Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me -
Include your email address
Just in case you weren't sure...
Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com
An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush:
million in just two years
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force....
Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat....
Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature....
Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
Because Bush is to blame... for
Sacred Cow Burgers
Satirical Political Beliefs
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies
Share your wish list with friends and family
Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones
Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion
News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs
The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek
Articles Previously Published at
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On -
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder -
- The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
- More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
My Arse From My Elbow
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
Obama Goes Cowboy on Osama
So Obama used information that was obtained from Gitmo detainees who have never been brought to trial, including men who were waterboarded like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to send American forces into a sovereign nation without even notifying its leaders and without seeking the approval of the United Nations, in order to assassinate -- not arrest -- Osama bin Laden, killing him outright regardless of his rights and without even giving him a military tribunal, much less a trial. For the life of me, I can't think of anything former President George W. Bush himself would have done differently, up to that point. Well done, President Obama. Too bad you just violated every statement you have ever made regarding every aspect of military and diplomatic operations, not to mention the ideals of most of your hard-core supporters on the Left. Now if you could just sign off on some tax cuts, you could use leftover 2004 "Re-Elect Bush" campaign posters in 2012. At least you'd be recycling.
Personally, I couldn't be more pleased that Osama bin Laden is dead. That sick, rotten piece of excrement has been a thorn in America's side, not to mention that of the entire civilised world, for more than two decades now. Obama definitely deserves credit for giving the order to take him out, although a more gracious man would have given the lion's share of the credit where it's due -- to the military, to the CIA and to the policies established by his predecessor. Still, justice has been served and every American should be glad. Don't let the pseudo-pious Left talk you out of this well-deserved moment by saying Christians shouldn't celebrate the death of this evil man. Just remind them that Proverbs 21:15 says, "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers."
It may be surprising (to some) that everything the Left has been telling us for nearly a decade is wrong. Apparently, keeping detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a good idea. The information they have to share, though up to ten years old, is surprisingly useful after all. Waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques do, it seems, yield helpful results. And best of all, it appears that war is indeed the answer, especially when the question is "What do we do when we find bin Laden?" He brought his war to us. Now we've returned it.
The Left is correct about one thing, however. Killing bin Laden will not magically solve all of our terrorism problems. Others will step up to take his place, though they may not be as inspirational as he was, nor will they have his former air of invincibility. Bin Laden's death was an extraordinarily strong psychological blow to al Qaeda and other terror groups, but if we don't follow up they will recover, in time. Instead of putting General Petraeus behind a desk at the CIA, Obama ought to give him carte blanche to carry this war to our enemies like never before. Let's hope that in his new position, he can at least ensure that we continue to get actionable information from captured enemies at Guantanamo Bay, as we have been doing since 2002.
Meanwhile, I hear Obama is thinking about buying a ranch, so he can drive a pickup truck and cut brush while wearing a cowboy hat on the weekends.
Posted at Wednesday, May 04, 2011 by CavalierX
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Posted at Thursday, July 29, 2010 by CavalierX
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The moratorium on offshore oil drilling Obama is still pushing despite a Federal judge striking down the original version is neither emotion-driven nor knee-jerk, but cold and deliberate. There isn't a chance that the companies who own those drilling rigs can let them sit idle for six months -- they lose millions of dollars every day they're not running. Already Petrobras is offering to tow the rigs down to Brazil and put them back to work -- and the Export-Import Bank of the United States is loaning Petrobras $2 billion with which to do it! Ex-Im Bank is (for you Liberals) "the official export credit agency of the United States federal government." That's our tax dollars going to destroy our own domestic oil industry, since once those rigs are gone and put on a new contract they will never come back.
Guess who also invested heavily in Petrobras back in February, increasing his holdings to about $900 milllion worth of stock at the time? Our old pal George Soros -- the closest thing we have to a James Bond villain in real life. That's not to suggest a conspiracy in which the Deepwater Horizon rig was deliberately sabotaged, but Soros knew that his tool Obama would sieze upon any opportunity to shut down offshore drilling, which accounts for about a third of our domestic oil production.
A moratorium on offshore drilling doesn't even make sense. For two months we've been told that the disaster in the Gulf is all British Petroleum's fault, caused by shoddy practices and bad decisions, cutting corners on safety to increase their profit margin. If that's the case, then why stop all drilling? That would be like halting all auto manufacturing when some Toyota models had brake issues. A moratorium on offshore drilling suggests there is something inherently dangerous in the process itself -- but if that's the case, why was it right to strong-arm BP into feeding $20 billion to a slush fund to be doled out by political appointees?
Choking off our own oil supply is suicide -- it will bring massive increases in oil and gas prices, making the $140-per-barrel prices we experienced for a short time two years ago seem tame by comparison. It will drive what's left of our economy into a death spiral from which we might never recover. Everything we do, everything we use, depends on oil, including pens, furniture, food production, computers, car tires and traffic lights -- not that there will be much traffic with gas prices hitting $8-$10 per gallon.
A moratorium on offshore drilling while allowing (paying for!) our oil industry to move to Brazil does not just affect oil production, it's the end of it -- and therefore a moratorium on the American economy. If it's not stopped, it can only lead to the destruction of this country as we know it.
Posted at Wednesday, June 23, 2010 by CavalierX
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Just Say NO! to Obamacare
Today, President Obama is hosting a "health care summit" at Blair House in an attempt to convince Republicans to sign on to his disastrous health care takeover proposals. It's a trap, of course -- the entire show will be staged to present sob stories of people who purportedly died or went broke without government-run health care, which only the stinky, mean Republicans are blocking. It's utter foolishness, of course -- the Democrats until very recently had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and could have passed any bill they wanted while powerless Republicans only gnashed their teeth and complained. But they didn't, because they know that only 25% of Americans want the current health care proposals to pass -- most of them hard-core union supporters, government workers, die-hard Obamaniacs and Leftists of one stripe or another.
Some say the Republicans should refuse to attend this obvious trap, but they won't. What they would do, if I had my way, is deliver the following speech to Obama and his minions. It'll never happen, but a man can dream, can't he? If someone did "man up" and deliver such a speech, I'd be willing to bet he would win any election for which he ran in a landslide.
"First, those of you who claim that we want to 'do nothing' about health care are either lying or ignorant, as you all know perfectly well that Republicans have been proposing some simple reforms that will go a long way toward making health insurance more affordable and accessible for everyone. A summary of our proposals is even already linked on your own White House web site, Mr. President. In case you merely forgot to read it, here are a few of the highlights of our health care reform plan:
1. Meaningful tort reform to stop out-of-control lawsuits that drive up insurance costs for doctors, which is the main reason they charge patients so much.
2. Eliminate the ban on buying insurance across state lines to increase competition by a thousand-fold.
3. Allow people to purchase their own health insurance, through a health savings account, instead of tying it to their employment.
"The 'party of no,' as you call us, is absolutely right to say 'no' to a government takeover of the healthcare industry when a few simple changes will allow the free market to lower costs for everyone.
"Second, that '30 million uninsured' figure you tout is a lie, too. Hey, whatever happened to the other 15-20 million uninsured people you Democrats used to weep over? Did they vanish? In any case, two-thirds of that 30 million are comprised of people who fit into one or more of the following categories:
a) young people who do not want insurance and will not apply for Obamacare.
b) rich people who do not want insurance and will not apply for Obamacare.
c) people who already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but have not applied, and will not apply for Obamacare.
d) people who have switched jobs and whose new insurance has not yet kicked in, none of whom will apply for Obamacare.
"So you want to destroy our entire healthcare system, with which 83% of Americans are either 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied,' for the sake of maybe 8 to 10 million people, most of whom are between jobs and who will be better served by job creation than an expensive government health care takeover? You want to force all of us to accept third-world standards of care and spend hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have in the process? Well, we have only one thing to say to that.
26 Feb 2010 UPDATE: Turns out that the "health care summit" which was supposed to make the Republicans look like a bunch of mean, angry obstructionists was in fact a free national campaign commercial that screamed "vote Republican!" to anyone with a brain. Thanks, Obama! You've just practically guaranteed yourself a Congress dominated by Republicans for the rest of your one and only term.
Hat tip to The Lonely Conservative for the video highlights.
Posted at Thursday, February 25, 2010 by CavalierX
Monday, February 08, 2010
Just in case you aren't a nuclear physicist, 3%-5% purity is all the enrichment (refinement) of uranium-235 one needs to run a nuclear power plant. 90% purity is what you'd need to build a high-yield, compact modern nuke Technically, anything over 6% purity works well enough for a large, crude, "dirty" bomb -- you just need more mass with less purity. But the enrichment process that purifies uranium up to 20% is most of the work needed to get to 90%. Once you have the capability of refining uranium to the 20% mark (highly enriched uranium or HEU), you just keep refining it over and over.
Tomorrow, Iran begins enriching uranium to 20%.
If Iran is not stopped, they could have enough 90% enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon by the end of summer -- that is, if this isn't all a sleight-of-hand trick to cover for Iran's obtaining weapons-grade uranium or functional weapons from North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or China. Iranian leaders keep forewarning the world that they will "punch the arrogance (of Western powers) ... in a way that will leave them stunned" on 11 February -- only three days away. Iran used to be Persia, after all -- the country where chess was likely invented. Whether the Iranians are making their own (and are willing to settle for a lower level of enrichment) or buying uranium, we might not have to wait long to see one of the following:
1. A nuclear explosion in either the Dasht-e Kavir or Dasht-e Lut desert
2. A nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv
The former would be a claim to dominance over the entire Middle East, sparking off a more open and frantic nuclear arms race with Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia among others. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak told an Arab summit almost a year ago, in March 2009, "A nuclear armed Iran with hegemonic ambitions is the greatest threat to Arab nations today." One can exchange the word "Arab" for "all" and the statement is still true.
The latter result of Iran's enrichment process would very likely be the opening salvo of a devastating nuclear war. In chess terms: the first puts us all in check, the second, checkmate.
How much longer will we play around with sanctions and stern finger-wagging while Iran marches toward the end of the world?
Posted at Monday, February 08, 2010 by CavalierX
Monday, December 28, 2009
Wear Clean Underwear In Case of Terrorism
It would almost be amusing, if it weren't so sickening, to watch the same Left-wingers who smugly stated that 9/11 was all Bush's fault because "it happened on his watch" act so quickly to deflect any criticism of Obama's lax policies regarding terrorism -- when we're allowed to call it that.
When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to light his underwear on fire aboard a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, it was evidence of a total failure of security procedures and checks. No one said this attempted terrorist attack was the Obamateur's fault, though. We mad Conservatives tend to blame attacks on the people who actually commit them, as strange as that may sound. However, Obama's Homeland Security is a joke, riddled with political motives and politically-correct attitudes. Here are the facts: the terrorist walked right onto an airplane despite being on a Federal watch list, a lone male with no checked luggage traveling one-way on a ticket bought with cash after his visa was denied in Great Britain and his own father reported him to the US embassy in Nigeria for having become radicalised in Yemen. Meanwhile security was no doubt occupied strip-searching a white-haired, blue-eyed grandma from Boise. This should indicate to all but the most partisan of Liberals that our security procedures are totally ineffective, focused on generic, random searches while actual terrorists aren't bothered because no one wants to be accused of racial profiling.
In the end, the bombing was only thwarted by passengers acting to preserve their own lives. Instead of crying about how mean we are to blame Obama's policies, how about you Liberals get your collective head out of his butt and join us in demanding he protect the country of which he's supposed to be President? Instead, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hit the Sunday talk shows to crow about how well "the system worked" because after the event took place, law enforcement agencies were notified with record speed. Was that supposed to be a joke? If Obama does not fire Napolitano and find someone whose approach to terrorism is proactive rather than reactive to take her place, then he will have failed America in this area as well -- continuing his so-far unbroken string. Perhaps someone who might notice a shared factor among all the terrorists we're supposedly fighting... naah, it would be politically incorrect to notice that they're all radical Muslims. Better to keep searching those grandmas than double-check all Muslims traveling alone, one-way, without luggage, paying in cash...
Instead of seeing an actual counter-terrorism approach to security, I'm afraid to consider what invasive and useless security rules travelers will be subjected to next, given that we've all had to remove our shoes ever since Richard "Abdel Rahim" Reid tried to set his sneakers on fire in flight. Make sure you wear clean underwear when traveling, just in case.
Posted at Monday, December 28, 2009 by CavalierX
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Root Flaw of Liberalism
The flaw at the root of Liberal thinking is the same thing that makes Liberals so arrogant. They know their ideas can work on paper, where you can leave out the human factor. The idea that every member of a society will produce to his best capacity while only using what he really needs is a fine one, as long as you leave it to insects or robots and not try to force flawed, imperfect, self-aware human beings to live by such a system. People will hoard goods, engage in black markets, slack off work whenever they can and bribe officials to avoid unpleasant duties. Liberals seem to think that people can be made perfect if the right laws are passed, and if you teach them young enough. But to make that system work in the real world, you have to enforce the laws with heavy police presence, cameras everywhere, indoctrination and secret police... and you end up living in the novel 1984.
The idea that you can simply tax wealthy people and corporations to get money works fine... as long as those entities don't find a way to hide their money, avoid the tax using influence with politicians and officials, or pass the tax along to consumers. In the real world, that's exactly what happens -- plus it destroys the only valid incentive for hard work. But taxing wealth works on paper, so obviously it's a perfect idea. Again, the only way to make it function in the real world is total government control, which ends with everyone (except the ruling class) being equally destitute and miserable.
The problem starts with the way college students, especially, are taught to examine a problem: by taking it out of context, disconnecting it from outside influences and consequences. If you tax entity A you will always generate X amount of revenue, on paper. But in the real world, every action has consequences and repercussions, everything is connected to everything else, and human nature cannot simply be left out of the equation. Entity A will hide his money in tax shelters, charge Entity B more for his goods, fire Entity C to save paying his salary, bribe Entity D and make campaign donations to Entity E's re-election campaign to avoid paying that tax out of his own pocket.
Real life is far more complicated than Liberals seem to comprehend. That's why their solutions to the problems we face are usually both simplistic and unrealistic. But they work on paper, so we're the stupid ones.
Posted at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 by CavalierX
Monday, August 31, 2009
I tried to avoid speaking about the death of Ted Kennedy amid the media slobberfest, but the blatantly opportunistic political funeral he was given made the Paul Wellstone debacle look tame by comparison and has removed all restraints. Several people have asked my opinion of the whole thing, so here it is in a nutshell: Ted Kennedy was a drunk, a womaniser, a coward, an opportunist, a traitor and above all else, a murderer -- and those were his good points. His last public act was one of supreme partisanship -- attempting to alter state law to allow a Democrat governor to appoint his successor, after having gotten the law changed specifically to prevent a Republican governor from appointing John Kerry's. I am appalled by the fact that a man like that was allowed to have a Catholic funeral. It speaks very badly of the Church, in my opinion.
Posted at Monday, August 31, 2009 by CavalierX
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Obama Gets Religion... Sort Of
Yesterday, while speaking to Liberal religious leaders (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one), Obama claimed a religious imperative behind his push for a government takeover of our health care system. "I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are a some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness. ... These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is, that we look out for one another; that is, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper."
Frankly, using the way he cares for his brother as an example is poor salesmanship on Obama's part. George Obama still lives in a Kenyan slum on "less than a dollar a month." It's as bad as his use of the Post Office as a model of government efficiency and competitiveness -- if the law preventing any other entity from delivering the mail were repealed, the Post Office would cease to exist overnight.
I was disgusted and outraged by The Messiah's blatant attempt to use religion to push his health care takeover package, and I'm not even very religious. Like he -- or anyone -- uses the phrase "bearing false witness" in normal conversation. It takes a sick mind to turn disagreeing with political policies into a sin... yet that's exactly what Obama's trying to do. And to claim that Christian teachings about taking care of the less fortunate translate into support for a wasteful, corrupt government program that would end up doing more harm than good is ridiculous and insulting. If you feel you have a duty to help others, than you personally should give your own money and/or time to do so. If you feel that government programs are a better way to help people than charities, then by all means feel free to pay extra taxes out of your own pocket! It is a personal duty and responsibility to care for the "less fortunate," not a government mandate.
This should, I hope, turn out to be a politically fatal miscalculation on the part of Obama and his anti-Christian handlers, who think all he has to do is mouth a few catchphrases and Christians will say "oh, yeah, I guess the Bible does say we ought to let the government run our lives." And here I thought I could not be more disgusted with this man and his Collectivist foolishness. In that respect, I was wrong.
Posted at Thursday, August 20, 2009 by CavalierX
Monday, August 17, 2009
Nannie Mae and Freddie Doc?
So Sarah Palin was excoriated in the media as some kind of fool for saying she didn't want her son or anyone else to have to stand before a "death panel" which would judge his worthiness to receive health care. Yet the uproar she caused by pointing out that care would necessarily be rationed under any government-run system was such that Obama felt compelled to answer her in one of his scripted, staged "town hall" speeches.
The best the supposedly great orator could do was ridicule, not reply -- and the people understood that. They understood even better when Palin produced another Facebook comment lashing out at the provision which mandated that doctors initiate end-of-life counseling sessions. So -- in the Senate version, at least -- the provision was removed.
Not too bad for a stupid, marginalised, quitter ex-Governor from a backwater state who supposedly gave up her place on the national stage and killed her own political career, is it?
However, the person who originally (at least, in the current debate) brought up the idea of health care being rationed out by a group of individuals not directly answerable to the people was not Sarah Palin, but Barack Obama himself, in April of 2009. As Tom Maguire pointed out in the blog Just One Minute, "Obama actually advocated end-of-life panels issuing voluntary guidelines with Timesman David Leonhardt, as reported in the (New York) Times."
THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
Personally, I don't want an "independent group" either inside or outside "the normal political channels" to give me any "guidance" regarding my personal health care decisions. The inevitable direction such "guidance" takes is already known in countries that have instituted government-run health care systems. Even the stalwarts in Great Britain are beginning to admit that "what the Americans have is, for the most part, better than the NHS." The new president of the Canadian Medical Association says of her fellow physicians, "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize." Health care in Canada and the United Kingdom have been held up by the Left as examples we should follow down the path to socialised medicine. Is that really a good idea, when medical horror stories keep emerging from those and the other countries which have preceded us?
Closer to home, maybe you should ask Barbara Wagner what a "death panel" looks like. She knows. Oregon has had state-run health care for a while, and this is what happens to people who need expensive treatments but are not considered worth treating:
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
Wagner's life was saved by one of those evil drug companies who, according to Obama, only act in pursuit of the almighty dollar... like those evil doctors he claimed perform unnecessary tests, then casually remove patients' feet and tonsils just for money. Under a national health care system, Barbara Wagner -- and a whole lot of people whose lives are not considered "cost-effective" to save by a huge, soulless bureaucracy -- would be sentenced to death.
The White House is now talking about removing the "government option" from the health care bill and replacing it with a "co-op" system that will be staffed, funded and managed by the government. Supposedly, we are told, that's different from government-run health care. So instead of directly managing our health care, the government will set up a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac-type fake independent agency to do it -- and to take the heat when the system inevitably fails, as it is doing in Canada and UK. Just like Fannie/Freddie, the government can then "solve the problem" by reabsorbing the agency.
Once health care becomes a "right," it will be impossible to stop the slide into bureaucratic mismanagement and corruption, inevitably leading to unnecessary suffering and death. We need to stop this before it's too late.
21 Aug 09 UPDATE: Here's a local tv news report on Barbara Wagner's story. The money quote (no pun intended) is from Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan: "If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks ... we are taking away those dollars from someone." Alright, so it's a death commission, not a death panel. Big difference.
Posted at Monday, August 17, 2009 by CavalierX