The Voice of Reason

Broken Promises

2011-09-12T10:55:00.000-07:00

Well, so much for my resolution. I don't know if anyone even reads this, but I just wanted to post some links that I have enjoyed reading lately. And, as always, some political cartoons.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-obama-has-failed-his-own-standards_592025.html

http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/08/mitts-remarks-vfw-national-convention

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576540883245332752.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/hurricane-irene-hype-how-the-media-went-overboard.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-store-closed_591314.html

http://thepage.time.com/2011/09/07/politico-nbc-debate/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/7/paul-perrys-not-really-conservative/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544712358583844.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576544500632493510.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584025/201109071801/Left-Still-Vexed-By-106-Year-Old-Court-Decision.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-05/Romney-My-10-point-plan-to-create-American-jobs/50265720/1

http://mittromney.com/jobs/?ET_RID=1041273&ET_CID=688357

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/179623-pelosi-drops-the-word-stimulus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_788566&v=CtDBp1OrCwI&feature=iv&src_vid=kUHlIPJTMIg

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/saving-medicare-from-itself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTlQ3_PKrUk&feature=player_detailpage#t=359s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMMBbXlVxpA&feature=related

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/275821

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-campaign-romney-vfw-idUSTRE77T4IM20110830

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/09/insiders-gop-wo.php

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/america-vs-jihadists_592765.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63110.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/business/economy/in-the-real-world-will-the-jobs-plan-make-a-difference.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJihe-3BUrQ&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Gy2WVm8vz5k

http://obamaisntworking.com/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2011/09/08/nice-talk-whens-the-jobs-speech/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q6xIw9eYxOs

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/feds-raid-solyndra-offices/244782/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/right-work-showdown_593056.html?nopager=1

http://www.politickernj.com/50794/christie-sides-romney-social-security-fracas

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/so-much-obamas-hispanic-vote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow&feature=player_profilepage

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1846/article_detail.asp

Follow the Prophet

2010-10-06T21:19:00.000-07:00

So, a friend on Facebook was lamenting the outcry against President Packer after his Conference address last weekend. Many things were said, and I composed a response to a lot of them. I won't put the other posts on here, which may cause some confusion when you read mine, since you won't know exactly what I am responding to, but the essential points stand alone. Enjoy.

Wow. This post is quite interesting in many different ways. Allow me to weigh in on what some seem to want to make a complicated subject, but is, in reality, quite simple. I will comment on the issue of homosexuality as well, but I feel that The Brethren have been more than clear with the Lord's stance on this matter, and for me to address it here would be superfluous at best. It seems some need some clarification, so I will address it briefly, but where some of you seem to be having a disconnect is regarding Sustaining our Leaders and how it fits in with treating others with Christ-like love. It saddens me, really, to be a first hand witness of the fulfillment, if only the partial beginning of the fulfillment, of the Parable of the Ten Virgins. If you contemplate the math contained therein, it is haunting. One HALF of the Membership of the church will not have sufficient faith to be ready when He comes. Keep in mind that the Virgins KNEW what was expected of them. This isn't half the world, but half of the Covenant People who will fall. Those of you who believe that you can criticize our Prophets and Apostles and still be on the side of right and truth are playing a dangerous and blasphemous game. Before I outline this point with the revealed word and will of God, I must say that it is equally important to treat our brothers and sisters with Love. Respect is a tricky word, because some may use it to mean respecting one's way of life--which is not what we are required to do. Hate the sin[ful way of life], but love the sinner. Christ's love is what we should emulate. Christ rebuked sinners, but loved them and provided a way for them to overcome and repent. Keep in mind, however, that Jesus had the STEWARDSHIP to rebuke. Most of us do not. We can bear our testimonies of the truthfulness of Prophets' words, but to specifically condemn an individual in the wrong forum and without proper authority is inappropriate and sinful itself. Having said that, I recognize that I may come across as a bit condescending here. I do not have stewardship over any of you. I will attempt to keep my comments to a generalized and doctrinally sound nature; however, I recognize I am imperfect and emotional just as we all are with subjects such as this one. I hope you will look on my words with a charitable eye. If you feel I am specifically targeting you, please forgive me. With the exceptions of a few direct quotes from some of you that I will use to advance my points, I will try to be ambiguous enough to remain under the canopy of generality.

Now, first of all, I have read here "Judge not lest ye be judged." This is one of the most commonly misapplied phrases in all of canonized writ. We are commanded to judge. We are to judge righteous judgment. True, if we judge a person unjustly, then we will likewise be judged. But is perfectly fine to say that a specific lifestyle is ungodly, or to say to one's self that the actions of another person are incorrect, or to use examples in the world to teach our families what to do and not to do. It is perfectly correct and righteous to stand up and say "Those who put their own opinions above those of the Lord's anointed are not conducting themselves as Saints should." This is NOT unrighteous judgment. It is likewise not unrighteous or unloving to say "[insert sin here] is evil." It is not hateful to say that a sin is wrong, or even disgusting. [more on that later] We can love each other and condemn the sin at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. The people who are saying "Why do you have to judge me, why can't you love me?" and other such things are being disingenuous. Firstly, the Church is not saying "You are a horrible person and therefore are not worthy of our love." They're saying, as they say with ALL sins, that what you're doing is deplorable, but that through the atonement you can repent, because God loves you, and so do we." As for the point that IF homosexuality is a sin, "why do we have to make a big deal out of it just because my sin is different than another's?" You are missing the point. The church isn't ganging up homosexuals. The issue is following the prophet. There aren't many who profess to be LDS who would contend that the church's position on Adultery, Theft, Lying, Gambling, the Word of Wisdom, Pornography, etc. should be re-evaluated. However, there are MANY who are questioning the church's position on the issue of homosexuals and their right to marry. If you're gay, or your friend is gay, or your brother's roommate's cousin's best-friend is gay, and they feel like they aren't being loved by the members, either grow up, or in the instances where the members ARE being cruel, the members need to repent and grow up too. But the Brethren speak the mind and will of the Lord, and neither He nor they excuse themselves for it.

"But Justin, she didn't say that they aren't acting 'saintly.' She said they aren't LDS at all." Well, firstly, The guilty take the truth to be hard. But more empathetically, let's remember that this is an emotion subject. Let's allow for some latitude here. When someone says "They aren't truly LDS" they obviously are not saying their names are immediately expunged from the records of the church. (Although, people have been excommunicated over openly preaching that the Brethren are misleading the church.) So, if she doesn't mean they cease being members of the church, what else could she possibly mean? Not being truly LDS means they aren't being a true Latter-day Saint. They are not really acting saintly, or as a saint should act. Now, the argument could be made that ANY sin is not saintly. BUT the scriptures are very specific in their descriptions of what a saint IS. A Saint is one who is a member of Christ's Covenant people. One who follows His doctrine AS IT HAS BEEN REVEALED. A few examples:

Ephesians 2:19-20

"19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

To be a saint, and of the household of God. You must be built upon a foundation of Prophets and Apostles.

Ephesians 4:11-14

"11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

So, we read here that Prophets are necessary for becoming perfect saints. And thus, if we follow the Brethren, we will be able to protect ourselves from the childish propensity to be lead astray by false doctrines like, for example, the blasphemous notion that when speaking and officiating as an Apostle of the Lord, President Monson or President Packer can err. To be a saint is to follow the Prophets.

I do disagree with one point on this subject, however. To say that these people do not have "true testimonies" I think may be going a touch too far. I believe they are not applying the testimonies, which they surely have, in a proper manner. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a true prophet. If he was a prophet, then his revelations were from God. Some of them, contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, say very specifically that the Prophets, when speaking in their capacity as Apostles of the Lord, are infallible. [see below for more on this subject] God loves all His children--those who try to follow the prophet, those who disagree with the prophet sometimes, and those who don't even believe they are prophets--but to claim that it is in line with the doctrine of the church to disagree with the Brethren is incorrect and tenuous at best. To say it is saintly behavior is at least disingenuous. You are not being a saint if you do not sustain the very foundations of our church, which are Prophets and Apostles.

"Where, Justin, in those passages did it say that they would never make mistakes?" I am so glad you asked. And this brings me to my main point of Sustaining the Brethren.

One more point before I speak on sustaining the church leaders. Paul Staten and Jerusha Dukes Haddock (among others) had excellent points, which I hope you all read. When I speak of "questioning" the Brethren, I am talking about the hateful vitriol, from members and non-members alike, since the Church started supporting Prop 8, and, even those members who weren't hateful, but casually said "I don't believe the church should be involved" or "I don't think the church should have a stance on it." This is not prayerfully pondering the message of the Lord's Anointed. This is contradicting them. That is openly opposing the sanctioned position of the Church.

Okay, as promised. The Lord's revealed introduction and preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, given on the day that the Church was organized, is contained in section 1 of the Doc and Cov. It reads, in part, " ...Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments... That the fullness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak [imperfect] and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments ARE OF ME, and were given unto my servants IN THEIR WEAKNESS, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding... Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall ALL BE FULFILLED, whether by mine own voice or by the VOICE OF MY SERVANTS, IT IS THE SAME."

On that same day, April 6th, 1830, Joseph also received the Lord's will for the church. Quoting, in part, from Section 21, speaking to Joseph Smith, it reads "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.... Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto ALL his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, AS IF FROM MINE OWN MOUTH, in all PATIENCE AND FAITH." Patience and Faith? It may not be easy sometimes, but we must have patience and faith when following the prophets.

The depressingly ironic thing about this past conference is that President Packer was only one of several people who specifically addressed following the Prophets even when it is difficult. (maybe even ESPECIALLY when it is hard.) No less than two people quoted President Ezra Taft Benson's talk "FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET." Those fourteen points are:

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Benson expounds on this point, and I feel, since it directly relates to the topic at hand, that we should hear what he has to say: " President Wilford Woodruff stated: "I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him: I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." [In Conference Report, October 1), p. 78]

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

7 and 8 need to have special attention paid them as well:

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire" (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Hmm, Prop 8 is a civil matter, eh?

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

Let us keep in mind here that Pres. Packer was echoing the words of the prophet AND the Prophet has not contradicted anything Pres. Packer said in the days following conference. AND Pres. Packer is the Presiding Apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve and next in line, God willing, to be Prophet, and that ALL Apostles in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are sustained as Prophets Seers and Revelators.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

No TRUE Latter-day Saint would openly condemn the words of the Lord's Anointed. They would not say "oh, too bad he said it this way" or "I wish he had waited to say it" or "He should have focused more on this point of doctrine" or "it is unfortunate that he came across this way." That is not Saintly, PERIOD!

Now, for a few of the more silly and fallacious points that have sullied this status and its ensuing comments:

Using an Amish conference as an analog for General Conference (if you're LDS) is neither clever nor constructive. As for outdated and obsolete counsel from prophets in the past, one must examine what the point was for them to say it. (This is the Gospel according to Justin. Take it for what you will.) Often a bigger picture needs to be understood. I will give an example: President David O. McKay said that Contraception was contrary to the will of the Lord. We all know that the Church's stance on that is very different now (although some nut jobs in our church still believe that sex is only for procreation, but now I am digressing). So, what was the bigger picture that the President was trying to get across? At the time, contrary to the Brethren's counsel, church family sizes were getting smaller. The Lord had commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth. The Prophet obviously felt that since the members weren't heeding that counsel, they needed to try a different way. Just as the children of Israel needed temporal laws to point them in the right direction, so too do we need commandments which are for the "weakest among [us]." from time to time. I do not presume to know why many commandments have been given at certain times. I do know that the Lord will not suffer us to be led astray.

It has been said that Pres. Packer should not have used harsh words like "disgusting." That somehow his tone "didn't help." Didn't help whom? Do not delude yourselves that the Church, its leaders, or it membership are beholden to anybody but God. Our goals don't include "less[ening the] outcry" of those who oppose the Lord's will. Lots of sins are described very harshly in the Bible, even by Jesus Christ Himself. No one is apologizing for that. And the fact that some ceremonies were beautiful and touching does not mitigate that those unions are abominable in the sight of God. In a vacuum, pledging fidelity and devotion to someone else is a praiseworthy endeavor. But life is not a vacuum! You have to examine all the aspects of every situation, and their effect on everything and everyone else. Simply put, doing a good thing, as it is judged by some to be, NEVER supersedes doing the RIGHT thing, as it is commanded by God. And their other virtues are not "pretty much waived off." Meagan's husband and I were both born and raised in Massachusetts. The church there, as well as in California, and elsewhere, does not claim that this one vice negates all other virtues a person may have. And we, were we can, try to love all our brothers and sisters. However, we will not apologize for our position on homosexuality. Our position is not JUST based on its sinful nature, either. The very essence of freedom of religion is being threatened in many parts of the world, including Massachusetts, where Gay marriage is legal. Preachers are being threatened with legal action for just saying that God is displeased with it. Religious doctors are forced into performing procedures that violate their conscience. Religious orphanages are being compelled to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. Clergymen are being forced to perform same-sex marriages. Parents are losing the right to notification of certain topics so they may opt out of certain types of education for their children in public schools. These things are only the beginning. It is not a slippery slope fallacy to believe these things will become more prevalent and lead to worse infringements on the freedoms of our members. THAT, plus its moral objectionability, is why we oppose the legalization of homosexual marriages... AND because our God commanded us to oppose it through His Holy Servants.

Also, it is not contradictory for the Church to say that gays can choose not to indulge in their temptations, and then later say that they can change completely. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite and eternal. There is NOTHING that was brought about by the Fall of Adam that the Atonement cannot set right again. But, while a person works and strives to activate the Atoning mechanisms in their lives, it is necessary for one to avoid giving into the temptations that beset them.

All in all, the whole point Annie made was that the hateful responses made toward President Packer make her sad. The fact that some misled and cruel people on both sides are hateful is irrelevant. This isn't a quid pro quo situation. Two wrongs do not make a right. The things people are saying about Pres. Packer are uncalled for, and in a religious sense, blasphemous. Those in the Pro-Prop 8/Pro-LDS camp that are being unchristian will have to answer for their sins. But the point is that President Packer is not only a good man, but a man of God, ordained by God's servants, with the proper authority, AND SUSTAIN BY US to speak God's will to us. When we find ourselves on the wrong side of that revealed will, then we are NOT being SAINTLY and need to repent and prayerfully reconsider our position. Have patience and faithfully follow (not blindly follow) the Lord's Servants until He sees fit to answer our prayers and reveal His will to us individually.

Idiots are more vocal after a loss than before an election

2010-01-20T10:57:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that Scott Brown won. Everyone knows WHY he won--except for all the liberals on my news feed on Facebook and the guy referenced in this article.

A huge chunk of people seem to be side-stepping the issues here, and assuming that either Coakley and her advisors blew it, or more than half of those who voted were seduced/duped in one way or a combination of ways.

These people are either stupid (most likely), liars trying to spin things so that the voters will second guess themselves (probable) or have never set foot in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is the most liberal sespool I have ever seen. I lived in Los Angeles for two years, and I have frequented NY and MN. They don't compare. I endured M@$$ for 20 years, and will only go back for a funeral. Brown didn't just win away a liberal seat in a blue state. He conquered THE liberal seat in THE BLUEST of blue states. This was the seat of Ted Freaking Kennedy! FOR ALMOST FIFTY YEARS!! Martha Coakley didn't even carry Kennedy's home presinct! Bad campaigning and people drunk with the power of the significance of this vote do not change fifty years of voting the same bloody way. These people have had a taste of what is to come in this country and they don't like it! They saw the chance to put a stop to it, and they did it! Good for you Massachusetts. You have restored my faith in humanity... a little.

