Caffeinated Thoughts

Vilsack Finally Answers An ObamaCare Question; Won’t Vote for Repeal
Animal House or Animal Colony? Or Neither?
Iowa GOP Increases Voter Registration Lead on Democrats in June
Obama Bypasses Tennessee Government to Fund Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis
Exactly How Do You Define Terrorism?
Further Evidence of Our Cultural Decline: Polling on the Sexiest Founding Father

Vilsack Finally Answers An ObamaCare Question; Won’t Vote for Repeal

Posted: 05 Jul 2012 04:30 PM PDT

(AMES) – In a stunning turn of events, Christie Vilsack either forgot her strategy of ducking questions or was worn down by the public's demand for answers and told the Ames Tribune she would vote against the ObamaCare mandate, but would not vote to fully repeal the law. Now on the record on one of the key issues, she still has avoided taking a position on many others.

Unfortunately for Christie Vilsack, the mandate is not a separate law, was never a separate bill to vote on and with a vote to repeal ObamaCare, its massive mandate tax hikes and job-killing effects looming in the House of Representatives the King for Congress campaign is calling on Christie Vilsack to tell voters why she won't vote for ObamaCare's repeal on July 11^th.

"Christie Vilsack's opposition to repealing ObamaCare means she supports killing 800,000 jobs, raising Americans' taxes and putting Americans' health care in jeopardy," said King for Congress Campaign Manager Jake Ketzner. "The mandate was never a separate vote and Christie Vilsack knows that."

Congressman King will vote for the 100% repeal of ObamaCare on July 11^th.

Background

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf estimated ObamaCare will cost America 800,000 jobs.

ObamaCare will raise taxes on Americans.

ObamaCare will cut Medicare by $532 billion.

As a result of ObamaCare, Americans will face a threat of losing health insurance coverage from their employers.

Christie Vilsack supported government-run healthcare and a mandate in 2007

The Iowa City Press Citizen reported on September 21, 2007 that "Clinton's 'American Health Choices Plan' for universal health care coverage includes an 'individual mandate,' which requires everyone to have health insurance." Christie Vilsack was stumping for Hillary's plan and the mandate on that day in Iowa City. (Lee Hermiston, "Making the rounds," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sept. 21, 2007)

Christie Vilsack ducks questions on ObamaCare

The Des Moines Register's Kathie Obradovich: "If the Supreme Court does happen to uphold the law, do you think that is the end of the story? Or are there things that you would seek to change in that health care law?"

Christie Vilsack: "Well, I think it’s always better to have a bill than no bill and we have a bill and we don’t know what’s going to happen in the next few weeks. But there are a lot of great things in that bill and there are things we need to change, obviously."

Obradovich: "Like what?"

Vilsack: "But the good things — I think we need to focus on what we would want to keep regardless of what happens…"

Obradovich: "I’ll ask you one more time — is there anything in particular that you would change? Anything you have in mind that you would want to change no matter what happens with the Supreme Court?"

Vilsack: "Well, I think there are probably a lot of small things."

Obradovich: "But no one big –"

Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson: So you support the mandate?

Vilsack: "No, I think there are a lot of — I think there are a lot of different ways that we can go about this creatively…"

Obradovich: "Are you saying you don’t support the mandate then?"

Vilsack: "I think that we’re going to see a lot of different ways that we can make sure that everybody has access. So, it might be the mandate, it might not be the mandate."

Henderson: "We’re journalists, though, we like black and white. Are you for the mandate or are you against it?"

Vilsack: "I don’t — I’m not for it or against it."

Animal House or Animal Colony? Or Neither?

Posted: 05 Jul 2012 04:00 PM PDT

"Tomorrow, we vote."
– Gander, the goose, to his son in Animal Colony,
by Thomas Rexroth and Mark Olsen, 2009

In the 1978 movie classic, Animal House, John Belushi (Bluto) and his misfit fraternity brothers ended up getting the best of the political establishment and politically correct college President and prestigious, elite "Omega" fraternity boys by sheer audacity and guts. It was messy, and not very pretty, but it worked. On June 5, Wisconsin voted and re-elected Governor Scott Walker, also by sheer audacity, guts, and in opposition to the union-controlled political establishment.

