POLLIWOG (Tadpole): the early stage of an animal that will eventually become a frog, hoping to be kissed by a princess, turning into a prince! POLIBLOG (Political Blog): the early stage of a center-right political blog that may eventually become a full blown blog of the center-right. Join in if you find any merit in the comments. If you are on the left and disagree, feel free to straighten me out! Who knows, with effort from all of us this blog may turn into a prince!

Location: San Diego, California, United States

Monday, August 31, 2009


""Chicago politics is not about ideology. It is about, 'Who Gets What, When, and How,' to quote the inimitable Harold D. Laswell, one of the outstanding political theorists of the last century. The sine qua non of Chicago politics is power, getting it and keeping it. Everything else is incidental. Even corruption is a byproduct of power and is functional only if it enables you to stay in power.

In Chicago politics, you don't make waves, you don't back losers, and you 'don't talk to nobody nobody sent.' Chicago politics is always about hierarchy and centralization. ... If you want to understand Obama's health care policy, you need to start where Obama starts. You need to start with Chicago.

You need to look at constituent interests. Obama won in 2008 because, among other things, he mobilized the electoral periphery. He mobilized young voters and minority voters, people who traditionally had a lower probability of showing up on Election Day. Chicago politics is about mobilizing the vote. 'Vote early and often' is the city's sardonic refrain. Obama needs his newly socialized base. He needs them to keep coming to the polls. In the vein of Chicago politics, he needs to deliver benefits to them. Unrewarded, the electoral periphery will revert back to apathy.

Health care is a reward to this base of people who are on the economic as well as political periphery. ... Obama understands that his objective is to provide his base with the spoils of power -- in this case insurance. ... If all that Obama wanted were to insure those who fall between the cracks, he could put them into the same wonderful program that Congress created for itself by subsidizing their premiums. This would neither require a thousand pages of legislation nor a new series of bureaucracies. But building a new power base resulting from the mobilization of the political and economic periphery requires redefining the nation's health problems as the nation's health catastrophe. Health reform is Chicago politics on a national level." --University of Cincinnati emeritus professor of political science Abraham Miller"

Note the red highlighted sentence above. What is BHO and our Congress trying to do? It certainly is not care for the uninsured! Think about it!

H/T: Patriot Post Monday Brief, August 31, 2009


Sunday, August 30, 2009


Over at Slate Jacob Weisberg posted "The Republican Death Machine" - the sickest bit of lefty logic I have ever read!

If you would like to defend ANYTHING he says in that column, please comment and I will explain why he is sick.


Thursday, August 27, 2009

R.I.P. Ted Kennedy

"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams

H/T: Patriot Post, August 27, 2009


Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A Thought about Healthfare

Heard a comment today by an Obamacare supporter to an anti-Obamacare supporter of Israel, questioning why the Israel supporter didn't want socialized medicine like the successful system in Israel?

I thought I might find a correlation with population versus success of socialized medicine. Here is the results:

Israel - population 7,411,000 (2009 estimate)

Canada - population 33,758,000 (2009 estimate)

England - population 51,092,000 (2007 estimate)

From what I have read and heard is discussions of single-payer systems, Israel seems to be very successful, Canada seems to be having a significant amount of problems, and England is usually given as the reason we do not want single-payer - major problems are reported daily and financial problems are threatening the system.

Could it be the problems are proportional to the population?

If so, the United States should be VERY careful in evaluating any new healthcare system, having 6 times the England population, 10 times the Canada population, and 43 times the Israel population.


Monday, August 24, 2009


Want to know their purpose today? Read about this activity against Whole Foods.


Quote of the Day

Andrew Breitbart, in his "Boycotting the Boycotters" column explaining the absurdity of the left attacking John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods, says the following:

"Liberalism has never been about establishing a universal standard. Liberalism is simply intellectual cover for those wanting to gain political power and increase the size of the state."

My lefty friends: take note!


Friday, August 21, 2009

Had to post this VDH point...

from the below post where he is suggesting what BHO should do:

"The Therapy

1) Cool the “this is our moment”, “hope and change” rhetoric. Obama reminds me of what Wellington supposedly said of Napoleon’s Old Guard at Waterloo “They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way.” Instead, he should quietly follow the 1995 triangulation model of Bill Clinton/Dick Morris.

Instead of the old sops of welfare reform, school uniforms, balanced budgets, and more police officers on the street (I’m not being entirely cynical here), Obama should concentrate on debt, debt, and more debt. He could freeze federal spending at 2% per annum, and get into the black in two-three years, given his income tax hikes. He could pacify the Left with, “I’d love to pursue our socialist agenda, but we are going broke and cannot right now.”

Instead of cap-and-trade, he could allot a few feminist, green and gay ambassadorships that would not impact the federal treasury. Given the sudden silence on Iraq, the Left has demonstrated that their furor was always about power lost and hatred for George Bush in the White House, never much about principles or convictions. That Obama is in the White House is more important to most former critics of Bush than anything he does or says."

Sounds like very sound advice!


VDH on BHO's Meltdown!

Lot's of acronyms, but a very interesting analysis of what is going on with our politics right now by Victor Davis Hanson. A must read!


Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Stossel Explains "Death Panels" ...

in "The Ugly Truth of Obamacare". Here is the heart of the column:

"The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if demand for health care services increases -- which is Obama's point in extending health insurance -- prices must go up. But somehow Obama also promises, "I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation".

This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred, someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out, politicians can control costs -- by refusing to pay for the services.

It's called rationing.

Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people's health care and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.

So much for Obama's promise not to interfere with our freedom of choice.

This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have.

So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care, especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social engineers haven't read their writings?"

His explanation sounds logical to me! "Death Panels" may be a harsh way of explaining the above, but it is accurate!



Jonah Goldberg, in "Why 'Obama-Care is Failing", asks what the reaction would have been if W had used BHO's tactics to partially privatize Social Security.

Very interesting to ponder the following two paragraphs:

"Imagine if President George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the "time for talking is over." Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails, in the pursuit of "fishy" dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) derided critics as "evil-mongers" the way Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently described town hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) had called vocal critics "un-American" the way Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.

Now I'm not asking you, dear reader, to do this so that you might be able to see through the glare of Obama's halo or the outlines of the media's staggering double standard when it comes to covering this White House. Rather it is to grasp that the Obama administration has been astoundingly incompetent."

Read the entire column. With hindsight it is hard to believe the tactics they have used!


Monday, August 17, 2009

Andrew Breitbart's Interesting Perspective...

on Obama and the Fighting Illini - Chicago Style politics. An interesting view!

Read it here.


"Palin Called a Spade a Spade"

David Warren, a columnist for Canada's Ottawa Citizen, gives his view on Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" comment. The title "Palin Called a Spade a Spade" - says it all, to the chagrin of the politically correct!

I found the following analysis of our new "czardom" quite interesting:

"Tell you the candid truth, I don't like "nice" people. Conversely, I have a sneaking regard for real political enemies who are prepared to state candidly what they are about. Which is why I mentioned Obama's long list of policy czars, above -- people like John Holdren (1970s advocate of forced abortions and mass sterilization) the new science czar, Van Jones (declared Communist) the new green jobs czar, Vivek Kundra (convicted shoplifter) the new infotech czar, Adolfo Carrion (pay-for-play scandals) the new urban subsidies czar, Nancy DePerle (lobbyist-to-regulator) the new health czar, Cass Sunstein (behaviourist and animal rights wacko) the new regulatory czar, and so on.

There are dozens of these, altogether. They are Obama's "shadow cabinet," with the advantage over his more presentable official cabinet that they can avoid congressional scrutiny in almost everything they do. They didn't need to face the Senate confirmation revelations that lost Obama so many of his earliest cabinet appointments. A mere Internet search for quotes reveals that many of them are capable of great candour, at least in the radical leftist environments from which most of them came."

I think our "czardom" is a little suspect!