Resolution

2009-12-17T10:53:00.000-08:00

And last but not least, everyone's favorite--

CARTOONS

[Editor's note, Joe may have misplaced his spine as of late...

rumor has it he will give in to the healthcare reform bill.]

President's Fort Hood Eulogy

2009-11-10T22:43:00.000-08:00

Thank you, President Obama, for your words.

How Prophetic

2009-10-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money."

Alexis de Tocqueville

Massachusetts Legislature full of hypocrites...surprise surprise.

2009-09-10T19:18:00.000-07:00

MassResistance had this in their newsletter today. Enjoy.

Public hearing on appointing immediate interim successor to Ted Kennedy: Huge Democrat dog & pony show, afternoon of hypocrisy.

On Wednesday afternoon Gardner Auditorium in the State House was filled to capacity as the Joint Committee on Election Laws heard testimony on Bill H656 [see text here] which would give the Governor of Massachusetts the ability to quickly appoint an interim successor to Ted Kennedy to serve in the US Senate, until a replacement is elected, overturning a law passed in 2004 by the Democrat-dominated Legislature (see explanation below).

It was a full house in Gardner Auditorium.

It was basically 5 1/2 hours of left-wing blathering. Every liberal special-interest group and labor union seemed to be there. Although the mantra was "we need two voices" the underlying theme that kept coming out was: "anything to get nationalized health care." As one media person put it, "It was the Democratic Party dog and pony show to continue the Kennedy mandate on that issue."

Although there was a fair number of voices against the idea, including some Republican legislators, you could tell that most of the of people who could take time off on a Wednesday afternoon to spend hours in a hot State House auditorium seemed to be left-wing activists.

Two-hour filibuster by Kerry and Delahunt

Almost the entire first two hours were taken up by the first two speakers, US Sen. John Kerry and US Rep. William Delahunt. They spoke and answered questions from the Committee. Their long-winded talk seemed like a filibuster in the hot auditorium.

On and on. US Senator John Kerry addresses the committee while US Rep. William Delahunt looks on.

Kerry's major points were that we desperately "need" two voices in the US Senate. He pointed out that there are a lot of tie votes (in which case the Vice President votes to break the tie) and that every vote is necessary. And that we need "two voices" at all times speaking for the needs of Massachusetts citizens.

Interestingly, over the last year Ted Kennedy missed over 90% of the votes and was absent from the US Senate almost the entire time, because of his illness. There were no calls for his resignation then for "two voices and two votes."

But Committee member Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) kept asking everyone, "Where was this concern in 2004?" They basically kept dodging the question. The hypocrisy was very evident.

And of course there was lots and lots of talk about Kennedy's great liberal legacy, and that this was his last request, and we can't let him down, blah blah blah.

Kerry also said that Kennedy's vacancy and the closing of his office leaves a huge backlog of "constituent services" that Kerry's office will need to take on, in addition to what he already has, which he said includes "a thousand calls a day". Again the question remains, why didn't they bring this up in 2004? And how could a brief interim appointee deal with such a backlog effectively?

Delahunt: Republican can't represent Massachusetts in US Senate

Delahunt repeated most of what Kerry said. But his main point for changing the law back seemed an exercise in absolute audacity. He said that in 2004 the law needed to be changed because there was a Republican Governor at that time. If there was a vacancy in the US Senate, we could not allow the Governor to appoint a Republican to fill it because it's the "will of the Massachusetts people" to have Democrats representing us, and Romney would contradict that. Delahunt really meant it.

Of course, that argument is patently absurd. Mitt Romney was elected by the people, statewide, as a Republican. Part of the Governor's duties were always to appoint a Senator if there were a vacancy. Nevertheless, Delahunt was not phased by this. And how does he "know" how people would vote, given the outrage over Congress's actions this year?

(Of course, Delahunt has publicly praised Castro and his government. So the bar's pretty low for a politician like him.)

Interestingly, a lot of time was spent by Kerry and Delehunt telling the Committee that they would do everything in their power to see that the appointee would just be a placeholder, and would not able to run for the Senate seat in the upcoming election. They were adamant about "guaranteeing" that. However, that seems very shaky from a legal and constitutional standpoint, and most people appeared to realize that.

Although the "no" side was certainly represented in the rest of the day's testimony, it was basically a push by liberal activists and unions on the health care issue. Some of them even came from other states to testify.

Waiting his turn. Rep. Vinnie DeMacedo (R-Plymouth), on right, voted "no" in 2004. He waited patiently for his turn to tell them why he was voting "no" again.

Background of issue

In 2004 US Sen. John Kerry was running for President and Republican Mitt Romney was Governor. If Kerry won and his Senate seat thus became vacant, by law Romney would appoint someone to fill the seat until the next general election.

So Ted Kennedy asked the Massachusetts Legislature to change that law. The Legislature complied, and changed the law to have an election instead, within several months. Republicans offered an amendment to allow an appointment until the election, but that was turned down by the Democrats. It was all done for strictly political reasons: The Democrats didn't want any Republican in the US Senate to replace Kerry.

Click HERE: Current Mass. legislators
who voted to change the law in 2004

Now that there's a Democrat Governor, and a sudden vacancy because of Ted Kennedy's death, the same legislators change the law again to allow the Governor to appoint an interim US Senator until the election which takes place Jan. 19 -- over four months away. That's because the Democrats in the US Senate are now 1 vote short of a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority to push Obama's health care initiative through, which is coming up right away. That's what this really is all about, and very few people deny it.

Regular citizens not on board, it appears

Despite the one-sided turnout at the hearing, the hypocrisy and sleazy nature of the proposal seems upsetting the general public, even Democrats. State reps we've talked to say their calls are running against it. State Senator Jack Hart (D-South Boston) told that Boston Globe that the constituents in his heavily Democrat district are "overwhelmingly skeptical" about the "political chicanery" of it. Even the poll by the leftish WBZ-Radio showed a lopsided "no" to it. And callers to local talk shows are overwhelmingly opposed.

But the Democrat Party and the special interests are continuing their full court press on the Legislature. Today, the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation formally urged the bill's passage.

Committee decision expected next week

The Committee will probably decide next week what to do - kill the idea or send it to the full Legislature for a vote. It will be interesting to see who they listen to.

It's been widely reported that the Mass. House and Senate leadership are not excited about a nasty fight like this coming to the floor, especially when none of them has anything to gain from it.

Obama to Congress: Stop 'Bickering' and Pass Health Care Reform

2009-09-10T19:12:00.000-07:00

"The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action," Obama said. "Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together ... Now is the time to deliver on health care."

Apparently the Political Process or debate and compromise is childishness to our Savior... I mean President. Bickering? GAMES??!! You condescending pain in America's collective butt! When you were in the Senate you debated against the conservatives... but NOW that they disagree with you it is bickering? I am disgusted.

Success?

2009-09-08T22:36:00.000-07:00

Van Jones resigned! So much for Pres. Obama's quote "Judge me by the people I have surrounded myself with."

Here is a little snippet of what Glenn had to say about the commie's resignation.
"All weekend long Glenn's Twitter and email was exploding with 'congrats' emails. Glenn's reaction today is 'congrats for what?' as the questions he's been asking still remain unanswered. What good does firing Van Jones do if there is no explanation as to why he was there in the first place? Does this President really make this many mistakes with his friendships, partnerships and appointments? Rev. Wright, Van Jones, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Jeff Jones, The Apollo Alliance, ACORN, SEIU, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren and the list goes on [and on and on... really--it does]. All accidents? Glenn reacts to the Van Jones resignation."

You can read more HERE. (PLEASE CLICK AND READ! It is a GREAT transcript.)

You can watch Glenn's Initial report on Van Jones HERE.

Here a few cartoons for ya too.

Ted Kennedy=Benedict Arnold?

2009-08-30T17:15:00.001-07:00

What do Ted Kennedy and Benedict Arnold have in common? They both deserved to hang for treason.

