For those die hard liberals here who maintain despite all evidence to the contrary that the media does not have a pro left bias, here are a couple more points to consider. The AP assigned 11 reporters to 'fact check' Sarah Palin's new book, and quickly put out a hit piece pointing out what they claimed were inaccuracies. They did not fact check Biden's book or either Obama books or the Clinton's books. Since they were written by democrats they were assumed to be the word of God. Newsweek just put a picture of Palin from a sports magazine on their cover, after the previous cover shot they did of her in extreme closeup with no retouching. They can't decide if they want to portray her as a babe-bimbo or as an old hag, but they always pick some sexist way to slant their coverage. This is the same 'news' magazine that admitted that 74% of the letters they received were critical of Al Gore and is global warming scam, but they chose to publish only letters praising him. No bias there obviously.

From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design
Yes, our friends the Iranians are not just developing nuclear weapons, but advanced nuclear weapons, using the most secret technology in weapons design. The '2 point implosion' device allows for compact warhead design and makes it easier to fit the warhead onto a missile. Now, where did they get this scientific breakthrough?  You may not remember a few years back when then Clinton administration decided to declassify numerous documents related to nuclear weapons and their design. They included in the list of 'obsolete' designs the W80, the most advanced weapon of it's day and the forerunner of all subsequent designs, with it's elliptical core (instead of the traditional spherical design). Yes, an ellipse has 2 focal points, as in '2 point implosion device', the technology now being experimented with in Iran.  So this advanced technology was released to the world (God knows why) by the Clinton administration, and now we are seeing the results of their folly. And why democrats can't be trusted when it comes to national security matters.

an excerpt from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091029/pl_bloomberg/az8rxqejqhbu


"Leaders are also planning fees on medical-device makers that will add up to $20 billion over 10 years, according to another congressional aide. The Senate has proposed $40 billion in fees on device makers, as well as levies on drugmakers and insurers."

So, to lower the cost of insurance, drugs, and medical treatment, Democrats propose billions in new TAXES on medical devices, drugs, and insurance. Now, how is that going to lower costs? You think those companies might pass those new fees on to their customers? Care to bet on that? If it weren't so serious it would be funny. But it is serious, and it is not funny. It's just another example of why insurance and medical care are so expensive currently: government regulations, fees, taxes, and policies that prevent competition, drive up costs, and limit choices. Government is not the solution, as usual it is the problem.

That's the timeline since Obama's hand picked general in Afghanistan completed his review and asked for significantly more troops. Almost 25% of all fatalities in the Afghan war will have happened in Obama's first year in office. Yet still he waits, unable to decide what to do. The situation continues to degrade, troops are dying in increasing numbers, and our naive, inexperienced commander in chief is paralyzed into inaction, unwilling to listen to his generals. Obama campaigned on the necessity of the Afghan war, he's been talking about how important it is for at least 2 years, yet now that he is in charge he doesn't know what to do. Probably because it isn't on his teleprompter.

Well, looks like Obama, following the expert military advice of wanna be - general Joe Biden, instead of real life, actual general McCrystal, is prepared to flush 8 years of sacrifice and effort and surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban. Oh, they won't call it that, they just are prepared to cede control of large parts of the country to the Taliban, because, hey, they are no threat to us. Of course, the last time they controlled the country there was that little 9/11 incident. But I'm sure things will be different this time. Heck, they'll be too busy killing all those people that cooperated with us and stoning the little girls who went to school to get around to attacking us again for years. Months at least. No worries, another fine job Obama.

Now it has been revealed that Iran has a second, secret, uranium enrichment plant. Our intelligence analysts missed this apparently until recently. This comes just days after Obama scrapped plans to defend against Iranian long range missiles, because our Intelligence analysts concluded that the greater threat was from medium/short range missiles. Now, assuming that these analysts are suddenly right in this instance, the defense against short range missiles is available now, it involves no new development. So does it make sense to wait until a defense against long range missiles is absolutely needed to start building one? It's too late then, it takes years to build the needed radars and launcher silos. Wouldn't it be prudent to defend against all threats? This is particularly true in light of Obama's stated goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. If you eliminate the ability to retaliate, you better have the ability to defend. If you give up your sword, you'd better pick up a shield. Obama thinks it wise to give up everything and hope for the best, proving he is too naive to hold the office.

The shocking headlined screamed "45,000 die each year from lack of health insurance". WOW! That sounds bad. Now let's see how they came up with that.
from :http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2009/09/uninsured_hold.html
"Researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in the American Journal of Public Health on a study that followed 9,005 adults under 65 years old who took part in a national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1986 through 1994. After 12 years, 351 people had died. Sixty of them were uninsured and 291 were insured. "
From this, and based on the estimate of 40 million uninsured, they extrapolated 45,000 deaths per year. Nowhere did they investigate the cause of the deaths, they simply attributed all deaths to lack of insurance to get the shocking headline number. So, using their logic, the 291 others deaths in the study must be attributed having insurance. Therefore having insurance increases your risk of death by 500%! YES! Almost a quarter of a million killed each year because they have insurance, and Obama wants EVERYONE to have insurance? Aren't enough people dying already? What kind of a monster is he? 
(For the sarcasm impaired, I realize this is absurd and a complete misrepresentation of the data. The point is that the original 'study' is just as absurd, but no one bothered to look critically at the data because it supported their agenda.)

The headline from Polish paper Fakt says it all: http://www.efakt.pl/Zdrada-USA-sprzedaly-nas-Rosji,artykuly,52626,1.html The largest Czech paper said simply "No Radar, Russia Won". Way to improve those european relationships, Obama.  Smart thinking, that will surely give confidence to Ukraine and other former Soviet states. You can count on us! (To sell you out!)

Happy Anniversary Poland! Yes, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion, our great leader has decided to capitulate to the Russians and cancel the plans for missile defense of europe. Aided by his highly skilled team from the State Dept (Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary for arms control no doubt relied on knowledge gained from her degree in childhood education), they completely threw the Poles and the Czechs under the bus to appease the Russians. This defense shield was never really about Iran, it was about a chance to cement the relationship between Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US. By placing US bases on their soil it would establish a permanent presence and a reassuring deterrent against Russian threats (like those Ukraine and Georgia face). We showed them that just like in 1939, the west cannot be counted on. Pass the cake.

We have access to the best health care available anywhere, and at very affordable prices. The most advanced diagnostics and newest surgical techniques, and major operations cost only hundreds to one or two thousand dollars, max. We don't have insurance, the government doesn't pay for us. Our owners do. We are the pets of America. Maybe all these experts in government should look to our pet health care system and figure out why it works so well. There are no lawyers pumping up costs, no six figure malpractice insurance costs to recoup, no insurance fees and paperwork, no government regulations and paperwork, no staff required just to process paperwork. No, just doctor and patient. And it works, just like it used to for you humans.

I really liked Reagan, he was the first President I was old enough to vote for. He offered hope when Carter offered only gloom. Carter blamed the people for the economic problems, Reagan blamed the government. As much as I liked him as a man and as a president, I never thought he was my boss, or that I served him. Now look at what is going on today with the left. President Obama is addressing ALL public schools, giving a speech after which the White House has suggested all students be required to write a paper on what they can do to help the President. There is a video that has been played in many schools (available on youtube, search for I pledge allegiance to Obama) wherein students are encouraged to recite a pledge of allegiance to Obama, and to pledge to serve Obama. Not the country. Obama. This is the typical cult of personality crap right out of 3rd world and communist/fascist dictatorships everywhere. Remember "Heil Hitler" ?Seriously, what is wrong with you people? And what does it tell us about Obama and his staff that they would organize this stuff? Can you not see the danger of worshiping the man, of pledging allegiance to the leader instead of the country? What would you have said had Bush required students to pledge allegiance to him? You would have lost your freakin' minds! (And sadly it now looks like you have done just that)

Question: Will EVERYONE be covered for EVERY condition in EVERY circumstance under Obama's proposed health plan? Answer: NO. So somewhere, someone, is going to decide who is eligible for treatment, and what treatments are allowed. There will be some criteria to decide how to spend the money, on what, on whom. What are the criteria?  Will age be considered? Obama himself hinted at this when he said it might not make sense to give pacemakers to old people, to just give them pain medication. So there is your death panel, it's time to stop pretending that it doesn't exist because the people see through that lie. You can argue that insurance companies do that now, but I can choose to change my insurance anytime, i have to wait 4 years to change the government. 

It must be true. The 'Architect' of the Bush administrations many successes is now working for Team Obama. How else can you explain the uncanny similarity between Bush's Social Security Privatization effort and Obama's Health Care Reform Plan? Bush, coming off the 2004 re-election high, launched his signature plan - by proposing nothing but vague ideas and hoping Congress would write the rest while he tried to sell the idea to everyone. Of course, he found it hard to sell something that didn't exist - there was no definitive bill ever written, so no one had anything they could support, and plenty to argue against. Obama is now following that same brilliant strategy - let Pelosi and Reid decide what is in the plan, aided by 533 other 'helpers' in Congress who can propose all sorts of things. Obama will just sell us on the idea, and tell us not to worry about the details. You can keep your own doctor (unless the rules in one house bill are adopted, then no you can't), you can keep your own insurance (once again, unless...). Surprisingly, the public is reacting the same as they did to Bush's half thought out plan - with indifference or outright hostility. Cleverly, the democrats addressed this issue by calling people 'the mob', and 'Un-American' , and calling in their union goons to silence any opposition, specifically telling them to 'get in their faces' and 'punch back twice as hard'. This was spectacularly well received by the public, much like the fantastic idea of setting up a hot line to report your neighbors who speak out against Obamacare. Yes, nothing wins over people quite like calling them un-American and calling for them to be reported to the secret health care police. Clearly Karl is doing a 'heckuva job' for Obama!

I doubt it. Most here think all conservatives are evil corporate drones hell bent on destroying the world. But I'll try. Here are a few points about health care. (1) It is not free, no matter who pays. Government provided does not mean free. (2) Many things affect the cost, but insurance only spreads the cost - it does not lower it. (3) If something of value is provided to 50 million people at no cost to them, someone else is going to have to pay. (4) Government health programs always involve rationing and limits on types of treatments as pressures mount to control costs.
Now, with the proposals before the Senate, it should be noted that people will lose the ability to pick their own doctor, they will be assigned one. They will not be able to see a specialist unless the Government approved doctor authorizes it. They will only be able to get the treatment/tests that he approves. Then there is the issue of wait times. In Canada it is not uncommon to wait a year for a mammogram or an MRI, and several months for angioplasty. People do die waiting for treatment that they would have gotten immediately in the US. Rationing is also a concern. Obama himself brought this point up when he talked with the woman about her mother needing a pacemaker. Obama said maybe it doesn't make sense to do that for a person of her age, maybe she should just be given pain medication. There you have it from the source - if we determine you are not worth treating, then just go home and die quietly. Sure, private insurance companies can and do deny treatment, but there are other companies to go to. Who do you turn to when it's the government? Another great point is the plan to allow companies to ditch their benefit plans and opt for an 8% payroll tax instead. Of course this tax will ultimately be paid by the workers, and the company will get an immediate cost reduction by dumping their plan. So if you think you will keep the coverage you have, guess again - it will disappear fast. In fact, within 5 years as stated in the legislation, everyone will be in the government plan.
I would prefer just fixing what we have. Prohibit insurance from denying coverage for people if they are covered by another plan. Losing your job should not end your insurability. Reduce lawsuits that drive up costs. Reduce regulations and paperwork that do the same. Increase enrollment at med schools. Focus on what is driving up the cost - lack of supply, defensive medicine due to lawsuits, high insurance costs, lengthy government reviews and regulations (concerning drug development). And don't forget the abuse of the system by millions who opt for 'free' treatment at ER's instead of paying for insurance and private treatment.

Here is the story: