Wednesday evening. Here is one example:

Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.

Then, a few minutes later:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.

The President first accused his opponents of using scare tactics; then he proceeded to use scare tactics. Did he think we would fail to notice? How about this contradiction?

[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

Then he said:

[I]nsurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

So which is it - no change in coverage or a mandating a change in coverage?

I think one more should make the point. In this one the President says that young people might choose to opt out of coverage and then he changes his mind one more time.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those - particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.

Then he said:

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

Once again I ask what are we supposed to believe - able to opt out, not able to opt out? Would somebody make up their mind?

This all makes me wonder what is really going on in the Obama administration. Do they think we are so stupid we won't catch the contradictions or are they so incompetent that they can't catch them before the President goes on national television? In any case do we really want to trust such people?

Jack Webb Talks With Barack Obama

The video below is a funny, creative discussion between Jack Webb of Dragnet fame and the President.Hat tip to Brian McCabe.

Amazing, Just Amazing

Supporters of the President are going way too far in their support for him. Things like civil rights and the Bill of Rights just don't seem to matter for many of them. When they do it under color of authority it is even worse. Get ready America. It's likely to get worse.

Kennedy's Death Will Help Us?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has put his foot in his mouth again. Now he is publicly announcing that Kennedy's death will help Democrats and their agenda.

As usual Democrats are stepping way outside the bounds of decency in order to advance their political agenda. Remember the Paul Wellstone memorial?

How about the prayer at the Kennedy funeral wherein they prayed for passage of health reform because the deceased supported it.

Can you imagine the outrage if the prayer at Reagan's funeral involved cutting taxes because the deceased supported it? What is wrong with these people?

I Will Not Convict

If you are as outraged as I am at the political prosecution of CIA officers who served under the Bush Adminstration you can do something about it by clicking below. It is a petition telling the administration that their two-bit, banana republic, Chicago politician mentality of persecuting those you disagree with politically will not fly here. Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt.

I Hope This is True

Journalists who blog do not use the same standard while blogging so it is important to avoid reading too much into their blogs. Because of their name recognition, their blogs probably seem more credible than they rightfully should. I guess the basic logic is that if the story was strong enough for their employer that is where we would read it. If not, then they blog about it.

Jake Tapper of ABC News is blogging that President Obama has been more successful in de-commissioning terrorists than President Bush. Its an incredible thing to say given the historic weakness of Democratic presidents vis-a-vis anything military. Its even more incredible in light of the historic weakness of this president. But if it is true, then that is great news. After all it isn't important who gets the job done, it only matters that we succeed. If President Obama's team is succeeding, then I say "Fantastic."