I’ve said before that Democrats can’t add.

This week, Obama tried to convince people that if the healthcare bill passed, their employer’s premiums would decrease by 3000% and that would allow their employers to give them raises.

Huh? A company that pays $1,000 in insurance premiums is now going to save $29,000? Where the heck is that $29,000 coming from? Maybe insurance companies are going to start paying employers?

I don’t know what bothers me more… the fact that Obama said something so stupid or the fact that the audience believed it.

I don’t always agree with Glenn Beck — more often than not, he’s a real kook. But he’s always entertaining and gave an analogy that really puts things in perspective…

Assume you have an individual who makes $50K a year. That individual ran up $300,000 in credit card debt last year. So s/he goes to the bank and says “look, I know my spending got way out of hand last year, but I’m going to make you a deal. Next year, I’ll cap my spending to $300,000. And to sweeten the pot, here’s $210 towards what I spent last year”.

Do the math people! That’s the equivalent of what Obama’s trying to do when he says he wants to freeze 17% of the federal budget at last year’s level.

I won’t quote the entire letter — you can read it for yourself at Snopes… but I thought this part speaks volumes:

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight ? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

Did the media not catch this? Or did they just choose to ignore it?

According to Wikipedia:

Don’t ask, don’t tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

While I’m an advocate for human and constitutional rights, I believe the author of that law was dead on.

When I was in college, I had the misfortune to sit between two openly homosexual males. I don’t mean two guys who just admitted to being gay. I’m talking about two blatantly open gays who felt it necessary to communicate back and forth before and during class about their homosexual activities in graphic detail. Personally, I found it offensive — as offensive as it would have been had it been two heterosexual males or females. But more important, it was distracting… to the point where I decided I’d had enough and left class after explaining to the instructor why I could no longer participate.

If you believe that our military personnel are in danger only during times of conflict or when serving in a war zone, think again. My brother has scars covering 90% of his body from the third degree burns suffered during a training exercise that resulted in a helicopter crash. Members of our Armed Forces are constantly in situations that require total concentration… all day of every day of every year, no matter where they are.

The fact is that homosexuals are a minority and most heterosexuals are uncomfortable when exposed to homosexual content. I’m not saying that’s right, but it’s just the way it is. Congress has as much of a responsibility to protect the members of the military as they do to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. In this particular case, those two responsibilities are simply incompatible.

In his decision to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, President Obama has unfortunately decided to place the satisfaction of a limited few above the physical safety of the 300 million men and woman who serve in the Armed Forces, Reserves and National Guard. Why is it okay to ban a moment of silence from public schools because it makes people uncomfortable, but not okay to ban behavior that’s the subject of such an emotional debate?

It would have been better to propose amendments to the law to make it clear that homosexuals could be subject to consequences if their public behavior is deemed to be a distraction or danger to their unit.

References:
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

I’ll be honest: I don’t like President Obama. I didn’t vote for him. I don’t agree with his policies and I think he’s bad for America… but I’m going to try to not let that influence how I really feel about him being awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.

– Excerpt from the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel

The last time I looked, a will was a legally binding document by which a person declares how their estate is supposed to be managed and disposed of upon his death. I suppose it’s possible that Mr. Nobel’s will has been challenged at some point, but I’m going to assume it is currently deemed to be valid since these awards have been given to deserving individuals since 1901.

What I have a problem with is that the NNC has deliberately ignored the guidelines set forth in the will:

… and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
… in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize…

I’m not aware of anything President Obama has actually done to promote peace. Perhaps what he hasn’t done is better than what the other 204 candidates actually did? Or maybe all of the 205 candidates were being considered because of their hopes and promises instead of recent accomplishments?

That said, I have to give credit where credit is due. Had the Swedish Academy decided to give President Obama the Nobel Prize in Literature, I’d have no issue whatsoever. One only needs to listen to a few of his many speeches to know that our President is quite skilled at spinning a captivating yarn.

References:

Excerpt from the Last Will & Testament of Alfred Nobel
The Norwegian Nobel Committee

If you criticized George Bush, it was called freedom of speech. If you criticize Obama, they call it racism.

According to Dr. Barbara Starfield, health care professionals in the US are responsible for 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes, making doctors, nurses and hospitals the 3rd leading cause of death behind cancer and cardiovascular diseases. That doesn’t include the number of patients who simply experience complications stemming from poor decisions made by care providers, resulting in more physician visits, more prescriptions, more emergency room visits, more hospitalizations, more long-term visits and even more deaths — all adding up to an additional $77 billion in unnecessary expense.

The United States came close to ranking dead last out of health indicators measured for 16 countries… and further studies show that the poor rating can’t be correlated to bad health habits or lack of technology.

Introducing another 40 to 50 million people into a health care system that’s already struggling is a recipe for disaster. You want to redistribute wealth? Find a way to recover that $77 billion and put it to better use.

References

• Journal of American Medicine, July 26, 2000
• Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225,000 Deaths Every Year
• Medical Errors, the FDA, and Problems with Prescription Drugs

Last November, I speculated on the skills Obama would need to fly our country:

Executing drastic corrections too quickly can be fatal.

The phrase “slow down” does not exist in Obama’s vocabulary. Between the Wall Street bailout, what he’s done to the auto industry, the stimulus package and what he’ll do to health care if he succeeds in getting his way, he’s dug us a hole big enough to bury the moon.

Autopilot only works if you know where you’re going.

I’ll give him credit for one thing. He has kept his promise about taking this country in a new direction. Now if he could only tell us what that direction is.

Losing your focus when you hit bad weather can be fatal.

He gave a boat load of money to Wall Street with no strings attached, punished the auto industry and wants to provide health insurance to illegal aliens and people who’ve chosen not to have it. Exactly what problems is he trying to solve?

You need both a right wing and a left wing and they have to work together.

He’s done nothing to unify Congress, although he has a perfect opportunity: If he can fire Rick Wagoner (CEO of General Motors), he can sure as hell fire Nancy Pelosi.

The person you put in the right seat needs to be prepared to take over.

Joe who? Google for Biden in the news… you won’t find anything that’s newsworthy. You will find that the English language has acquired a new word: Bidenism In the long run, I suppose his silence is a good thing.

If Obama and Congress succeed at implementing public health care — which is basically government-subsidized health insurance — will the companies participating in the program be subject to the same antitrust regulations as other public companies?

If the answer is no, then Congress is blatantly side-stepping the law. If the answer is yes, then public health care is dead before it starts.

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.

James Whitcomb Riley

Mr. President: You can do all the town forums you want and at the end of the day, I’m still going to call it a duck. If you have to spend all this time trying to sell this thing, did you ever consider there might be something really wrong with it?