In the book Animal Colony, doctor and Iowa resident Thomas Rexroth and co-author Mark Olsen have crafted a tightly written parable about audacity and guts, combined with voting. A group of over-worked and under-fed farm animals is contemplating a long, cold winter as the property of inept British colonists. After a barnyard fight over a single kernel of corn, and the realization that many of them would be killed and eaten over the winter, a wise goose (named Gander) and visionary horse (Hoss) propose that the animals escape.

After a long journey and struggle, they find a home and settle the animal colony. The colony was founded on the premise of personal liberty and self-determination, of being wild animals instead of kept slaves. "The thrill of liberty led to success, and prosperity."[1]

"Our Creator wrote the knowledge in our minds."[2] This idea, along with other statements by the animals, recalls the words and actions of our United States Founders. As the little group goes on, it establishes a government and institutes voting as "free and equal citizens." It has many successes, prosperity, and some failures and losses.

Critical to their success was the establishment of personal property and self-responsibility for working and caring for their families. In doing this, the animals established four operating principles: 1. Any animal that refuses to work should not eat; 2. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity; 3. The harvest belongs to those who toil for it; and 4. Whatever behavior we reward will increase and what we punish or penalize will decrease. Another key concept was that the leaders should think of themselves as servants of the group, not the masters.

The animals fight off an attempt by humans to re-enslave them. They have children and their colony expands. They develop money and the concept of commerce. New species ask to join their group, and they invent new technologies and ways of working productively. In general, liberty proves all it promised to be.

Unfortunately, during one of the periods of difficulty (a flood, followed by drought and harsh winter) – things change. Under the guise of a temporary help to those in need, who have by this time become "victims," a "sharing" system is implemented. Each family is forced to give a "small" portion for a short time to help those who can't, or won't, help themselves. As a result the pigs, known for their intelligence and eloquence – but lack of barnyard usefulness – take over, and the sharing soon becomes permanent and small soon becomes large. This is because the "huge inequities between the rich and the poor" were thought to be unfair. Those who have become successful are denigrated and their resources are taken from them by force.

Gill the pig is elected leader of the colony and puts himself in charge of redistributing the sharing. As a result of keeping an undefined "token" for himself and his family for the effort and only hiring family members, they soon become fat and corrupt. The pigs basically become the union forces of the animal colony. The dogs, previously the colony's watchers and guardians, are enlisted to become the enforcers. There are several very nasty incidents. And, as one can anticipate, those who previously worked hard and willingly shared with those in real or temporary need became less and less willing to work. The denigration of their efforts continued and forced redistribution increased. Seeing the results of their hard work and success taken from them by force did not encourage them to continue.

On the other side, those who now didn't have to work for their food and shelter continued their self-indulgent ways. Environmental regulations were put into place, preventing increased productivity and economic growth. Health care was centralized, and became bureaucratic and low quality. Children were allowed to run wild and educational standards changed. The colony quickly fell into disrepair and poverty.

Anyone see where Dr. Rexroth and Mr. Olsen are going with the story?

The final insult to the original leaders comes when the four ultimate truths, are re-written by the pigs; 1. All eat, whether or not they work; 2. Equal results, not equal opportunity; and 3. Harvest belongs to all. Truth number four, unfortunately, held true. The rewarded behavior, now of sloth and indulgence, did increase.

Fortunately, the sincere, honest animals did not resort to Animal House-type behavior as a revolt against the political structure. The colony probably would not have been able to withstand that sort of chaotic takeover and destruction. But they did take actions to protect themselves and their families.

Finally, things came to a climax, with Gander the goose and many of those who originally settled the colony taking a stand against Gill the pig and his minions.

"Tomorrow we vote."

The story doesn't tell us the result of the vote; however, Gander was not expected to win.