Check out this link before you pee your pants over my statement.

"Massachusetts and National Politics will never be the same." -- I sure as hell hope not! E.K. 1932-2009 Rest in Peace... murderer.

2009-08-26T17:09:00.001-07:00

I shudder to think who is going to be filling his seat.

Back again

2009-08-26T16:43:00.001-07:00

It has been a long time since I have posted. In truth, the sheer vastness of topics I wanted to blog about gave me so much dread; depressed me so much; and filled me with so much anxiety, that I was overwhelmed to the point of nearly giving up on my blog. There has been a lot going on, and most of it has not been good. I have posted a few things today, and you can read those posts below this one. I just wanted to post up some political cartoons, courtesy of the Starrett Wire, to make up for my long absence. These are dedicated to Zach M.'s mom, since she likes them so much.

Also, if you'd like to get the political cartoons, along with some very informative articles, in your email then send an email to starrett@stanfordalumni.org requesting to be added to the mailing list.

Before we get to the Political Cartoons, here is some humor to offset the hugely depressing nature of our nation's politics.

And now for the cartoons...

God Bless America! And God help us all.

Romney Emerges as Top Issues Play to His Strength

2009-08-26T16:38:00.000-07:00

By GERALD F. SEIB (Wall Street Journal)

Most Republicans have just finished what might be called the spring of their discontent. Not much went right in the first half of the year; not much to cheer about.

But not Mitt Romney. For this unsuccessful 2008 Republican presidential contender, it is hard to imagine how events could be moving more decisively in his favor in 2009. One can almost hear him wondering: Why didn't things break this way last year?

Let us count the ways that the world has conspired to help Mr. Romney. At a time when the Republican Party is straining to find new leaders, other prominent party members who aspire to that role -- Govs. Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford, and Sen. John Ensign -- have stumbled or, in the case of Gov. Sanford, flamed out in spectacular fashion. Mitt Romney now looks by comparison like the serious adult in the room.

Beyond that, the national agenda is squarely focused on the economy -- which plays to Mr. Romney's strength as a successful businessman -- rather than on national security, which benefited Sen. John McCain in last year's primaries, or on the social issues where Mr. Romney's tendency to shift about has caused him so much trouble.

And beyond the economy, what are the other big items on the agenda? Well, one is the auto industry, which happens to play nicely to the Romney background as a Michigander and son of an auto-company executive. The other is health care, which tees up Mr. Romney to talk about the health overhaul he led in Massachusetts while that state's governor. All this leads, inevitably enough, to talk of Mr. Romney already emerging as a leading contender for the party's next presidential nomination. Of course, talking about the 2012 presidential race at the midpoint of 2009 is silliness on stilts. Mr. Romney says he doesn't know whether he will run, which is the only sensible thing to say.

"He's very genuine when he says he hasn't made a decision about 2012," says Kevin Madden, a close aide during the presidential campaign and part of a small team of informal advisers. "I know him well enough to know that when he makes a decision he goes 100 miles an hour. Right now it's in a lower gear."

Besides, talk of a presidential candidacy misses the more relevant point. Republicans are looking for a voice to speak for the party in exile, and Mr. Romney is starting fill the role quite nicely.

That would explain why he was on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, the Fox News Channel on Wednesday, ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" two weeks ago, and why he was in Newsweek with an essay on health care not long ago and...well, you get the idea.

In fact, one of the questions Mr. Romney's advisers are wrestling with is how to avoid over-exposure. But more exposure seems certain as the health-care debate heats up in Congress, and Mr. Romney is called upon to compare his health overhaul in Massachusetts to the one Democrats are proposing. He is able to say that his plan incorporated some aspects of overhaul that Democrats embrace -- a mandate that every citizen acquire some form of coverage, for example -- while avoiding the element that Republicans really despise, a government-sponsored insurance plan to compete with the offers of the private sector.

More broadly, Mr. Romney has developed a well-modulated critique of President Barack Obama, one that is tough without sounding harsh. On the economy, for example, he acknowledged on "Meet the Press" that the economy is likely to rebound next year, and criticized the Obama stimulus plan not as a disaster or a mistake, but as a package that simply hasn't helped much because it invested too little in the private sector.

If the stimulus package "had been created properly and focused on creating jobs, we would have come out of the recession faster," he said. More Romneyisms are coming. He is finishing a book to be published early next year. It will be, says aide Eric Fehrnstrom, an "ideas book describing challenges in America."

Yet the most important thing Mr. Romney is doing may lie elsewhere, in the air miles and shoe leather he is investing to help fellow Republicans. That is the kind of loyalty-inducing investment that can come back to benefit a presidential candidate.

He has made appearances for the Republican candidates in the two governor's races being held this year, in Virginia and New Jersey. One Republican senator up for re-election next year, Robert Bennett of Utah, already is running a television ad playing up a Romney endorsement. Last year, Mr. Romney's political action committee endorsed 84 Republican candidates for federal office and passed out more than $400,000 in contributions, while Mr. Romney appeared at 34 campaign events for Republican congressional candidates.

Mr. Romney still has problems, of course, not least the lingering feeling that he has shifted his positions to pander to his party's social conservatives. But all told, most prominent Republicans would happily trade their problems for Mr. Romney's right now.

Some messages from Mitt Romney

2009-08-26T16:35:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi is wrong

As anyone who follows history and politics knows, there has always been a very healthy debate on the issues in our country.

Yet, now that conservatives are expressing their disapproval of President Obama's proposed health care plan, liberals are suddenly very critical of dissent and debate. Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi accused honest citizens expressing their views on health care of being "un-American." And why? Because they disagree with her on the need for a new government insurance program.

Our Founding Fathers would be very surprised by Speaker Pelosi's attempt to clamp down on dissent. This nation was founded by patriots who staged the ultimate protest in declaring their independence from a distant and out-of-touch government. The rights to peacefully assemble and petition our elected officials are guaranteed by the Constitution. What Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand is that our differences and disagreements don't make us weaker; they make us stronger.

This is a critical time for our nation, and a lot of the issues we’re debating now will affect generations to come. All of us have a duty to press on ... a duty to state our case without fear of government reprisal.

That is why I’m writing to you to take two important steps today.

First, I encourage you to make your feelings on the health care bill known by calling the White House at (202) 456-1111 and your congressional representatives at (202) 224-3121. Let them know that dissenting is the most "American" thing one can do and that you have very real concerns about the cost and scope of this legislation.

Second, I hope you will consider making a contribution to my Free and Strong America PAC today. Your generous contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or even the maximum $5,000 will go a long way toward making sure that we push back when big government liberals like Nancy Pelosi try to stifle debate because they don't like it when ordinary Americans disagree with their far-left agenda.

Thank you again for your support and all that you do to ensure that our country remains free and strong.

Mr. President, what's the rush?

Obama could learn a thing or two about health care reform from Massachusetts. One, time is not the enemy. Two, neither are the Republicans.

Because of President Obama's frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year's forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program's cost is "relatively modest" and "well within initial projections."

And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I've suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn't add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.

At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don't care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.

I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.

Republicans are not the party of "no" when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state's citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.

HUMAN EVENTS Editors Tom Winter, Jed Babbin and Allan Ryskind interviewed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney about health care reforms now being considered by Congress and his experience in creating the state plan for which he is well known.

The following is an edited transcript of the interview.

Jed Babbin: Governor Romney, thank you for joining us.We wanted to talk to you today about health care. One of the things we’re seeing right now is this rush to judgment. [House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman] Henry Waxman is marking up the “Obamacare” bill as we speak. It seems that there’s going to be an imposed cost both in patient care and on the taxpayer from this approach. What are the biggest defects you see in the Obamacare approach?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, it’s filled with so many defects it’s hard to know where exactly to begin. I’d say from a process standpoint the idea of rushing through a piece of legislation which will define the health care system for this country is a very bad idea. The right approach is one which includes extensive analysis, evaluation of systems that have been implemented in other countries and in other states, a bipartisan effort which includes different perspectives and views, the inputs of physicians, patients, advocacy groups, hospitals, business, and labor. This should be a very inclusive and extensive process, and President Obama, out of an apparent desire to score a victory, is not willing to give health care the deliberative process it deserves.