Sunday, August 16, 2009

To Understand BHO and What is Happening...

read this Rightwingsparkle post - Key Points in Healthcare - and evaluate the administrations claims. They seem to have lost their momentum due to some faulty logic.

An important read to understand this complex subject!


Saturday, August 15, 2009

The Result of "Chicago Style" Policies

No City services on Monday in Chicago. Read about it!

Is this where the country is headed?


Friday, August 14, 2009

Some Statistics to think about!

The English National Health Service:

Employs 1.33 million people (2005)

Spends 98.7 Billion Pounds per year (2008)

And the population of England is 52 million.

The English NHS is the 5th largest employer in the WORLD!!! After:

The Chinese Army

The Indian Railways


and the U. S. Department of Defense

The United States Population is above 300 million today - 6 TIMES LARGER THAN ENGLAND!

Still think we should rush this entree to a "U.S. National Health Service" through this fall? Only if you want the power it will create!


James Taranto of WSJ Best of the Web gets it right on Palin and "Death Panels"

A part of the discussion:

"If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.

For a wonderful example of such hubris, check out this post from David Kurtz of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

"Is there anything quite as unsettling as when the nation's political class (and I use that term broadly to encompass the occasionally political, like the tea partiers) turns its fleeting but intense focus to a new (for them) and complex topic, like end-of-life issues?

It seems like years of painstaking work to nudge our death-denying culture toward a more frank and humane approach to our own mortality and dying could be erased by one misguided national discussion set off by none other than Sarah Palin."

Except that Palin didn't "set off" this discussion; President Obama did by trying to ram through legislation postalizing the medical system with no time for debate or reflection. How to care for dying patients is a serious, sensitive and complicated matter, one with which American families struggle every day. If you truly don't want the "political class" involved, your quarrel is with the man who is pushing for more federal involvement in this most personal of matters. It's entirely understandable that people would respond to such an effort by shouting, "Keep your laws off my grandma!"


Thursday, August 13, 2009

Mob? You've Got to be Kidding! Here was a Mob!!

James Taranto of WSJ Best of the Web Today reminds all of the left demonstrations against President Bush. Todays townhalls are not mobs. We saw mobs from supporters of todays accusers during W's tenure. Important to remember and to understand the bias in the MSM.

A portion of a 2003 report referenced in the article:

"Protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

"BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE." . . .

A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!" . . .

angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!

Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire."

Remember? Want to defend the MSM?


Wednesday, August 12, 2009


Before we begin giving the Government control over an additional 17% of our economy it might be wise to debate the real subject. Here is a quote from BHO in 2003 (from todays Best of the Web, WSJ):

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

"Basic Health Insurance for everybody" is not insurance! It is WELFARE!

Do we really want to fix something as important to the individual as Healthcare with WELFARE? This is doing them and ourselves a disservice. But more importantly, how can we debate the subject with this purposeful obfuscation?

And finally - BHO does not want Single Payer?? Who are you Dems trying to kid!!


If This Does Not Concern You, Nothing Will!!

"The Illustrated Guide to Obama's Human Props" by Michelle Malkin shows the "Chicago Style" politics our President uses on a daily basis. Do you realize he is the "Styrofoam President" - just like is backdrop when chosen as the Democrat candidate?

An interesting read!


Why The Dems Will Be OUT in 2010...

and BHO will be a one term President:

John Fund explains "Air Congress Hits Turbulence" confirming the almost unbelievable hypocrisy of what is only the tip of a much greater iceberg! Travel is next:

"The flap over the now aborted Gulfstream purchases could shed light on just how big Air Congress has gotten. The executive branch routinely goes along with whatever Congress wants to spend on itself. This year legislative branch spending is up more than 10% over last year."

Aren't we in a recession?

John Stossel reveals why "Big Business Goes Big for Health-Care Reform" and why the Dem claim the protesting of Big Government Healthcare is being resisted by organizations formed by Insurance companies, et al, is a purposeful lie.

"In light of all this, it's funny to watch Democrats and their activist allies panic over the protests at congressional town meetings around the country. Tools of the corporate interests! they cry. But anyone opposing "socialized medicine" at the meeting can't be a mouthpiece for big business because, as we've seen, big business supports government control. Conservative groups may be encouraging people to vent their anger at congressmen who pass burdensome legislation without even bothering to read it, but that's no reason to insult the protestors as pawns. What's wrong with organizations helping like-minded people to voice their opinions? Why do Democrats, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, dismiss citizen participation as "AstroTurf" -- not real grassroots -- only when citizens oppose the kind of big government they favor?"

Why am I in a good mood today!!! Read them both and you will be too!


Monday, August 10, 2009


The NY Post gets it right on Congressional hypocrisy. I post the entire editorial:

Flights of Fancy

August 10, 2009

Remember the outrage from members of Congress when the auto industry executives flew private jets to Washington to plead for bailout money?

Apparently, House Democrats don't.

Or, if they do, they don't care.

House Democratic leaders neatly snuck into the 2010 defense appropriations bill an extra $132 million to pay for two extra C-37B private jets to haul congressmen around the country.

As Capitol Hill's Roll Call reported, the Air Force had requested one such jet -- for the general use of government officials and military brass.

But House Democrats, being who they are, couldn't stop there: They authorized the purchase of three jets, for a total cost of $200 million.

As Roll Call notes, the C-37B is the Air-Force equivalent of "the Gulfstream G550 . . . a luxury business jet, which the company advertises as featuring long-range flight capacity that 'easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.' "

The jets will be conveniently stowed at Andrews Air Force base -- just a short limo ride from Capitol Hill.

Now, maybe we missed something, but isn't this the Congress that:

* Says it wants to cut spending?

* Is so environment-conscious that it regularly complains about the evil carbon footprints allegedly left by private jets?

* Just authorized another $2 billion (for a total of $3 billion) to fund a "Cash for Clunkers" program to get private citizens to abandon gas-guzzling private vehicles?

We further wonder why Congress couldn't have just picked up a couple of bargains shopping among the jets that Citibank, other Wall Street firms and auto-industry executives have put up for sale over the last year.

Ah, it must be that congresspeople don't do second-hand flying.

An embarrassed Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) vows to strip the House funding when the appropriations bill comes up for a vote in the Senate.

Good for her.

That it was authorized in the first place says a whole lot about the House's priorities -- and rank hypocrisy.


Friday, August 07, 2009

Krauthammer Common Sense Reform

In "Health Care Reform: A Better Plan" Charles Krauthammer proposes a very simple two part reform that would move us a long way towards our goal of healthcare for all at reasonable costs.

Implement these ideas then evaluate the situation!

Worth the read.


Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Cash4Clunkers: Jonah Goldberg points out the silliness and economic ignorance of the BHO Administration

"How Much is That Clunker In the Window" exposes the economic ignorance of this administration. Jonah Goldberg uses a well known economic allegory from Frenchman Frederic Bastiat to prove this.

A must read!

The heart of the column:

"Bastiat's essay is most famous for the "parable of the broken window," in which a young boy shatters a shopkeeper's window and, after some initial outrage, the villagers conclude that the rascal helped the local economy. Why?

Because if no one broke windows, window makers would be out of business, and if window makers were out of business, they wouldn't buy any more bread or shoes, hurting the bakers and cobblers. So the six francs the shopkeeper must spend for a new window is really a boon to the community. The problem with this argument can be gleaned from the title of Bastiat's essay.

By counting the money the shopkeeper spends to replace a perfectly good window (that which is seen), we ignore the money he might have spent on something else (that which is unseen). The shopkeeper might have instead dropped six francs on new shoes, a book or a bonus for his assistant. Those who celebrate the broken window as a generator of growth take "no account of that which is not seen."

Sorry for the long digression, but the parable of the broken window is worth keeping in mind, or perhaps even worth updating to the parable of the crushed clunker."

If you can read this and support Cash4Clunkers you are an idealogue, not a thinker!


John Stossel confirms my ObamaCare name: HEALTHFARE

In "Impossible Promises" John Stossel writes a very practical explanation of the problems with ObamaCare, and why it will not happen. These paragraphs confirm my earlier renaming:

"The New York Times describes a key part of the House bill: "Lawmakers of both parties agree on the need to rein in private insurance companies by banning underwriting practices that have prevented millions of Americans from obtaining affordable insurance. Insurers would, for example, have to accept all applicants and could not charge higher premiums because of a person's medical history or current illness".

No more evil "cherry-picking." No more "discrimination against the sick." But that's not insurance. Insurance is the pooling of resources to cover the cost of a possible but by no means certain misfortune befalling a given individual. Government-subsidized coverage for people already sick is welfare. We can debate whether this is good, but let's discuss it honestly. Calling welfare "insurance" muddies thinking."

We do not need and cannot afford HEALTHFARE!!

Read the entire column if you want to understand what they are trying to ram through!


Tuesday, August 04, 2009

What Obamacare will bring

Anne Moore, at Salon.com, writes "Harry and Louise must die" which explains where BHO is coming from with his comments last week on hospices. At 66, it scares me almost to death!

Her reasoning for letting terminally ill people pass away with no treatment: the high cost of medicare on the rest of us!

See Thomas Sowell below. Get the politics out of healthcare!!


Thomas Sowell Explains Why Medical Care is Expensive

And guess what: one of the main reasons is POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT in the system! Do you really think that MORE political involvement will help?

His column "Utopia Versus Freedom" not only exposes the shortcoming of UTOPIA desire, but exposes these facts on our current healthcare system:

"Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.

If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.

Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.

But politicians in the business of distributing largesse-- especially with somebody else's money-- cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health"-- which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury."

That is the basic reason we do not want Obamacare, but want to fix the best Medical Care in the world by decoupling politics and controlling malpractice suits.

And it won't cost several trillion dollars!!!


Monday, August 03, 2009

Cash4Clunkers: Let our grandkids buy us cars!!

WSJ commments on Cash4Clunkers, a program that I am having great difficulty understanding, as they are. Why would I want my grandkids buying me a car? Think about it.

"Green" is the answer you will get from the Dems. But with the only requirement being that the car you purchase must get 4 miles per gallon more than the clunker the impact will be negligible.

I suspect it is another giveaway to the Unions.

If you like this program, then you should like the WSJ's closing paragraph:

"Clearly, we spoilsports need an attitude adjustment to Washington’s new economics. And since money is no object, let’s give everyone a $4,500 voucher for other consumer goods. Let’s have taxpayers subsidize the purchase of kitchen appliances, women’s clothing, the latest Big Bertha driver—our Taylor-made is certainly a clunker—and new fishing boats. These are hardly less deserving of subsidies than cars, and as long as everyone thinks we can conjure wealth out of $4,500 giveaways, let’s go all the way."

Silliness at the MAX!!


Sunday, August 02, 2009

Frank Rich in Perspective - Read These Two Columns

In the NYT Frank Rich writes a column commenting on "GatesGate" and its meaning.

In the Toronto Globe and Mail Rex Murphy writes a column on "GatesGate" and its meaning.

A very, very interesting comparison of views on the United States and Racial Profiling.

I'll let you be the judge of whose column has intellectual integrity and lacks silliness!! Let me know your thoughts!


Saturday, August 01, 2009

July was the Deadliest Month in Afghanistan War.

Bet you didn't see that headline from the MSM. And that after 6+ years of bashing W with the deaths in Iraq. At least Reuters reports on it!

Now their goal, of course, is to protect BHO in every aspect of his Presidency.

Please explain how you can pay any attention at all to the MSM. Are you aware that they are leading you the direction they want and not reporting the facts? Reminds one of the function of Pravda in the old Soviet Union!

Update: The Boston Globe buried it on page 4 as the second comment here notes! I couldn't even find mention of the on the NYT, WaPo or LAT websites. Don't read paper version, so wonder how deeply they buried it?