Just the facts, Sir.

The following post is in response to an email a relative of mine received after trying to defend a stance she took about being glad that the Olympics are not coming to Chicago. His email contained many topics, all of which I address here.

1.)You mentioned your skepticism of Valerie Jarrett's benefiting from the Olympics, among others. I don’t even have time to digress into Axelrod, Rezko, and the many others. Let me fill you in on a bit of the background of Obama’s current senior adviser. Jarrett was a board member for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Cooperation, the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, as well as serving as Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company. In all three positions she and other Obama financial backers (one of whom, Tony Rezko, is a convicted criminal) participated in managing sub-prime and unfit housing projects (for anyone unaware of the meaning of the term “housing projects”….that means they are either state or federally funded, or both). Go look it up, if you’d like. By the way, a lot of this took place while Obama was a state senator….oh wait…it was HIS DISTRICT. Additionally, Jarrett got Michelle Obama a job way back when. Payback, anyone?I guess what I’d really like to know is how is it that these people managed these properties with government $$ and yet they remain slums. Gee, either the money just got lost….. or…oh shoot….someone (*gasp*) pocketed it. If you’re still not convinced that the properties didn’t get the funding that was due them, have a look: http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/grove.jpg AND http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/081018-groveparc-0b.jpg

Still not convinced that Jarrett and her cohorts would have benefited from having the Olympics in Chicago? Those properties (still inhabited by many less fortunate families) were set for demolition by order of the city ASAP. Convenient, right? Still not convinced? Valerie Jarrett is (well, I guess now it’s “was”) vice chair of the Chicago Olympics Committee. Hmm. STILL not convinced she’s a crook? Guess who “vetted” Van Jones (the self-proclaimed racist Marxist…those are his words, NOT MINE) for duty in the White House. You guessed it- Valerie Jarrett.

Sources:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/ValerieJarrett.pdf

2.) You mentioned the idea of Chicago being somehow more able to avoid budget deficits with the Olympics because of its existing infrastructure and locations for the games, and the influx of people to the city for the games. Let me ask you this: has the Olympics Committee EVER picked a small city devoid of any prior stadiums, or infrastructure for the games? NO! To make your argument plausible, I would have to be making my claims of concern about some small, no-name city that was chosen. The fact that Chicago is a big city with several readily available venues helps, but does NOT defer costs THAT MUCH. After all, every other city that has been chosen is big, full of venues, and readily available to accommodate the throngs. The issue is this: do you really think that a city that is given the privilege to HOST THE WORLD will simply say “Gee, we’ve already got a bunch of buildings, let’s not make any improvements and just have the games in those existing structures.” Nope. I’d really like for you to give me an example of when that has happened. You wouldn’t take out your everyday dishes to serve an important person a meal at your table simply in the name of saving money, would you? Of course not. You will shell out what it takes to put on your best appearance. And there is nothing WRONG with that….every city can improve, especially for such a monumental event. The problem is that our economy (especially Chicago’s) is in NO SHAPE to take on such a load right now. Frankly, Brazil’s isn’t exactly a whole lot better off either.

To address another one of your concerns, yes, thousands of people are involved with the Olympics. There are numerous athletes, their families, coaches and others who come with them, not to mention the thousands of fans that pack the stadium to watch the games. Sounds like a real moneymaker, right? Wrong. Most Olympic cities actually see a drop in their normal tourism numbers, which, shocker- actually causes a city to LOSE money despite the throngs of Olympic goers:

"For most foreign visitors, attending the Olympics is a proposition that costs thousands of dollars. Demand is just not that great. True, many foreigners and Olympics die-hards will come, but far more of the attendees will be locals taking the chance of a lifetime. And of those who do travel from abroad, many will be what's known as "time-switchers": people who would have come anyway but plan their trip to coincide with the Games. Tourist arrivals usually fall after the Olympic circus leaves town. When Athens hosted in 2004, Greece didn't see visitor numbers recover to their pre-Games level until two years later.” (Post)

3.)Let’s talk economics. First of all, let me say one thing- you got one thing right. Spending money stimulates the economy. Of course it does! Spending money stimulates small business which stimulates big business which stimulates cash flow at the federal level, and so the cycle goes. If it were as simple as that, then all our economic problems would be solved. However, you need to consider cost/benefit before ever arriving to a conclusion about what something of these proportions would do for the economy. The thing is, even if small businesses made a temporary profit, they would see it almost instantly disappear with the following year’s tax hike to help the city out with its deficit. The problem lies with the fact that the cost of the Olympics FAR overreaches any profit associated with the games. This is a simple fact of history. Let me give you a quick rundown of how much the Olympics has cost just a few of its host cities throughout the years, in addition to what I mentioned about the $43 Billion ($28 billion over budget) price tag Beijing took on:

“Montreal’s 1976 Olympics left the city with $2.7 billion of debt that it finally paid off in 2005.” (Baade)