That which we have learned about his plan has a number of obvious flaws. The first is insistence on establishing a government insurance program. There is simply no reason for doing that other than to open the door to a single-payer system. Which, of course, is what liberals have long pined for and what Barack Obama campaigned for.

The nation already has over a thousand private insurance companies, many of the largest of which are not for profit, so his excuse for forming the public government option --that it’s necessary to give people choices -- is obviously fallacious.

The ongoing problems which a government plan would encompass would be massive subsidies down the road, crowding out of private not-for-profit enterprises and ultimately the imposition of a government-controlled system, or what would be at that point about one-fifth of our economy. It’s a bad idea and should be rejected.

JB: Governor, we have a bunch of alternatives to the Obamacare plan emanating from Republicans who, I think, are getting a bad rap for having no alternative ideas. Have you seen any that attract you? What are the general things that you like about the Republican alternatives?

Romney: Well, I’ve seen Paul Ryan’s plan. I’ve seen the Wyden-Bennett plan that is a bipartisan plan. Sen. McCain proposed a plan during his presidential bid. Congressman Tom Price led with a plan today, and, of course, I had a plan during my presidential bid.

When it comes to suggesting that Republicans are the party of “no,” I hope people remember that there is only one state that has coverage for all of its citizens, and it’s Massachusetts and it’s something that a Republican governor was able to accomplish. So Republicans have views and plans and our plans have a number of positive features.

First, every one I’ve seen gets our citizens insured, and does so without establishing a government insurance program. And also does so without creating a trillion dollar obligation of the taxpayers of the nation. And that’s what I think is critical. We have proven in Massachusetts that you can get everyone insured without having to break the bank. You can get everyone insured without having government institute an insurance plan. And whether you like our Massachusetts plan or not, it proves those two things, and there are some others that have other features that are perhaps just as good or better than those that we devised in Massachusetts. They ought to be evaluated, scored by the CBO and given the kind of thorough analysis that a topic as big as healthcare deserves.

JB: I’m a 17-year cancer survivor. I think America has the best care on the planet right now, and I am very concerned about the Obamacare elements that appear to place bureaucrats in between the patient and the doctor. How key is the doctor-patient relationship in your mind? How did you handle that in Massachusetts?

Romney: Well, in Massachusetts, the relationship between the doctor and the patient was not affected in any way whatsoever, and the reason I say that is because people were allowed to choose, in their own free manner, the insurance company and insurance plan of their choice.

There is no government option in Massachusetts: there is simply the availability of the various insurance programs that are offered by the private market-based insurance companies doing business in the state. So if people were happy with the system they had, and the insurance they had, rather, then they are certainly welcome to keep that, and if people who are coming into the system want to choose a plan, they are given access to all of those available in the state.

I think it’s critical that we maintain the best part of America’s health care system, and that relates to patient choice, the access to the best technology in the world, the incentive that creates innovation and technology advances in health care, the attractiveness of health care for the best and brightest in our society. All of these features help make ours the best health care system in the world. At the same time, we have to recognize that there are two major challenges which our health care system faces. The first is that we have a number of people who don’t have insurance -- some choose not to, they’re free-riders on other people and that we should end, and, secondly, our health care costs are going through the roof, and that also can be dealt with and improved, and I’m convinced that’s a topic that should be part of this overall health care reform.

Tom Winter: How are you handling the people who cannot afford to buy their own insurance?

Romney: The various Republican plans deal with that issue in different ways. In Massachusetts, we found that about half of those that didn’t have insurance could afford to buy it if they were offered an exchange that allowed them to access individual policies. Then there were those who could not afford to buy insurance entirely on their own. They could pay some of the premium but not all of it. In our case, what we did is we took the money that we had been giving to hospitals that gave out free care, and instead of giving it to hospitals, we used the same money to help people buy insurance. That was the great insight we had in creating our own plan. Instead of paying hospitals to give out free care, we used those same funds to help people purchase their own private insurance.

The plan that I proposed was a “break even” plan, meaning it didn’t cost the state any additional funding. The legislature decided to make it a more generous plan than the one that I proposed, and as a result the cost which they forecast for this last fiscal year was $725 million, as I recall. The forecast for next year is about $723 million, so it’s pretty much on plan. The net cost to the state is about $350 million. But that, in my view, could be brought down to 0 net cost by reining in the coverages that are required under the Massachusetts plan and by increasing the payments that are required to people who get subsidized care.

TW: Did you have federal help in paying for some of this?

Romney: Yes, but the source of federal funding that helps hospitals that give free care is known as the Disproportionate Shares Hospital payments -- the DSH is what it’s commonly referred to. Massachusetts received DSH payments as, I believe, every other state in the nation receives. We received permission from Secretary Leavitt and before him Secretary Thompson that divert those funds. Instead of them going to the hospitals, we used those federal funds to go instead to help people buy private insurance. So we’re taking money that already came to the state, and diverting it from hospitals the subsidy for individuals to buy insurance. It seemed to be a more cost-effective way to get people the care they needed.

Allan Ryskind: I don’t know whether you’ve seen the National Journal from July 18, but it suggests that there was a $600 million cost to the state in 2007, and now they’re projecting $1.3 billion. It quotes people, liberals and conservatives, who are saying basically that the costs are out of control and there really isn’t any cost containment. The Cato Institute and the Galen Institute, which are conservative, are basically saying the same thing. What do you have to say to that?

Romney: There’s a frequent confusion between two different topics. One is the topic of the Massachusetts Plan which was designed to get people who were uninsured into the insurance system, and that’s working as planned, and almost precisely as budgeted, as forecast by the conferees who put the final bill together. As I indicated, the forecast for FY 2009 was a gross cost of $725 million and it turns out that next fiscal year the forecast of the actuaries is going to be slightly less than that, about $723 million. That’s about as close as it gets. The net cost is about half that figure, about $350 million.

An analysis of our plan was carried out by one of the watchdog groups in Massachusetts called the Massachusetts Taxpayer’s Foundation. It’s largely a business-sponsored watchdog group. They’ve carried out, I think within the last month or so, a complete evaluation of the system and they concluded that it is on budget within the forecast it was originally made, and it is a modest amount of funding to get our citizens insured. Now, I’ve also indicated that I would make some changes to the system if I had the ability to do so. I don’t, of course, but I would rein in what I think are some of the excessive coverages and at the same time I would increase some of the coinsurance payments by beneficiaries and in doing so bring it to break even. But it is in no way an out-of-control or above budget forecasted at the time of the bill’s signing.

Then there’s another issue, however, and that’s the fact that the cost of health care, generally in Massachusetts, like the rest of the nation, continues to rise at a very high rat. Health care inflation in America is very, very high. In Massachusetts, it’s higher than average even. That is not something which we were able to deal with at the state level, and, in my view, that’s something that can be dealt with in Washington in part because the federal government sends out Medicare and Medicaid, which comprise about 50% of all health care spending in this country.

Washington can help make health care more market-oriented rather than the kind of more control or subsidy orientation which it currently has. Our current fee for service system creates the absolute wrong incentives for both patients and doctors and is what’s driving the health care cost in this country higher and higher.

But the Massachusetts experience related to one key area: Getting people insured. That it’s done, and it’s done it at a forecasted cost. Another issue is one which Massachusetts did not deal with, which is how to stop the extraordinary health care cost inflation which afflicts the entire nation.

TW: Has anyone -- any congressional committee -- come up to Massachusetts to look at what you’ve done?