Animal Colony is a parable without an ending, though effectively done. It raises important questions about the nature of liberty and the direction of our country. Rexroth and Olsen have created study guides for both small and large groups, detailing the issues raised and offering a structure for discussion.[3]

In the recent Wisconsin recall election, even with millions of dollars spent and thousands of man-hours, turnout was still only 58 percent of those registered.[4] This was up about eight percent from the original 2010 Gubernatorial election. The high turnout came in Ozaukee County, at almost 75 percent. Still, on average, four of every ten registered voters did not vote.[5]

The basic issues in Animal Colony were the same as those in Wisconsin: reducing out-of-control government spending and cutting government employee pay. In the book the situation had become so drastic and out-of-control that the vote actually represented the continuation or ending of the colony itself. Hopefully anarchy and destruction as the only remaining options – as in Animal House – will not write our ending. Instead, hard work and persistence will write the real ending, as in the results of the Walker recall election and the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. American citizens need to think long and hard about both the direction of their own future and the direction of our country. We must take an active role in determining both.

Finally, in November we vote.

Endnotes
[1] Thomas Allen Rexroth and Mark Andrew Olsen, Animal Colony, 2009.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Animal Colony Study Guide, accessed on June 5, 2012.
[4] "Analysis of voting across Wisconsin shows how Walker won," The LaCrosse Tribune, June 7, 2012, accessed on June 7, 2012.
[5] Ibid.

Iowa GOP Increases Voter Registration Lead on Democrats in June

Posted: 05 Jul 2012 03:30 PM PDT

DES MOINES, Iowa– On Thursday, voter registration numbers from the Iowa Secretary of State's office revealed that Republicans in Iowa had increased their lead on voter registration in the month of June. This comes after the Republican Party of Iowa surpassed the Iowa Democratic Party in voter registration in March for the first time since 2006. Republicans in Iowa now hold a voter registration advantage over the Democrats of more than 21,000 voters.

The number of registered voters for each party as of July 2 are as follows:

Republicans – 619,452
Democrats – 598,074

"More than three years of President Obama's failed economic policies have led to record unemployment, higher food and gas prices and historic levels of debt, said Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker." Hard-working Iowans see the problems in the Democratic Party’s policies and see the greater opportunities that the principles of the Republican party can provide."

"My goal as Chairman has always been to grow the Party as much as possible. We’ve assembled a great team at RPI Headquarters that is committed to registering Republicans to vote and winning elections. As the first Republican Chairman in six years to preside over a party that leads the Democrats in registration, I welcome new voters into the Republican Party of Iowa with open arms. I look forward to working with Republicans and disaffected Democrats all across Iowa in order to grow our Party and keep Iowa red for years to come."

Obama Bypasses Tennessee Government to Fund Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis

Posted: 05 Jul 2012 03:00 PM PDT

Washington, DC ─ Today, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), a national pro-life organization, criticized the Obama Administration for awarding $395,000 in federal funds to Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis, bypassing the will of the Tennessee legislature and Governor. The grant announcement was made today by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), a longtime ally of Planned Parenthood.

"From day one of his presidency, Obama has gone to extremes to support Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. "He has refused to yield in the face of Planned Parenthood's scandals including their exposure as an ally of alleged human traffickers and as willing to turn a blind eye to sex-selective abortion in their clinics. Additionally, it defies reason to send more federal funds to an organization that has been found culpable in the waste, abuse, and potential fraud of millions of taxpayer dollars.

"Clearly, protecting Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funded bottom line – and not protecting women and girls – is President Obama's top priority. Come November, the SBA List will work to ensure voters remember this at the ballot box."

Last year, Governor Bill Haslam urged local public health departments in Memphis and Nashville to accept all available Title X funds, an effort which successfully ended Title X funding for Tennessee's Planned Parenthood facilities, when Shelby County commissioners ultimately voted to, instead, award its Title X funds to Christ Community Health, which does not provide or promote abortion.

"While we are disappointed that any tax funding would be directed to private organizations promoting and profiting from the killing of unborn children, this end run around the people of Tennessee will serve to underscore the urgent need to elect a pro-life president, Senate and Congress in November," said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life.

Similarly in New Hampshire, last year the Obama Administration award of a non-competitive $1 million dollar contract with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, which bypassed the state's decision to cut off taxpayer funding of the abortion business.

Exactly How Do You Define Terrorism?

Posted: 05 Jul 2012 02:30 PM PDT

The Department of Homeland Security's Science and Techology/Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division released a report this past winter. In it they claim "more than 2,600 terrorist events occurred in the United States between 1970 and 2008." Rob Port of the SayAnything Blog says this doesn't pass the "smell test."

That's an absurd amount of "terrorism" that breaks down to no fewer than 68 terrorist incidents per year nation wide, or about one incident every five days.

Clearly, there are some serious problems with how they're defining "terrorism" here. While I'm sure the crimes they track are quite serious, I don't think most of us would consider incidents that common to be meeting the commonly understood definition of "terrorism."

The number is pretty high until you consider their definition of who qualifies as being a domestic terrorist, on pg. 11-12 of the report we see:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one's personal and/or national "way of life" is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish "a dictatorship of the proletariat" (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).

Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example,Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category.

Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945.

Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum. (emphasis mine)

Do you notice a difference between how the "extreme right-wing" category and "extreme left-wing" categories are described? The report is critical of ideology of the right wing groups or individuals. With the left wing groups it defines the group as terrorist based on their tactics. I also find it interesting they lump Christian Reconstructionists in with Islamists. Now unless there is an actual group out there called "Christian Reconstructionists," I have to believe they are referring to Christian Reconstructionism which is a movement in evangelical Christianity which calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of their life (evil huh?) both public and private. Now certainly there are beliefs related to this movement with which I do not agree. I have a hard time keeping a straight face seeing them mentioned in a report on terrorism however.

Just how many people have they killed? Also beyond the few individuals who have committed murder (which have been denounced by prolife groups) why are anti-abortion groups and individuals mentioned?

This really isn't anything new you may remember the Department of Homeland Security did something similar in 2009.

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

…

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Based on their earlier definition, the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party National Right to Life Committee, the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation for instance are all one in the same. Under this newer report those who are lovers of individual liberty and are suspicious of a federal centralized authority are considered right-wing extremists. You're only a left-wing extremist if you use violence.

Further Evidence of Our Cultural Decline: Polling on the Sexiest Founding Father

Posted: 05 Jul 2012 01:30 PM PDT

When I think of our founding fathers a number of things comes to mind, but one thing does not – their sexiness. Parade Magazine asks its readers who is the sexiest founding father? They are then given the choices of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and George Washington.

About Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, they wrote:

Devastatingly handsome and, according to one historian,"brimming with libido," Alexander Hamilton was the nation's first public figure to be embroiled in a sex scandal. The good news: He confessed to the misdeed. The bad news: Instead of offering a simple apology, he described his indiscretions in what was termed "almost picaresque detail," making colleagues squirm.

Their description of Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President, was:

Renaissance man Thomas Jefferson was a violinist, an inventor of words (belittle, to name one), a gourmet, and a wine connoisseur—during his eight years in the White House, he ran up a wine bill of over $10,000 (nearly $200,000 today!).

Benjamin Franklin, an author, publisher, political theorist, musician and inventor, they described as:

Centuries before the word cougar became part of the vernacular, Ben Franklin offered a pal eight reasons why he should take an older mistress. Among them: "Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience."

John Adams, our second President, was described as…

He was short and stocky (his nickname around D.C. was "His Rotundity"). But in letters to wife Abigail, John Adams was Mr. Smooth: "I am, with an Ardour that Words have not Power to express, yours."

They then referred to our first President, George Washington, as a "bruiser."

George Washington had two horses shot from beneath him in battle, but the bruiser had a soft side, too: He named one of his hunting dogs "Sweet Lips."

Then they left off James Madison, our fourth President and "father of our Constitution." Readers can also submit their suggestions. One suggestion in the comments was Preisdent George H.W. Bush, perhaps we really should require a civics test. This is a sad commentary on our culture when we're now sexualizing our founding fathers.

Horoscop

vineri, 6 iulie 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: