Previous month:
July 2009
Next month:
September 2009

August 2009

The twisted mentality of a Johnson County liberal

Rod sullivan The United Way allows people to feel good about themselves. But let’s not confuse charity with justice. If you fight to lower your income tax rate, lower your tax rate on capital gains, lower the inheritance tax, hand tax dollars to private companies, decrease government regulation, stop consumer protection lawsuits, prevent people from unionizing, increase criminal penalties, segregate communities, limit voting, limit marriage rights, etc…then give $1000 to United Way?

Your $1000 in charity is no substitute for the real justice you oppose.

- Johnson County Supervisor Rod sullivan

http://rodsullivan.org/salvos.html

Some people do use charities to feel better about themselves, that's not being denied here, but this is Rod's way of saying you're being a hypcrite, without using the word.  He thinks people can't justfiably call him on it because he didn't actually use the word.  And how about that broad party-line brush Sullivan is painting with huh?

That's the mentality of a liberal.  Throw out some irresponsible stereotyping and labels, make unsubstantiated claims such as, 'limit voting' and that successfully paints you as a hypocrite in a liberal mind.

Problem is, Sullivan's words are flawed. 

According to Sullivan,it's wrong of you to fight for lower taxes and more responsible government.  Shame on you for doing that and thinking a donation to the United Way absolves that *sin*!  My gosh, don't you know?  You're not supposed to demand government be fiscally responsible when liberals are in charge! 

Heck, you're not donating to the United Way out of the goodness of your heart or believe in the cause, you're only doing it because you think it will erase some kind of wrong you supposedly committed right?  Why, you evil union-thwarting thug you! 

Perhaps Sullivan assumes (wrongfully) you're donating with some kind of ulterior motive because that's how he operates?

How DARE you fight to keep more of your hard-earned money!  That's another *sin* in Sullivan's eyes.  After all, charitable giving shouldn't be up to you, it should be in the hands of government.  In the mental cave of a Sullivan liberal, all government crafted by a liberal is good, there's no fraud, waste, abuse, there are no unintended consequences and government doesn't take too much of our money.  Under the guise of 'for the greater good,' creating and achieving should be punished with higher taxation.  

Phillip garrido How DARE you ask for tougher criminal penalties!  Meanwhile, people like sex offender and parolee Phillip Garrido kidnapped and raped an 11-year-old girl.  Shame on you for wanting the Phillip Garridos of the world to have served a lot more time in jail, preventing a kidnapping and rape! 

And just who is limiting voting anyway? Sullivan made the claim, but completely failed to back it up.  Who is segregating communities? Conveniently, Sullivan didn't say.  In fact, Sullivan made a number of pretty serious charges without providing an ounce of substance to back them up.  Where's the honor in that?  How is that the stuff of a leader?   How is making a bunch of half-truth, omission ridden, misinforming charges a responsible thing to do?  It's undeniable that what Sullivan did was to imply that if you're of the conservative stripe on any given issue he listed, then your stance isn't justifiable, it's a stance in hypocrisy or a sin against *the people*.  

Does Sullivan think he's some kind of god?  If you fight for something you believe in but Sullivan disagrees with it - then somehow you sinned?  That's nothing short of a twisted mentality and it's right here in Johnson County, sitting in a Supervisor's chair.


Liberal leadership betrays us

"The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act." --Federalist No. 63

Trying to rush a 1,000 + page bill on healthcare through Congress in two weeks so nobody will have time to actually read the bill is an act of betrayal.  That's what the Nancy Pelosi (liberal - CA.) led U.S. House did before they went on summer recess.

Telling people that ObamaCare will not lead to rationed healthcare, that it will control costs and will not lead to more deficit spending is an act of betrayal.  But that's what King Obama and his liberal court is trying to feed us.  Their claims don't pass the smell test.  How can you add approximately 50 million people to the healthcare roles, NOT add doctors, nurses, specialists, but maintain the same level of care AND keep costs down?  You can't.

Liberal leadership isn't being upfront with us, they're talking down to us, they're conducting verbal assaults on people who are opposed to ObamaCare instead of debating the merits.  That's not leadership, it's flat out betrayal.  Where is the honor in playing political games with the American people?


How the liberal media operates

A Harley rider is passing the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of  her screaming parents.               

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life."                                 

The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted accordingly.”   "Right," the reporter says, "Well, I'm a journalist from the New York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page....  So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?"                 

The biker replies, "I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican." The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his deed, and reads, on front page:                         

                               U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH


Liberal leadership produces hypocrisy

"Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head, John Conyers, says he doesn't understand it. It'll be passed by Congress that has not read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.  What could possibly go wrong?" - Rush Limbaugh


Local liberal Iowaartist perpetuates misinformation

It's amazing how uninformed (manipulative?) liberals like Iowaartist can be.

Issue:  ObamaCare, a.k.a. HR 3200 and the advanced care provision

Iowaartist, a proponent of government-run healthcare and a frequent poster on the Iowa City Press-Citizen blog, posted a snippet from Amy Sullivan (the Democrat editor for Times Magazine) regarding the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.  Amy Sullivan, as perpetuated by Iowanotanartist, is making an uninformed and improper claim that the end-of-life advanced care provision in the 2003 prescription drug bill, is the same as the advanced care provision in ObamaCare.  To vote yes on a bill with that provision in 2003, but to oppose ObamaCare on that issue today Amy and Iowanotanartist imply, is to be a hypocrite.

What those two LEFT OUT, is that the two measures aren't the same. Not even close!  How convenient for Amy and Iowanotanartist. It's more evidence that liberals don't read the bills coming out of Congress.  Instead of debating the health care reform issue on the pros and cons......  Instead of looking at the merits and possible unintended consequences of reform proposals.....  Liberal parrots like Iowanotanartist go low road by perpetuating the falsely based assasination attempts on the character and credibility of those who oppose or raise specific objections to ObamaCare.

Grassley voted yes (much to the chagrin of conservatives) on the Medicare prescription drug bill.  His support for the provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 is consistent with his long-held views on advanced care.  With that in mind, MMA offers verified terminally ill patients a pain and care management evaluation and counseling about hospice care.  The language in the bill is specific and between the doctor and the patient - and again - is consistent with Grassley's long-held views on the matter.

So why does Grassley object to the advanced care provisions in ObamaCare?  It's simple.  It's because the language in the bill is NOT specific, nor is it between only the doctor and patient.  It's why the measure was dropped from the Senate version of HR 3200.  In ObamaCare, all physicians risk losing bonus payments from the government unless they report on whether they provide "advanced care planning" and adherence to that plan. It is NOT restricted to terminally ill patients and hospice.  It includes mere conversations about (not to be confused with official diagnosis) changes in health that MAY include skilled nursing, long-term nursing care and hospice.  ObamaCare is crafted to save budget dollars by spending less money on health care and provides incentive to doctors to do so.  Can you say, "Skip skilled nursing and go directly to hospice?"

ObamaCare is a bill that creates an entirely government-run system that will surely lead to rationing of health care just like has happened in other countries that have government-run systems. It’s easy to see why Iowans and others are legitimately concerned about what's in the ObamaCare bill.  It's easy to see why Iowans and others are getting so frustrated with dismissive liberal politicians (and their followers) who won't read the bills they support, won't be up-front in addressing legitimate concerns about ObamaCare and act like rulers instead of representatives of the people they serve.

Why misinform people when you could use facts instead?  Why is it that liberals feel the need to cheat in making their push to get ObamaCare passed?  It's because they can't defend it.  It's because this isn't really about health care, it's about more government control over our daily lives - and liberals want that.


A valid case for term limits

The following U.S. Senators have been in Washington for far too long.  They don't do us any good, they are counter-productive to the ability to create and achieve, they do us harm.  They're out of touch, they don't read bills, they don't have up-to-date practical knowledge of what they're putting government red tape on.  Did you know for example that Senator Chuckie Schummer has never held a job outside of politics?  Their voting records, if reviewed with an objective eye demonstrates why term limits are necessary in today's politics.  These men don't vote with you in mind, they vote in line with special or self-preservation/advancement interests. 

Politician Years in Washington
Robert Byrd 50
Ted Kennedy 47
Tom Harkin 35
Chris Dodd 35
Patrick Leahy 35
Carl Levin 31
Charles Schumer 29
Arlen Spector 29
Barbara Boxer 27
John McCain 27
Harry Reid 27


Let the Market Work, Government Won't

MOUNT PLEASANT, IA. -- Baby boomers, those born between 1944 and 1964, want what they want, when they want it.  They don’t want to get old, or die, and will spend significant money to avoid aging and death.  Boomers are already retiring, and 78 million will sign up for Medicare and Social Security in the next few years.

According to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Ph.D. economist from Columbia and expert on health care, by 2012 one of every 10 tax dollars will go to Social Security and Medicare, as they are configured today.  By 2020, it will be one of every 4 dollars, and by 2030 the number will be 1 of every 2 tax dollars.  These numbers are before any increase in coverage.

Government programs will not solve the health care problem, the free-market might,” said Deborah Thornton, a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, Iowa.  

For example, Safeway grocery stores reported to The Wall Street Journal that they have kept their per capita health-care costs flat by recognizing that 70 percent of costs result from personal behaviors.  The costs are clustered in four areas, making up 74 percent of the claims: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity.  All of these are generally preventable by changing behaviors.  The way to change behaviors is to increase their costs, as shown by increased taxes on and resulting reduced consumption of cigarettes.  But Safeway reports that current law only allows them to reward non-smokers by $312 per year, while smokers cost $1,400.  If those smokers were directly charged that $1,400 – I bet they would cut back or stop smoking.  This would be in the free-market, without government taxes or regulation.  If you don’t want to pay the cost, you can quit, or conversely smoke and pay the higher rate.  Your decision, your choice, and your cost – not your neighbor’s.

To those who say that the free-market doesn’t work, they should examine the cosmetic surgery clinics.  Many baby boomers frequent these clinics.  Their insurance doesn’t pay.  They choose to look younger.  The number of people getting treatments has increased by 5 or 6 times, while the costs have either gone down or remained stable. This is also true for elective laser vision surgery.  As recently as 10 years ago, the cost was double what it is today.  There is virtually no wait time and the results are outstanding.  The free-market works, if it has the opportunity.  

Public Interest Institute’s INSTITUTE BRIEF, “Let the Market Work, Government Won't,” is available at www.limitedgovernment.org.

For an interview or more information on this issue, contact Deborah Thornton, Public Interest Institute Research Analyst.