Romney: I don’t know that a committee has been there. I get a number of calls from Republicans asking me to describe what we’ve done, and I’ve made available to a number of Republican congressmen and senators the people on my team that helped construct our plan. I know that Sen. Bennett and I have spoken a number of times and his bill, the Wyden-Bennett bill, is very similar to what our plan did and it has some other features as well that make it, I think, a very attractive piece of legislation.

There have been some efforts on the part of Republicans to contact me and learn what I may provide, and I presume on the Democratic side there’s been some contact. I’m sure Sen. Kennedy has his own views on the topic.

TW: In holding down costs, the conservatives have traditionally pointed to health savings accounts, MSAs, HSAs, etc. Don’t you feel that they might be useful in having keeping costs under control?

Romney: Yes, I think Health Savings Accounts, were they extensive in this country, could be helpful in reining in health care costs. They have not become extensive and [they] have not been as widely…

AR: We’ve actually run several items on HSAs, and I’ve listened to experts on it, and there’s at least 10 million now and growing, and there’s a study that suggests it costs maybe $3,000 a year less than the average health care program.

Romney: As I indicated, I think they’re useful and will have the effect of reducing the cost of healthcare in the country. But if it’s 10 million out of 300 million, it’s still very modest in terms of overall impact. If it were more widespread, as an insurance tool, it would have a bigger impact on…

AR: But should you promote it.

TW: It needs people like promoting it, doesn’t it?

Romney: I do promote it. One of the things we made sure in our legislation in Massachusetts that we provided for catastrophic care-type policies that could of course be paired with HSAs and allow people that option. I do believe, however, that the foundation of our health care cost problem is the extraordinary misdirection of our incentive system. Right now, most individuals, once they pass their deductible, have zero cost for the care they receive. Likewise, the doctor is paid more, for the more he or she does for the patient. And the sicker the patient is, the more the doctor and the hospital make. So you’ve created a very extraordinary setting where the person who needs the service isn’t paying for it, and the person who decides what service you gets paid more the more she or he does. So we’re paying people for the quantity of things they do rather than for the quality of the specific treatment that is provided.

I think that we’re going to find that changing the incentive system in America is going to have a very significant impact. HSAs do that for the individual -- not for the doctor, but for the individual.

TW: Well, the doctor’s prices would be looked at more by the patient.

Romney: It gives the patient an incentive. I’m saying the consumer is affected by the HSA. Consumers are also affected by coinsurance, which is applied in some other countries -- not that I would adopt the other countries as a model for ours -- but coinsurance, I’m not talking about copays, I’m talking about where people pay a percentage of their entire bill. That has a pretty significant effect as well. And France, for instance -- which is not my model in any way -- but France and Switzerland, which is perhaps one of the most market-oriented of the European style systems, in their case.

In France, for instance, the patient pays 25% of the hospital bill, 30% of a doctor’s bill and 35% of prescription costs. Now they exempt certain conditions so that people aren’t paying a lot if they get diabetes or whatever, but they create a pretty significant consumer or patient incentive.

Then there’s the other side, which is the doctor’s incentive. Those systems -- there’s one out in the West called Intermountain Healthcare and another at the Mayo Clinic -- where the insurer or the provider is paid a fixed fee to pay for a patient’s primary care every year. That now gives to the insurer or to the provider [an] incentive to keep the person healthy, and they take care of them because of course the consumer is going to decide whether they like them or not. But a single fee to pay for someone’s primary care creates the right incentive for the doctor, likewise, let’s say if someone develops a serious condition, like a coronary condition, a single fee could be paid for the, let’s say, triple bypass surgery.

That single fee is then going to cover the doctor bill, the hospital bill, any rehab afterwards, medications afterwards, and, if the patient has to get readmitted, it covers that cost as well. Again, you’re giving the doctors the incentive to do what’s necessary and efficient, but not to do something that is excessive.

So, this whole area of incentives, with HSAs, coinsurance, single fees for providers, this is an area that I think is really ripe for analysis and, if you will, some experimentation. If the states would be the laboratories of democracy, I’d love to see some of these things tried at the state level before we launch them nationally.

The thing that is so amazing to me is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time working in this area gathering a lot of information from other nations, from states. There’s a lot that we know, there’s a lot that we need to know, and the idea that President Obama is just going to jam it through Congress with few people having read the legislation or understanding it is, in my view, a gross misapplication of his leadership.

Instead he should take this occasion to do something that would really help the American people.

JB: Governor, many thanks for your time and insights.

Obama: Charming Liar

2009-08-26T16:32:00.000-07:00

No Treats from Obama

2009-08-26T16:30:00.001-07:00

Van Jones--Another of Obama's brilliant appointees.

2009-08-26T16:28:00.001-07:00

Keith Olbermann is a deluded fool.

2009-08-26T16:17:00.000-07:00

Quoted Source: newsbusters.org

Did you know that Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" on MSNBC is the highest rated news program on cable?

You didn't?

Well, it is according to Keith Olbermann.

Honestly.

Even worse, in his view, folks that watch Fox News are "tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists."

He said so Tuesday evening, so it must be true.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

KEITH OLBERMANN: I hate to intrude with the facts but ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News. And since Fixed News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists it is not a news organization making this show the highest rated cable news program, period.

Yes, and the Toronto Blue Jays are the best team in Major League Baseball if you ignore all those situated in America.

Nice try, Keith.

Could you BE any more of an embarrassment to your industry?

For the record, on Monday, these were the top cable news programs:

The O'Reilly Factor - 3,440,000 viewers
Hannity - 2,937,000 viewers
Glenn Beck - 2,810,000 viewers
On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren - 2,450,000 viewers
Special Report with Bret Baier - 2,066,000 viewers
Fox Report w/Shep Smith - 1,860,000 viewers
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann - 1,114,000 viewers
Larry King Live - 1,063,000 viewers

If it's wrong for a conservative talk show host to call the President racist, isn't it wrong for a liberal talk show host to accuse millions of Americans of being similarly prejudiced?

Will the advocacy group founded by the President's green czar Van Jones petition Olbermann's sponsors to stop advertising on his program due to these deplorable comments?

If not, why not?

Further for the record, this recent claim by Olbermann concerning his popularity with people 35 and younger is just another movement of the goalposts to flatter himself. Last year, despite being trounced by virtually every prime time show on Fox News, he used to refer to his prowess in "the demo" which is folks aged 25 to 54.

Unfortunately, quoting such numbers no longer works for Olberman, as on Monday he was beaten in this demographic by O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Baier, Smith, Van Susteren, and even HLN's Nancy Grace!

In fact, even "Fox & Friends" beat Olbermann in Monday's demo.

So keep moving those goalposts, Keith! We're sure your ego needs it.

Healthcare Petition

2009-07-30T21:07:00.001-07:00

http://www.bennettforsenate.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=mlKUL8MQIsG&b=5117785&content_id={4725F23F-8DEA-4A7F-B738-8FAFA94D0C5F}&notoc=1

Obamunism

2009-04-25T12:23:00.000-07:00

Get this T-shirt HERE.

Blog Spotlight: Republican Diet

2009-04-20T07:07:00.001-07:00

So far, I have read only the two most recent posts, but was intrigued enough by them to bring your attention to this blog. Elizabeth Yannone has a fresh wit and a fun spin on being conservative. Check out her blog HERE.

The post I first read can be found HERE.

Tea Party

2009-04-15T08:49:00.001-07:00

Being from Massachusetts, I have a special place in my heart for all things U.S. History. It happened there! I have walked the roads and paths of the very men and women who died to bring about the greatest nation to ever be established on the earth!