“The Barcelona Organizing Committee in 1992 broke even, but the public debt incurred rose to $6.1 billion.” (Baade)

“The Sydney Organizing Committee in 2000 also reports breaking even, but the Australian state auditor estimated that the games true long-term cost was $2.2 billion. In part, this was because it is costing $30 million a year to operate the 90,000-seat Olympic Stadium.” (Baade)

“When Athens won the right to host the 2004 games in 1997, its budget was $1.6 billion. The final public cost is estimated to be around $16 billion — 10 times the original budget” (Baade)

“In 2007 the U.K. government announced that the real cost of the Games would be closer to $15 billion than the $4 billion they had initially promised. Olympic accounting is shrouded in mystery, but since Los Angeles in 1984, there have been no cases where the Games can show a net profit.” (Post)

Any other improvements to the cities have been marginal at best, and not without a cost to its citizens. The fact is, studies show that cities that host the Olympics either barely break even or experience negative financial burden. I’m betting that a city like Chicago with the deficit it currently has stood to experience a whole lot of financial burden. I’ve included a study by a man named Robert Baade, a professional researcher and professor of economics at Lake Forest College in Chicago. Yeah…not a conservative university by any stretch of the mind.

"For the 36 cities, Baade found:

Presence (or gain/loss) of a Professional Sports Team

There were 32 cities that gained or lost a professional team during the time period studied.

Of these only two cities showed any significant economic impacts from hosting their teams.

For Indianapolis, the economic impacts were positive.

For Baltimore, the economic impacts were negative.

For the other 30 cities (including Salt Lake), there were no changes in economic activity. Change in the number of stadiums or venues

There were 30 cities that had a change in the number of stadiums and/or arenas.

Of these, 27 (including Salt Lake) showed no changes in economic activity due to the construction or renovation of these venues.

For the remaining three (St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland, and Washington DC),the economic impacts were negative

Conclusion:

Baade’s findings suggest that for most cities, Salt Lake included, the tangible economic benefits of hosting a professional sports team and/or constructing a new venue are not the highest and best use of public funds. Very little tangible economic activity is generated from them, unlike road construction or other public works."(Baade)

Additionally, what do you do with the Olympic Village facilities that each city constructs (and don’t give me the “oh they’d just use their existing stadiums” line….. as mentioned, do you really think that a city that is given the privilege to HOST THE WORLD will let them play in their basic sports stadiums? Not likely) after the Olympics has come and gone? Oh that’s right….maintain them on the taxpayer’s dime. Maintenance costs for the Athens constructions comes in at around 124 million in 2005 alone. Even if the structures are torn down, that costs massive amounts of money.

Sources:

http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000623460.cfm?x=b11,0,whttp://www.cppa.utah.edu/Perspectives/v2i7_Baadeforpub.pdf http://www.lakeforest.edu/about/news/newsevents.asp http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/do-olympic-host-cities-ever-win/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp%20dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100103891.html

4.)Let’s talk taxes. Guess what- more taxes means less commerce, plain and simple. Let’s start with the basics of higher taxes, in laymen terms. First, you, the consumer, buy less because more of your income goes to pay your increased taxes. In turn, stores sell less, resulting in a net decrease in profits overall. The fact that they are selling less and thus making less money forces them to cut back costs and find a way to bring in more income, which they do in three ways. First, they must lay off workers that they do not absolutely need, resulting in higher unemployment. Secondly they pass the loss on to their producers, who will in turn produce less due to the demand of the goods. (repeat the above cycle seen with stores with the companies/producers) Third, to make any profit (or in some cases, to simply break even) on the remaining goods based on current demand, they must then raise costs to compensate. Some people will still buy the product because they either have the money to do so or they cannot get along without it (i.e. the necessities). Nevertheless, the higher prices result in even lower sales, and the cycle starts slowly over again, furthering harming the economy. Simple studies of economics will show you that raising taxes has NEVER stimulated the economy. To use your own argument, SPENDING stimulates the economy! How can one spend in any significant quantity if more and more of your cash flow goes to higher taxes? Are you aware of the original purpose of our government, and of taxes? Taxes were originally instituted to fund the government’s ability to defend our freedoms, because after all, government was originally instituted in this country to simply protect the citizens and defend their liberties. It was never to collect money and dole it out as they see fit. After all, our Founding Fathers recognized that this system (which was already tried with the Mayflower Compact, and FAILED miserably) was not to redistribute wealth. That, my friend, is the job of a socialist. Government was never to create a welfare state---but I’ve digressed. Back on track---by the way, since Mayor Daley is quoted in the Chicago Times as having said that Chicagoans would NOT shell out more taxes for the games, it is only logical to expect that the money has to come from somewhere. And, as you put it, the country’s citizens should be happy to shell out more money for their fellow city of Chicago to host the games, right? I’m not so sure I’d be happy. And honestly, Daley’s pathetic comment about how the private sector would fund the games is just ludicrous. I’d be game to see where Daley would get the BILLIONS of dollars the Olympics costs from the so-called private sector, unless he’s planning on Bill Gates showing up to write a check. He’s lying anyway, as hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax $$ were already “committed” to the games. INCLUDING FEDERAL DOLLARS. It’s no wonder 84% of Chicagoans didn’t want the games….especially after what happened with the parking meters! Understanding the meter problem, you’d probably understand their general distrust of the mayor’s promises. Oh, and by the way, get a load of this quote from Mr. Daley just one year ago:“Mayor Richard Daley warned Tuesday of a city budget deficit in the hundreds of millions of dollars, calling the looming financial crunch the worst he has seen.”Sure sounds like a city that can afford the Olympics without raising taxes to me. They can’t even afford to take care of what they’ve got.

Sources:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoolympics/chi-olympics-financessep16,0,1280182.story

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/jul/30/local/chi-daley-chicago-budget-30-jul30

5.)Let’s talk public service responsibility. You mentioned Tony Blair's past personal bid for Olympics. as an example. First of all, Tony Blair isn’t our president, and he didn’t leave his country during a huge economic crisis to make a bid for some sports. On that basis alone it’s a silly comparison. Also, a trip from England to anywhere in Europe is still about like flying from Washington to one of our states. NOT a big deal, but that’s beside the point. I’d like to focus on our own leader for the time being. Let’s start with costs. Do you know how much this little venture cost the taxpayer?

“. . . .approximately $1.2 million to fly Air Force One over to Copenhagen and it will spew over a million pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, while at the same time he lectures us on carbon emissions. And remember to double that, because the Obamas couldn't travel together.” (Beck)

Frankly, I’d say “go for it” if the president wants to fly across the ocean to make a pitch like this. After all, he is our president and thus represents our country. This being said, I think there is a time and a place for ventures such as these. However, WRONG TIME to do this. What are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for? Last time I checked, the offices of Vice President and Secretary of State….or at least someone in a similar capacity…take care of things like this. At a time when this country needs leadership more than anything, our president is off flying a full day roundtrip to talk about the Olympics. (By the way, only 36% of the nation approved of Obama's venture to Denmark.) Interestingly enough, though the president has time to do this, he only had 25 minutes to meet with General McChrystal on the Copenhagen tarmac inside Air Force One to discuss the outcome of the Afghani war, which by the way, we are currently losing. This only after critics swarmed the White House with criticism about McChrystal’s multiple pleas to meet with the president to come up with a strategy. As far as helping his country, he might try listening to his people at home. After all, his approval ratings are at all time lows, despite what mainstream media tries to shove down our throats. Me, I like to stick to reputable non-biased polls: Only 49% of the country approves of his performance. Out of those 49, only 31% STRONGLY approve of his tactics. That means that 18% of those are one the fence in some issues. As to his biggest pet projects, i.e. healthcare, 59% of the nation strongly disapproves of the current path. By the way, I’ve read the bill. I’d say that Obama needs to focus less on what the world thinks of us and MORE on what WE think of him. He has a big enough job to do at home. See, there is a time and a place for things like taking an extra trip to Europe. Frankly, I’d like to know why he sent a representative to the Iranian nuclear talks in Geneva this last week, but felt that the Olympics needed his personal presence. That sounds terribly irresponsible to me.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03mcchrystal.html http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/iran-nuclear-geneva-talks

6.) I’d like to address your claim that we have done some “terrible frickin things over the years.” Really…. Like what? If you’re talking about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars…you’re way off base. That was a response to the Islamic world’s direct attack on American soil on 9/11. Where were you on that day? I was right down the road from a nuclear power plant outside Chicago praying that it wouldn’t be one of the targets. By the way, have you ever read the Qur’an? I have. It is the duty of a fundamental Muslim to do away with (i.e….annihilate) the infidel. WE ARE THE INFIDEL. Is it not our responsibility to try and defend ourselves? If there was some way that said fundamental Muslims could simply live in their own world without encroaching upon the freedoms of others, fine. However, that is not how it works. That isn’t how it worked with the Communists, with the Fascists, with the terrorists, and with the Nazis. Sir, if our country did not take up arms to defend our freedoms, we’d be speaking another language and living without many of the freedoms which we currently enjoy. I have friends from China who cannot access most of the internet because of heavy restrictions their communist government has inflicted upon them. I also have a step-cousin who otherwise may have been drowned in a rice paddy had my uncle and aunt not had a chance to adopt her. Yeah…that pesky little communist one-child law. She was a liability. I have relatives in Mexico who cannot access good medical care because their government decided to take over the medical sector. I have friends in Europe who pay the economic price of their fascist leaders in the past. I have a friend whose country finally became free just a few years after her birth. She enjoys the freedoms she has today because President Reagan ordered Mikhail Gorbachev to TEAR DOWN THAT WALL.The thing is, you cannot live in a bubble and simply hope that no one bothers our country. You have to stave off repressive regimes that threaten our safety, (key word here....THREATEN) plain and simple. By the way, we are the only nation on earth to GIVE THE LAND BACK after a war or conflict. I certainly don’t see any other victorious nation doing anything of the sort. Oh, and Gitmo? Those prisoners certainly had it a whole lot better than the poor guys at Bataan, or Hanoi, or Auschwitz. Slavery enters the equation here as well among the things we have done wrong. Was it wrong? YES. Are we the only nation to have fallen to this problem? NO. Are we one of the few nations to address this problem? YES. As a student of history, I’ve come across many horrible accounts of the conditions in which slaves lived…IN OTHER COUNTRIES, even to this day. Further still, an African American once told me “Yes, slavery was awful and wrong. However, us descendants of those slaves now have the opportunity to live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world; a chance we otherwise probably wouldn’t have.” By the way, it’s too bad Obama’s half brother still lives in squalor in Nigeria, huh? Seems like Obama in all his progressivism would have done something about that by now. Yes, we are far from perfect, but we are also FAR from the horrible nation Obama paints us to be. Frankly, if your country has done something wrong, you address that issue with your own people first and foremost. You don’t go around the world apologizing for our existence.

7.)One last thing I'd like to address, the “shit hole of a recession that mr. bush didn't try to stop” as you put it, did seem to really take off in 2006, though it was years and piles of legislation in the making. Would you like to know what else happened in 2006? The Congress changed hands. Nancy Pelosi became the speaker of the House and Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader. It was at that time that Congress started pushing the sub-prime housing issue, forcing lenders under pressure of the government to hand out sub-prime (welfare-esque) loans to those who otherwise would have been denied. The result? Thousands of people who would otherwise NOT have received loans got loans for houses with payments they couldn’t afford because of their incomes, resulting in thousands of foreclosures, demolishing the housing market. Oh, and throw in Bush’s “stimulus package,” (which Congress hugely pushed for) which like every other stimulus package, is essentially like taking a bucket of water from one end of a pool and feeding it into the other. Tell me, how it is after several Obama stimulus packages, that we still have staggering unemployment and a falling dollar, if stimulus money (which by the way, people will be taxed on next year….read the Congressional bills) is the answer to everything. How is it that after government takeover of the auto industry, the bank industry, (and soon the health industry) nothing has come of it, unless one wants to count rising problems as something……?
Sources:

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/02/08/how-will-the-economic-stimulus-tax-rebate-affect-2008-tax-returns/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100205632.html

Before your next argument, you might want to try and reason with facts. And stop playing "pity poor us, it's all Bush's fault." It's Obama's economy now.

An Epiphany

Studying is definitely not conducive to blogging. I've discovered this unfortunate fact as I plow through a full semester of 20 credits and 10 Spanish Labs to oversee; things are definitely getting crazy. Nevertheless, I wanted to put an update on here. I am currently reading The 5,000 Year Leap; a book I think that every American aught to read from cover to cover. I am not even completely through it and yet I am convinced it is the most concise, understandable summary to date of the lasting qualities of the founding documents of this nation. The book details how the words written on the famed pieces of parchment paper catapulted a nation into a completely new age; an age brought on by the prudent recognition of Natural Law as a foundation for our free land. The book details 28 basic principles key to understanding these documents and the men behind them, and their plan to keep this nation within the safeguards of liberty for generations to come:

"The questions we face were foreseen by the greatest group of Americans to ever live; our Founding Fathers. They knew we would be grappling with issues like the ones we face today at some point, so they designed a shop that could withstand even the mightiest storm. They also knew that we would eventually lose our way and that we would need a beacon to lead our way back. I have often wondered why the constitution appears as it does. Why those three words "We the people" are so large. After all, it's not like James Madison wrote those three words then realized, "Oh shoot, I can't use this sized font or we'll run out of space!" They did it for a reason. The answer is not the government, it's not a politician, it's not a policy; it's always, "We the people." (Foward, Glenn Beck)

We the People.

"I see that you've broken your foot clean off your leg, m'am, but you'll have to take a number......"

(Image by Michael Ramirez)

I hate that I have virtually no time to post on this blog, but I am busy getting ready to help in getting our country back! I need a good education to do this, and that generally means less and less time for anything not school related. I recently told a classmate that I think I'm losing the battle with the 24 hour day....I think I assumed that I could take on a gigantic load and somehow convince the day to give me a few more hours. Well, 12 more, to be exact. Unfortunately, I'm not God, and I'm not Joshua fighting a war against Israel's enemies. You know....the day the sun stood still. Well, enough with the symbolic speech....and on with the blog post!
I felt that I really do need to post about this topic despite my lack of time (and despite the fact that I'm supposed to be studying topographical maps right now) as I feel that it paints a dismal picture of what is to come if the democrats bent on the government "option" (and i say "option" tentatively as I do not believe this idea of "choosing" it will always be the case) get their way.

My mother-in-law Ruth recently had surgery for a horrible accident she had in which she completely broke the bones in her ankle to the point of internal appendage detachment. In other words, she broke her foot off internally. This surgery took place yesterday; and while her foot is now connected once again with the rest of her leg, she will probably be physically handicapped for the rest of her life. Why is this, one might ask? Rewind to one week ago, and you will soon see.

Ruth broke her foot LAST WEEK. Wednesday, to be exact. How is it that she just had surgery last night, one might ask? Why, I have an answer for you! Socialized medicine! National Health Care! Mexico currently "enjoys" a system quite similar to the government option that is currently being proposed by our Dear Leader and his minions. Let me enlighten you as to exactly how IMSS (their government-run health system) works, as I ponder my mother-in-law's experience as well as my own unpleasant encounters with that system during my time in Mexico. Picture a room full of patients waiting to be seen, each with injuries or illnesses meriting immediate attention. The room is dingy, poorly kept up, and the crowd within feels much more like a herd of cattle than they do patients. Each has a so-called "number" assigned to their turn with the doctors. Ruth sat a full 24 hours in a waiting area before even being given a room. She was told not to eat anything (adding to her discomfort) as they hoped to get her into surgery ASAP. That hope quickly faded, as the hours and hours passed and it became clear that she would not be seeing a surgeon ANYTIME soon. Upon hearing this, my grandmother wondered "Well, if they are having her wait it must mean that they don't think that the case is too dangerous or something." No no no. It has nothing to do with severity. Someone could come in bleeding profusely and it would still take some time to get a doctor. The fact of the matter is simply this: Mexico put a system in place that would grant (via tax payer dollars) FREE health care for everyone. What they failed to realize is that by doing this, the patient count per hospital increased by the thousands while the number of doctors stayed relatively the same. Costs and ethical concerns aside, one could oppose the current health reform on this basis alone!! Rather than simply reform a system to make a run more smoothly, the Mexican government took it upon themselves to be the so-called benafactors of the nation, while taxing them into oblivion and providing shoddy health care in return. By the way, I do not want to forget to mention this- the only reason that Ruth even got into surgery a week after the incident (quite soon, by most counts) was that her personal doctor just happens to be "high up" in the government system. He was therefore able to have some influence. A friend of Ruth's told her a story of a family member who was not so fortunate- he waited for two weeks before receiving treatment for his broken bone. He now suffers the consequences.

There are those who would criticize my comparison of Congress' reform plan with Mexico's system. They might simply say- "Mexico is a third world country. No wonder it didn't work there!" Fair enough, Mexico's government is a corrupt, poor, and underdeveloped system. However, may I direct people's attention to nations such as Canada or Great Britain (who, by all counts are considered FIRST WORLD NATIONS) in which the case I described above is not uncommon. I can remember watching stories on the news of people in the exact same predicament. In particular, there was a young man who now has a permanent handicap due to what was originally a fairly common rugby injury, simply because HE COULD NOT BE SEEN by a doctor. There simply weren't enough, and the system was simply bogged down. Now, I ask you to look at the population of the United States, which reaches numbers far beyond that of Mexico, Canada, and Great Britain. I cannot name a single government program that has worked totally successfully on specific numbers of the population (i.e. the VA, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), and to imagine that the government could somehow take on the entire population is absolutely ludicris.

G O L !

(Image: Greenburg)

Well, well, well. This one REALLY surprises me! No, REALLY. REALLY. Pshh..yeah.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with the following: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/


A bill that would give the president the authority to shut down the internet if he deems any situation to be particularly "dangerous" to the cyber security of the nation. By the way, what is deemed "dangerous" is fairly ambiguous. In other words--well, you get the picture. At any rate, it may sound benign enough to the untrained ear, especially if it is in the name of our national security; however, it paints an ominious picture of the plans our current leader has for our nation. In my (untrained) opinion the issue merits two questions.


First- don't the private (whoops...my bad....apparently "private" anything is becoming a little too PI: "Politically Incorrect") internet companies have a responsibility to their paying customers to keep things safe? Isn't making sure that the procedures that they have in place for the cyber security of their users are of the highest grade, in their best interest as a private (uh oh, there's that bad word again...) company? Well people, we already have Government Motors, Government Industry, Government Enviroment, and the Dems have their fingers crossed for Dr. Government as well.......so what the heck- why not toss in GOL! (Government Online, for those of you still catching up)


Secondly- I think that it's time to play a little "name that successful Obama program," after which point we can talk about whether or not giving the president carte blanche as to usage of the country's cyber on/off switch is a safe decision. . . . . . . . . . . .

Well, as I can't seem to think of any, I don't quite see how we are supposed to trust him that he'll use that authority ONLY in the event of an emergency. To put this into perspective.....what scares me so much is that he and his entire administration, and the far left Congress has spent the entire summer telling America that those of us who speak out against this exponential governmental growth are domestic terrorists, dissenters, radicals, and rioters. We "functionally retarded conservative right wing activists" spent the entire summer be told to shut up. We spent the entire summer being quieted. We spent the summer being told that by speaking out through the various channels (internet blogs, talk shows, town halls) we were behaving in an "un American" manner. Obama and his supporters have used every method short of full-on violence to shut us up this summer! Wouldn't it simply be easier to close down people's websites? Talk radio? Conservative news sources? That's what China (among other communist nations) currently does- Chinese citizens can access internet that the government has pre-approved. If you try accessing anything else....beware. I'm not saying we are there yet.....but if I've said it once I'll say it till doomsday- the signs are all there. Giving the president this kind of power over the American people is not only unprecedented in nature but is absolutely dangerous. The words I and so many others like me type at this very moment will be silenced with the swift movement of a pen unless the American people stand up and fight for what is right.


Yes, our enemies are real, and they would like to see us fall. There are many ways in which they would like to perpetrate our cyber world. There is not, however, the need for a bill to be passed into law which gives the president of our country the right to control the internet at his whim. Whatever happened to the CIA, and their purpose for existence? Oh, that's right....they must be too busy trying to stay afloat while Washington D.C. punishes them for keeping us safe for 8 full years. How shameful.

Your Life- Your choices: Really?

(Image By Michael Ramirez)

The phrase in the title refers to the title of a small book circulated in the VA hospitals to returning severely injured soldiers. "Your Life; Your Choices." The title seems benign enough- discussing choices you’ll be making now that you’re disabled. Read further, however, and one gets a glimpse at the reality of the circumstances that this book entails. This is “end of life counseling” as proponents of far-left health care reform like to refer to it. The book contains a personal worksheet that the soldiers are asked to complete by rating each circumstance according to how willing they would be to live through it. It asks whether or not it would be worth living if one is in the midst of post-traumatic stress and just simply can’t get over the hump of depression and lead a regular life; it asks if it would be worth living knowing that he/she will be a financial burden on his or her family for the rest of their lives; it asks if it would be worth living if one can’t truly contribute to society. I’m not making this stuff up- this is taken straight from the book. Might I add that Bush, when he found out that this was taking place, had the book swiftly removed from all VA hospitals. Ironically, however, under the current administration the book has wheedled its way back into the VA. This is how the government treats the men and women who bravely served our country. How, might I ask, are we to expect to receive better treatment as average, run-of-the-mill citizens of this nation? We are to expect no better from this administration. How dare the government step in and decide to play God, coaxing people into making decisions that they should never have to make. Why is murder illegal in this country? Because it is the ultimate form of stealing- complete and utter disregard for human life. Why should counseling people to murder themselves be any different? No, this bill nor any of the others proposed contain provisions for nazi-like death camps and gas chambers (yet) for those who are unfit to continue in society: the very ill, the very old, the mentally challenged, the unborn, the sick….the list goes on. However, mandating “counseling” such as this to returning disabled veterans and eventually to the entire nation if a bill like this passes is a step just such a “eugenically appropriate” direction. Tell me something, Mr. President- when did God die and leave his estate (otherwise known as mankind) to you and your “moral obligations?” How dare you give yourself carte blanche to encroach on our lives in this way. Sarah Palin, and criticized as she was, was dead right (excuse the pun) in coining the term “death panels.”

In other news, the White House released several statements these past few days regarding numbers and emails. Specifically, their estimates on the national deficit were off by 2 trillion dollars, making the current (and probably way too low) estimate approximately 9 trillion. Let me illustrate that in zeros: 9,000,000,000,000. Yes, that’s a 9 with 12 zeros after it. To put this in further perspective, there are only approximately 6 billion people in the whole world! Add the proposed cost of the health care reform (which is only a start-up estimate and will undoubtedly end up for more expensive than anyone ever cared to estimate), the cost of cash for clunkers as dealers have yet to be paid for most of their transactions, Cap and Trad..er…Tax, and whatever other horrendously expensive program this administration will try to pass, and we’ve got ourselves a terrible problem. The dollar will collapse in our lifetime and China will practically OWN us (if not literally) if we don’t turn this spending machine around and quick.
Regarding emails, the White House finally owned up to its email scam. Shocker. Last week Robert Gibbs swore up and down to Major Garrett that the White House simply was not responsible for the thousands of unsolicited emails regarding healthcare sent out in David Axelrod’s name. Now, come to find out, the White House had outsourced the task, paying a company to send these emails to the thousands of people on the lists that, oh yeah, they ALSO didn’t have. It’s as if they no longer care, or never did, what the public thinks of them. Personally, I fear that they really DON’T have to care or worry about being reelected. People, we now have Chicago politics in Washington garb. It is not beyond even my wildest imagination to consider the possibility that those behind this administration won’t have to worry about their jobs.

I was discussing these very issues with my husband over dinner, and I told him that while these sorts of things no longer shock me, they frighten me. I used these terms not because I am a “Neanderthal,” a “functionally retarded adult,” or a “racist” (all terms used by people who view my and the rest of America’s opposition to far-left health care reform as lunacy), but because I am truly afraid for my country. I fear for my nation because I am aware of three very important things: I am aware of the providential beginnings of our blessed nation through the truly amazing study of America’s history; I am aware of the impact that a flexible interpretation of our constitution will have on our nation’s future; I am familiar with what it is like to have a loved one (in this case, my brother) stand on the front lines ready and willing to take a bullet for this nation and its people. We are doing our forefathers, our constitution, and our brave men and women in uniform a horrible disservice when we decide as a nation to turn our backs on our founding principles. For those who would disagree- it is NOT politically incorrect to want to follow those principles; after all—they worked! Unfortunately, absolute truth is no longer taught in schools- children are taught simply to follow whatever they feel to be right. Thus, how can one be totally surprised when there are those who, rather than interpret the constitution as it was written and not to how it applies to modern times, call people like me “functionally retarded” for even suggesting that we must “follow the rules.” We are too young a nation to go down the tubes yet, people, and it is high time that we wake up.

"Use me as Your instrument -- but do not forsake me, for if ever I should be on my own, I would easily wreck it all."

( Image by Michael Ramirez)

The town hall was INCREDIBLE. Despite the bus-load of teamsters brought in specifically to protest, or the manufactured signs and pins and shirts....the crowd (which numbered close to 1,000 when you consider those 200+ people who were turned away due to the capacity issues) seemed to consist of at least 3/4 or more of the people in total opposition to the bill. How proud!

I made it into the line of those who wanted to speak, with dozens upon dozens of people waiting behind me. I was praying the whole time that God would give me the strength and the words to say. I listened to other people ahead of me make their statements, and the cheers from the crown encouraged me as my turn drew closer and closer. One man in particular caught my attention- he had brought a copy of the constitution, and brought to the crowd's attention the tenth ammendment, which reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The man pointed out that carrying out what this bill plans to do is in direct violation of the Constitution. Walz curtly responded by saying that along those lines of logic, we would have to get ride of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, VA benefits, etc. Had I had the mic at that point, my response would have been: Why, YES! We should! Those should have been delegated to the states to BEGIN WITH. Simply because we have programs in operation at the moment that go against the constitution DOES NOT mean we aught to keep doing just that! I felt that Walz rather painted himself into a corner with that one.

A few minutes after that, it was my turn to step up to the mic. Of course, I had had to whittle my statement down QUITE a bit. I had many things that I had wanted to point out, when I was under the assumption that I would have several minutes to make a statement. I've read about other town halls that gave people up to 5 minutes. As mentioned, I was told I had 1 minute. Anyway, I had to revise it while waiting to get into the townhall about an hour prior to my making the statement. With the help of a pen, my father's words and advice via a cell phone, and a some continuous prayer, and this is what I ended up saying:

"My name is Mary Ramirez, and I am a student at Bethany Lutheran College. I have spent most of my summer trying to read through this bill. Let me preface this by saying that it is not that I want to do nothing; I do feel that some changes need to be made to the system, and I will get to that in a moment. However, I stand before you today in total opposition to H.R. 3200. I want to share with you just a few of my concerns.
The president continues to say that we can keep our coverage if we like it, but, sections 122, 313, and 401 clearly outline how that will simply not be possible, as individuals and employers will be taxed if their plans are deemed unacceptable by the Health Services Advisory Committee. Let us not forget section 102 as well, which poses limits on new enrollment into private insurance.
These points represent only a fraction of the "more government control" details that are contained in this bill. H.R. 3200 is riddled with massive new government regulations and restrictions on personal freedom. This bill should be scrapped completely, as it is neither about health nore care, but is about taxation, government control, and the loss of liberty. I feel that allowing all health insurance companies to compete nationwide with limited government interference and regulation, along with tort reform, and an agressive program to catch fraud and health care abuse will do far more to bring costs down, make health care affordable for all, and maintain the freedoms that make America what it was founded to be. H.R. 3200 will do just the opposite. With that in mind, I would like to pose a question:
Can you say with certainty that the sections of the bill to which I referred previously contain "misinformation?" The president and many others continue to tell us that we are misinformed; however, I'm getting these concerns straight from the bill itself.

After that the crowd just went wild...I'd say 3/4 of the people there were in opposition to the bill. He didn't have a direct answer to my statements, except to say that individuals and companies would only be taxed if their insurance didn't meet minimum standards; however, as I was trying to point out, those standards will be determined by a committee that comes out a bill that also creates a government option; that committee can create, change, alter...however you want to view it...the standards by which private coverage is measured. The point I was trying to make is that it is simply more government control; it totally negates the president's claim that we will be left untouched if we like our plans and want to keep them. Apparently we can only keep them if the government likes it too.
Anyway, Walz hadn't addressed all of my concerns when the moderator (former Republican Senator Durenberger) took the mic and just started moving on to the next question. The whole crowd just errupted and started yelling at him to go back to my comment....and Walz made him apologize to me. Then Walz started addressing my concerns and basically talking about how my suggestions for reform wouldn't work....and specifically he addressed how allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would fail, as it would not increase competition. I started to say something from my seat ( I was almost in the front row) about it being just simple business logic that more companies competing for people would obviously lower prices, and then was again allowed to go up to the mic. I made the point (and I think this is what ended up on news on KEYC TV) that by having a government option thrown into the mix to help create competition was plagued by the fact that the government as a "competitor" doesn't have to show a profit; it can tax, regulate...etc. etc. The crowd got really excited again.

After the town hall it was such on odd feeling to have people coming up to me and shaking my hand or wanting to talk to me....the VP of BlueCross/Blue Shield came up to me and was like..."Thank you for your comments, they were right on." And then after that was the interview with FreePress. I'm still so suprised that they even wanted to interview me at all (seeing as how liberal they tend to lean) as I had caused some of the loudest uproar of the night! The reporter interviewed me for about 15 minutes...and while I wanted to get two specific points across; that I totally oppose this bill and fear that it will harm generations to come, and that I thought Rep. Walz handled the meeting very well (in comparison to some of the other rather rude experiences constituents have had with their representatives); I thought that the way he quoted me made it sound like I thought Walz had come totally prepared, and/or had read the bill. I'm referring to this passage in the article: “He knew what we were talking about. ... " What I meant to get across was that he seemed to understand where both sides were coming from, while obviously supporting this bill 100%. I certainly don't feel that he has read the entire bill. I felt, however, that he came somewhat more prepared than some of the other reps. and senators that have held town halls. . . he had the head of the Mankato Area Chamber of Commerce; the VP of BlueCross/BlueShield Minnesota, and a doctor from the Mayo clinic. He seemed to also have brought documentation along from the bill.

It was definitely an amazing experience to finally get to do something in this whole political debate. I've been reading the bill and blogging about it for quite some time...along with all the other fun stuff this administration is trying to (or already did) shove down our throats...Cap and Trade, Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus package, the fairness doctrine...the list goes on. My whole reason for doing all this is simply that if the government get a foot in the door in this big of a way....what is to hold them back from eventually regulating more and more aspects of our lives...specifically, our freedom to openly practice our faith!

Praise God for helping me that night- as Luther says in his sacristy prayer:

"Use me as Your instrument -- but do not forsake me, for if ever I should be on my own, I would easily wreck it all."

Don't Tread on Me

Mr. President, members of Congress, do not underestimate the will of the American people. We know wrongdoing and corruption when we see it, and ladies and gentlemen, we see it. We recognize when our freedoms are fading; when our freedoms are being blatantly snatched away. We will stand up and fight for them, despite the difficulties.

Today I will, God-willing, have a chance to speak at a town hall and voice my concerns to Representative Tim Walz. I've revised my statement from what I previously posted and would like to post it here. May God use my words towards a positive impact on the citizens of my district and state, and hopefully, this country.

Thank you, Congressman Walz for hosting this town hall. I thank you for your time.

Sir, I stand before you today in total opposition to HR 3200.
I have been personally studying this bill, and would like to share my concerns with my findings.

· The president continues to say that we can keep our coverage if we like it, but, sections 122, 313, and 401 clearly outline how that will simply not be possible, as individuals and employers will be taxed if their plans are deemed unacceptable by the Health Services Advisory Committee. Let us not forget section 102 as well, which poses limits on new enrollment into private insurance.

· Again, people are assured over and over that they will have freedom in their choice of insurance. Yet section 312 clearly outlines the requirement for employers to auto-enroll their employees into the plan unless the employee takes action first.

· Many, including the president, have made claims that this plan will be deficit neutral, and that we will be able to pay for this plan without affecting taxes and the current budget. This is proven to be absolutely false in section 444 with its proposed additional tax increase on wealthier Americans.

Then, there is the issue of size and complication. This bill is over 1,000 pages long. To have such major legislation that is far too convoluted for most people to sit down and read is highly irresponsible. With that in mind, I have a threefold question for you. Beforehand, however, let me just say this: if this bill passes as is despite America’s standing up to cry out against its massively negative impact, I will work my hardest in the next year and half to defeat those who voted for it, and elect those who will make right this wrong. Remember, this isn’t just about this bill. This is about government overstepping its bounds in a number of other areas. Now, on with the questions:

First, did you personally read HR 3200 in its entirety before you voted on it; Second, if not, is that a responsible action to have voted on such a massive bill without knowing the details; Third, can you now show me specifically from the bill where the statements I made above are incorrect?