Health Care Madness

"I am a caring person and we have people dying in the streets because they can't afford health care," says my liberal co-worker. It is amazing how liberals actually think that because they are motivated by emotion (and not facts), then any way contrary to theirs must be cold and heartless.
All motivation aside, what matters are results, not motive or intent. While our medical system is still (thankfully), for the most part, driven by the almighty dollar, it is by far more caring. Why? Because while socialist systems such as Canada's are good at ensuring that everyone, even the motivationally challenged, receive basic care, these countries' pale in comparison to the U.S. in cutting edge medical innovation that saves lives on the brink of death. No other country has the same rates of diagnostic use or survival of serious illness such as cancer or heart disease.
So, which do you think is more caring? 1. A system that levels out the quality of care so that even the worst members of society can have basic needs met; or number 2. A system where your grandfather, who was a school teacher and middle class worker all his life, receives a heart bypass the very same day as detection of said problem. While those that refuse to work and provide for themselves must uncomfortably wait in an emergency room where they still receive the most modern care for free.
That was my grandfather, by the way. If we lived in Canada; according to the statistics his wait for surgery would have been weeks at least, which may have been too long considering the shape he was in.
So which is it, Mediocrity for All, in the name of fairness? Or Top-notch for those that work, with certain "safety net" measures for those who refuse to contribute to society. Those are the only choices.
Tell me, if you were diagnosed with cancer, which country do you hope to be living in?????

Jack Reed is a Jaaack-ass

Just watched the Dems reply to President Bush's speech. Reed is a moron. He states we are less secure. I wonder just what he is basing his assessment on? The many attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11-01? Oh, that's right, there have been no new attacks.

I guess he's back to the old, "just being there makes them hate us more" spill. Even a child could understand that if someone is willing to sacrifice themselves and their families just to steer a 1985 Toyota pickup loaded down with explosives and rusty nails-turned-shrapnel towards an army checkpoint; they probably didn't possess much capacity for love and cultural understanding to begin with.

He also made the point that by surrender... uh, I mean, withdrawing our troops we could then concentrate on fighting against al Qaeda. So, I guess the hundreds of al Qaeda we are killing in Iraq every month doesn't count since we aren't "concentrating" on them.

The dems are so indebted to their kook base that they can't afford to appear for even a millisecond as if they might root for an American victory.

Of course he also paid the usual lip service to our troops and our fallen men and women; I just wish someone would ask him what he would do with those 3700 US deaths that he and his friends love bringing up.

So, how about it Jack Reed, will you validate those three-thousand seven hundred American sacrifices, or will you waste them????????????????????????

Just a Reminder

Ok, just to recap. Since the beginning of the war, Democrat leaders have made the following statements.

John Kerry: ". . . troops terrorizing women and children in the night"

John Kerry speaking to college students: if you don't do well in school, you end up "getting stuck in Iraq"

John Murtha: our troops are ". . . killing innocent civilians in cold blood"

Barack Obama: U.S. troops need to be doing more than ". . . air raiding villages and killing civilians"

And now they have the audacity to question and criticize General Petraeus. Not to mention refusing to condemn a New York Times ad, from the left wing kook group Moveon.org, referring to him as "General Betray-us".
Who supports our troops again???????

Oh, one more tidbit of opinion. If one has been a "peace monger" since the beginning of this thing, I have no quarrel with them. I for one am not sure that it was not a mistake to invade Iraq. However, to vote for the war and then demand through relentless media talking points for an immediate pull-out, is treasonous; and such a solution leaves absolutely zero chance for the 3000 plus American deaths to be justified. In fact, whether or not we should have invaded in the first place is a moot point now. Afterall, shouldn't we all, at this point, be rooting for an American victory and a stable Iraq???????????

And just to remind you of a few key votes in favor of House Joint Resolution 114, better known as the Iraq War Resolution.

John Kerry-- Yea
John Murtha-- Yea
Hillary Clinton-- Yea
John Edwards-- Yea
Harry Reid-- Yea
Diane Feinstein-- Yea
Tom Daschle-- Yea

For some of you out there, "Yea" is a fancy way of saying "yes" or "yeah".

Putting "Victory" ahead of Victory

Democrats have continued trying in the past month to pass resolutions to begin immediate troop withdrawal. They do this despite knowing that in September the general currently in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq is due to give a report as to the status of the current troop surge. Why can't they afford to wait?

Because the current troop surge shows promising signs of working, thats why. If Patreus' report is good, it is inevitably bad for Democrats. They have set themselves up in such a way that a victory in Iraq is a defeat for the Democratic party.

It didn't have to be this way. At first many democrats, including John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and many more supported the war. After all, they all voted for it. For the constitutionally ignorant out there; you do know that the president can not send troops to war without congressional approval, don't you.

Anyway, the dems had a golden opportunity over the last four years to prove their seriousness about terrorism. They could have critiqued the many mistakes made in the war along with the lack of appropriate leadership. Goodness knows that these claims would have been valid. Instead, however, they allowed the peace-at-any-cost crowd to dictate the direction they would take. So, to do so, they disowned their votes and claim presidential deceit. Now they want to yank troops away from the very mission they authorized; thereby rendering the 3500 American deaths so far as pointless.

They had the same intelligence that the president had, much of it based on foreign and international sources. They made many statements recognizing the threat of Saddam (I'll post a link later).

Instead of choosing the role of constructive critics, they chose to be disloyal, dishonest, and unsupportive. A group that now must choose party "victory" over true victory.

Democrat and troop supporter????

Presented in the title of this blog are what many on the right would consider to be a contradiction in terms. However, recently my liberal acquaintances have bombarded me with statements like, "Bush is sending our young men to die". Let's look at this for a moment.
Every troop currently serving in Iraq is a non-drafted volunteer. The current four year longevity of this war insists that a large number of troops, if not the majority, have had the opportunity to end their military service since the beginning of this conflict. So how can the lack of support for this war be coupled with a commitment to those who are volunteering to fight it?? When presented with this conundrum many everyday libs would respond with the situations of those who had vested their careers in military service only to find themselves mixed up in a "misguided war".
For those troops who signed up long before the war, and if they are career military men and not reservists, and if they disagree with their current mission, then I do, truly, feel sympathy for their situation. However, that is a lot of ifs. I would doubt if this would be representative of the majority of soldiers in the middle east.
In finishing, let us not overlook one important fact. All soldiers volunteer to serve their commander in chief. They are aware going in that that commander could at times make decisions that put them in unpleasant situations.
These things being said, I find it hard to understand how it is possible to not support the war but still claim to support those who volunteer to fight it. Obviously, when presented with this contradiction a true dem will respond with cries of, "just because I love peace doesn't mean I am unpatriotic!" However, how often do you see "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers alongside a John Kerry sticker?

Could it just be that, deep down, those on the left recognize their irreconcilable claims?

Is Hillary Clinton Crazy??

It seems Hillary has referred to Karl Rove's recent comments about her high disapproval numbers as evidence he is "obsessed" with her. This according to CNN's political ticker a few days ago. In related news she also had her mail man arrested on stalking charges after he was seen driving by her house several days in a row. Meanwhile she worked out a lawsuit against her limo driver for kidnapping.
What a twit, I mean, who would have ever thought an advisor to the White House might actually comment on a front runner to be the next person in the White House. Come on Hillary, give me a break.

First Post

A blog dedicated to the premise that a government entity can not simultaneously protect the interests of all groups or factions at once. Therefore, the greatest amount of freedom and protection is offered by the government that preserves the right of all individuals to live as they see fit.