A very rude young woman who had just received her citizenship here was a guest in my home recently. She made several rude comments about our apartment and my wife and my traditions relative to our professed religion, but the coup de grâce, the final blow that assured she will never be welcome in my home again, is when she started ripping on her new country's citizenry. Unfortunately, however, one of her points was not without foundation. She made the point that she, as a foreign born citizen, had to know more about U.S. History than the people born here I, politely of course, put her in her place, demonstrating my vast knowledge of the founding years of this great nation, to which she responded "well, all the people I know back in Washington [state] don't know anything, and you wouldn't either if you weren't born [back east]." Unfortunately, she has a point. Too bad everyone isn't from New England! ;-p

I am side-tracking myself. I was going to say that, as a self-proclaimed quasi history buff, I get annoyed when people invoke historical events to support their own agendas. As such, when these tea parties started popping up, I was VERY skeptical. But then I started reading up on it, and I am COMPLETELY on board!

Brothers and Sisters, Fellow Americans, On this day, Tax Day, we need to send a message to Washington: "We won't stand for the irresponsible way you're running OUR country!" Please, check out these sites and read up for yourselves. Find a Tea Party near you ( type in http://taxdayteaparty.com/teaparty/ and after the last '/' type in the name of your state. If your state has two words, seperate then with a dash, like "new-york" or "rhode-island". Washington D.C. is just "dc".) and go join your fellow Americans in taking back your country!

Glenn Beck has a great video about the Tea Parties HERE

The main site for Tea Parties is HERE

Join the Facebook group HERE

And a couple good articles HERE and HERE

Blog Spotlight: SUPPORT THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY

2009-04-15T08:46:00.000-07:00

Check out this blog: http://fightforfamily.blogspot.com/

... not much of a spotlight, but I should probably let the blog speak for itself. Being the Voice of Reason sometimes means knowing when others can say it better ;-p

Cartoons

2009-04-15T08:06:00.000-07:00

Irony, thy name is Massachusetts

2009-04-10T23:06:00.001-07:00

The great Bay State, Home of the Kennedy's, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has for its state motto a Latin phrase that I really REALLY like: "Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem" rendered in English as "by the sword she seeks gentle peace under liberty" or "by the sword it seeks peace [but only] under liberty."

Does this tickle anyone else? I certainly chuckled when I read that for the first time.

GROAN

2009-04-06T08:56:00.000-07:00

A few people have said, in relation to the Iowa Caucuses, that "as Iowa goes, so goes the Nation."

Let's hope not...

Come on now, Iowa... Seriously? I never would have bet YOU'D be next.

Poo Flinging Hypocrites

2009-03-30T08:07:00.000-07:00

March 11, renowned conservative author and columnist Don Feder came to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, sponsored by the UMass Republican Club, to give a speech on "Hate Crimes -- Fighting Bias With Fascism" - the myth of hate crimes and the liberals who propagate the laws targeting them. It promised to be an illuminating event.

But the college [liberal] activists decided that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. They boldly announced that they intended to disrupt the event, and campus police responded requiring the UMass Republican Club to pay $600.00 to hire 5 policemen to protect them during the speech. (Don't get us started on that twisted logic.)

Well, the money was wasted, because the police were more concerned with offending the crowd and causing a riot than doing their jobs. The crowd was near frantic with jeers and boos and shouting. They had no intention of letting Don speak. Finally, Don found it impossible to continue and stopped his speech, to the wild cheers and jeers of the activists. In their blind rage, the homosexual activists did not see the irony that they were stopping the freedom to speak of a man who came to talk about the subject of free speech. “There’s absolutely no room for hate speech on this campus,” said winter 2008 graduate Natalia Tylim. Her friend, senior Katie Perry, concurred, adding “I think campuses are places for open-mindedness, and this is the opposite of that.” The irony of this is that they are referring to Don's speech, not the conduct of the students.

The belief system of the liberals is pretty clear: Anything they don't like needs to be suppressed as forcefully as necessary. Other people's constitutional rights don't matter. The ends justify the means. Their political worldview trumps anyone else's. It's madness. But the University of Massachusetts administration is apparently not bothered by this at all. To our knowledge, they haven't reacted in any way whatsoever.

Well, Don has spoken out. His article is quite entertaining as it is informative. His closing sums up quite cleverly. He says "Like mental patients who become agitated when their delusions are challenged, the student left goes bonkers when encountering a worldview that contradicts their own. This provokes temper tantrums and other infantile behavior.

In a way, I’m glad I experienced just how vile these creatures can be. It’s one thing to read about students in armbands and jackboots and quite another to be subjected to the catcalls, heckling and other intimidation tactics.

After I announced that I would not continue speaking, demonstrators applauded and cavorted. The odious hatemonger had been driven from the podium – hooray, hooray! They had won.

Or had they?

Suppose a man visiting a zoo stops at the monkey cage whose denizens begin throwing feces at him. If the man decides to take himself out of range, have the monkeys won?

**The foregoing blog post is quptations taken from massresistance.org and the UMass Student Paper. Excerpts taken from here and here.**

Bernanke Inserts Gun In Mouth

2009-03-30T07:30:00.000-07:00

Apparently we can't handle the truth, so those in charge of saving the economy are lying to us.

In like a lion...

2009-03-30T07:28:00.000-07:00

...out like a--Tiger!?

If I twittered, this morning would have read:

"Justin is cleaning off his car at 7:15 am."

"Justin is cleaning up his language at 7:16 am."

Stupid Snow... it is almost APRIL!!

Future Teacher of America.. God help our children!

2009-03-25T14:52:00.001-07:00

I work in a computer lab for Health and Human Performance at my university. One of my jobs is to be a resource for students taking the Exercise Science 375 class. This class is basically student teaching elementary gym classes, taping them, and analyzing the tapes for future improvements on teaching and disciplining methods. The software used to analyze the tapes can be a bit counter intuitive (that is if you have computer related intuition at all) but the class syllabus comes with adequate instructions on how to use it.

The majority of the students taking this class are either Elementary Education majors, who are required to take this class, or students planning on being Physical Education teachers. Either way, 99% of these students plan on teaching some level from kindergarten through 12th grade.

These schmucks constantly are asking me questions plainly answered in their instructions. I am paid to answer them, and so I don't mind, but when I show them, they complain "Our teacher never said to do it that way" as if I am wrong or something. I usually just explain to them that their teacher put it in the guide he gave them at the beginning of the semester. This is almost always met with a blank stare to which I respond "... stapled to your syllabus?" "Oooohh! THAT?" So, now armed with the tools for success, they should b

e fine, right? Nope. They still get it wrong. "Did you look at the instructions?" "oh, um.. no." SERIOUSLY!? "Um, since you showed me before, will you just do it for me this time?" Do it FOR YOU? Aren't you supposed to be a teacher someday? The laziness and lack of scholastic integrity in this group makes me ill.

To top it off, they are the RUDEST bunch of turds I have ever met. One of my responsibilities is to sign out equipment to students using their student ID cards. They order me around like a servant and treat me like a sub-human race. Just because I am paid to do this job, does not mean they cannot be polite and courteous. I have worked in customer service for a long time and am used to being treated as a second rate citizen, but the last straw was today: One student actually came over, threw her card over the top of the desk and simply said "Panasonic Camera, Tripod, Stereo." When I looked her with an expression of stunned disbelief, she just said "What!?" I am still dumbfounded when I think about that situation. I cannot fathom the kind of upbringing that would spawn that poor excuse for a human being. I have had some pretty stellar teachers in my day. Due to this fact, I have always been a bit incredulous when I hear "Those who can't do, teach." But thanks to this class of ingrates, my paradigm is shifting.

Fluke? Credit crisis was a heist!

2009-03-25T07:55:00.000-07:00

Jim Jubak writes in his Journal about the current state of the economy and some of the things he says are kind of scary. I don't know how true a lot of it is, but it is worth a read.

Here is a quick snippet from this article:

"Just look at the who's who of senators receiving campaign contributions from AIG. According to Federal Election Commission data at the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., has received more money from AIG -- $91,000 -- than from any other contributing company. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee. Dodd, the head of the Senate Banking Committee, has received $280,000 from AIG. (In the 2003-08 election cycles, AIG was only the fourth-largest contributor to Dodd; Citigroup ranked No. 1.) And Dodd now admits he's the one who wrote the loophole that allowed AIG to award $165 million in bonuses to its financial-products group. (In his defense, Dodd says he inserted the language at the request of the Obama administration.)

AIG doesn't show up among the top 10 contributors to Shelby, but the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee does count Citigroup (at No. 1) and JPMorgan Chase (at No. 3) among his top donors. Twenty-eight current members of Congress own stock in AIG. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is the biggest investor, with stock valued at $2 million (it was valued at $2 million at the time he filed his lastest financial reports, anyway).

Congress has delivered a lot of other goodies in the past decade or so that have contributed to this crisis -- and made the cleanup more expensive and painful. For example, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision both moved to block states from enforcing their consumer-protection laws against any nationally chartered bank."

Later, he intimates that we will be in a ten year cycle of recovery and recession if we don't fix things. That is scary... depressing too. Every Ten years until some people get in there and fix the fundamental problems causing all the superficial problems? We'd need a congress and oval office full of Mitt Romneys to do that.. and let's face it.. the Universe is being more than gracious giving us ONE Mitt, and we screwed that one up already!

More Political Fodder

2009-03-23T18:31:00.000-07:00

Friendly Fire: New York Times hits Obama!

The Bonus Tax is Just Plain STUPID!

Democracy in Europe: It's Lethargic and Uninspiring--and ours could be like it soon!

T.O.T.U.S.

2009-03-21T18:48:00.001-07:00

Teleprompter of the United States of America

More of the same...

2009-03-21T14:29:00.000-07:00

... but still worth a read.

Obama struggles as communicator

Obama's messy free-trade message

My Version of the Serenity Prayer-- Lunch @ Sonic

2009-03-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

"God, Thank you for Stupid people. Without the morons, I would be average. Without simpletons, I would be mediocre. God, bless me with the motivation to magnify the intellect thou hast blessed me with. God, please grant me the serenity to not kill the idiots, without whom I wouldn't be exceptional."

Too much?-- Well, I have to tell myself that so I don't just fly off the handle sometimes. I went to lunch at Sonic today, and was saying this prayer in my head. I won't repeat what I said out loud.

Sonic is well known for their Limeades. Their Cherry Limeade is their signature drink! (It says so on their menu!) They're delicious and I was craving one today. My wife, who did not know I was craving one, asked me if I wanted to go to Sonic... Serendipity smiles on me once again!

...WRONG! I get there, order my wife's and my food. Then the high school kid taking my order (*Do you want any Ketchup?* "Lots of it please." *Is that a yes?* --brilliant kid) tells me that they are out of LIME!!! WHAT!!! How can SONIC be out of LIME!? (This is almost as bad as Taco Bell running out of Cheese AND Meat in the SAME NIGHT! Yes, friends--that has happened to me-- don't go to the TB on 9th east across from Gold's Gym in Provo.) After the initial shock wore off, I made the pubescent employee swear she would pass my opinion of the person who is responsible for ordering things on to him/her. I don't think she understood me though... "God, thank you for..."

www.AnnaRaeCustomDesigns.com

2009-03-20T19:32:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of entrepreneurship, I would like to plug my wife's website: AnnaRaeCustomDesigns. Natalie designs custom announcements for every occasion. My wife helped me to make my blog not look like I had just signed up yesterday. (which I had, haha!) She made the background and the banner. She designed it all herself in under an hour! Doesn't it look great!? Check out her website to see what she can do when she takes her time! She is amazing, and she is a great example of the entrepreneurial spirit that makes our country great!

Compean and Ramos

2009-03-20T15:45:00.000-07:00

My good buddy Glenn Beck was the first person to speak with Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean after they took off their leg monitors today. Read the transcript here.

Oops

2009-03-20T15:32:00.001-07:00

Hey, I say stupid stuff all the time, and so I would be the last person to get angry over the "special olympics" comment Obama made on the Tonight Show. BUT, the video that accompanies this article has some other funny stuff too, so I am posting it. Enjoy!

CLICK ME!

Rush's First Televised Address to the Nation

2009-03-20T09:55:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh's notorious reputation notwith-

standing, he delivered one of the few speeches that has been able to help me forget the country flushed itself down the toilet by electing the bastard love child of Satan and Karl Marx to the Oval Office. I seriously was excited to be a conservative during this time of headaches and ulcers.

Seriously, I earnestly exhort you, with everything I have within me, to read/watch this address to the Conservative Political Action Committee by Rush Limbaugh. You won't regret it. CLICK HERE

AIG

2009-03-20T09:35:00.001-07:00

Here is some infuriating news. By now, if you care enough to keep yourself even quasi informed, you know that AIG used bailout money to pay executives a retention bonus. (A retention bonus, according to WikiAnswers is "an incentive paid to a key employee to retain them through a critical business cycle.")
What you probably don't know is that these have been in the works for OVER A YEAR!
That's right. These execs have had these bonuses in their contracts for months. So, either Obama and company fell astronomically short doing their due diligence on to whom they should shovel tax dollars, or they intentionally overlooked it because they didn't care!
Rush Limbaugh sheds some light on which of these two was the likely scenario, and surprise surprise, it is the latter! Rush tells us that Chris Dodd not only knew, but put last minute changes into the bill to PROTECT any executive bonuses contractually promised before February of this year! Yes, this is the SAME Chris Dodd who flipped out and demanded we tax the snot out of the retention bonuses. So, President Obama and Mr. Dodd were just fine with the bonuses, even protecting them with the wording of the bailout. THEN, only AFTER the public learns about the bonuses and there is an outcry that Obama screwed up... AGAIN, only THEN does Dodd do a '180' and asks Congress to tax what he himself was trying to protect!
Get pissed America.. but not too pissed, after all, you morons voted for these idiots.

Tropical White House

2009-03-20T09:22:00.000-07:00

After titling one of my posts "The Audacity of Hypocrisy," I thought it had a nice ring to it. As such, I was sure I wasn't the first person to come up with it, so I decided to Google it. Sure enough, there are tons of hits. Try it, you'll be amused by some of the articles written. Here is one example I thought you might enjoy.

Mitt Romney was my President...

2009-03-20T09:09:00.000-07:00

...literally. Mitt served as ecclesi-

astical leader over eastern Mass-

achusetts for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before running against Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate. This position is called "Stake President."

From religious leader, business man, family man, to politician, he has virtually always been right on the money. Here are some good reads for you relative to My President:

Here is what he had to say yesterday about Obama's policies: CLICK HERE

Here is what he had to say in January about being a Conservative: CLICK HERE

And here is what Brett Joshpe had to say about Mitt: CLICK HERE

All really good reads. Definitely worth your time.

Brilliant Orator

2009-03-20T09:07:00.001-07:00

A teleprompt blunder has led to Barack Obama thanking himself in a speech at the White House in a St Patrick’s Day celebration.“First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama!” said President Obama, who went on to remark that Guinness “tastes different in Ireland” - despite the fact that he has never travelled to the country.

The Audacity of Hypocrisy

2009-03-20T08:58:00.000-07:00

WILLIAM MCGURN wrote a great article last month. Here is a quote from my favorite part:
"As a rule, complaints about the 'lack of bipartisanship' generally represent the whine of the losing side. With regard to Mr. Obama's handling of the stimulus, however -- his first big test as president -- they have a more interesting subtext. For one thing, his promises of a postpartisan future in some ways became the substance of a campaign built on lofty but largely undefined invocations of 'hope' and 'change.'"

CLICK HERE to read the article

More Political Cartoons

2009-03-20T08:26:00.001-07:00

Political Cartoons

2009-03-18T11:17:00.000-07:00

You can write the most insightful and informative article ever, and it does no good if no one reads it. So, since I probably cannot write "the most insightful and informative article ever," and to accommodate for those who, like me, have the attention span of a thimble, here are my feelings expressed through the magnificently succinct and entertaining medium of cartoons. (Not drawn by me, of course.)