Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Schmuckabee: Constitution a “living, breathing document”

That’s an argument you expect to hear from the left, not from a Republican presidential candidate.  Apparently, Huck doesn’t read his own web site, which says the following:

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” 

Here’s the video of the flip-flop.  So which is it, Senator Kerry…er, Governor Schmuckabee?  Is it or is it not a “living, breathing document”?  Or are you going to use the Ron Paul defense, i.e. “Hey, I didn’t write that thing!”?

Fortunately, Fred Thompson understands how the Constitution really works:

This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

Exactly right, Fred. Huck’s wrong on immigration, wrong on criminal justice, wrong on taxes (except for the Fair Tax), and wrong on the Constitution…ergo, he’s wrong for America.

January 18, 2008 Posted by | Fred Thompson, Huckabee, hypocrisy | 2 Comments

Quote of the day

From Bryan at Hot Air:

Video: Hillary says faith, prayer got her through the Lewinsky scandal

I don’t want to refight the political war that started on the Drudge Report 10 years ago, but Hillary Clinton was on the Tyra show today and did address that topic. I don’t want to pile on the initial victim of Bill Clinton’s proclivities, but when Hillary says that she prayed to know what was the right thing to do at that time, and then the outcome was to lock arms and send James Carville and Paul Begala out to lie through their teeth to the entire world on behalf of a president who lied through his teeth to both Hillary and the country, all for a solid year, in order to turn a perjury and obstruction of justice case into “lies about sex,” well let’s just say I’m skeptical that that’s how prayers are typically answered. 

It would require a “willful suspension of disbelief” to think that Her Highness got a stiff upper lip through prayer and faith.  Besides, I didn’t know Mother Gaia answered those kinds of prayers!  :D

January 18, 2008 Posted by | Hillary, quote of the day, shameful | 1 Comment

Private sector in RI comes up with health care solution

What?  The government didn’t come up with it?  How that possibly be?  For those of you on the left, the prior was sarcasm.  Anywho, from Rhode Island:

… Lisker was finally able to do that because she is one of a couple of hundred uninsured people who have enrolled in an innovative program called HealthAccessRI. In this program, she pays $30 a month for a “membership” in her primary care doctor’s practice, essentially keeping him on retainer. That means that even without insurance, she can get frontline medical help whenever she needs it, paying just $10 for each office visit.

HealthAccessRI is the brainchild of Lisker’s doctor, Michael D. Fine, who today will join his colleagues in announcing that HealthAccessRI is going statewide and launching a publicity campaign, hoping to reach more of the 120,000 uninsured Rhode Islanders.

Fine’s practice, Hillside Family and Community Medicine, with eight doctors in Pawtucket and Scituate, has been offering the program since 2002, as has Family Doctors of East Providence, with three doctors.

Recently, five other family-medicine practices joined, bringing to 21 the number of participating doctors. The fees vary by practice, with a monthly retainer of $25 or $30 per person (with discounts for families) and office-visit co-pays of $5 or $10. For this price, patients get all the basics of primary care: yearly physicals, well-child visits, checkups, sick visits within a day of calling, school and sports physicals, family planning, preventive health advice and a doctor to call to at any hour when they feel sick.

But they have to pay out of pocket for specialty care, hospitalization, x-rays, laboratory work, prescription drugs, emergency room visits and mental-health care.

The premise underlying the plan, Fine says, is that primary care is both inexpensive and effective, and for most people, it’s all they need. 

If you’re healthy most of the time and rarely see a doctor (and thus opt out of health insurance), then this option works great, especially if you pair it with some kind of high deductible catastrophic insurance plan (or health savings account).  Like it says, the vast majority of doctor’s patients are people who aren’t in there very often.  HealthAccessRI is great for these patients.

Naturally, the big government bureaucrat pooh-poohed the plan:

Christopher F. Koller, the state’s health insurance commissioner, welcomed HealthAccessRI as an interesting experiment and worthwhile effort to promote primary care, but said he did not expect it to attract many people. “It’s an innovation,” he said. “I’m really convinced at this point that we need to encourage experimentation and we need to learn from it.”  

The private sector, on the other hand, likes the idea:

Dale Venturini, president and chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Hospitality and Tourism Association, is sold on the idea. Her industry employs many young people who often don’t want to pay for health insurance. Venturini sees potential for restaurants to offer to pay the monthly fees of employees who enroll in HealthAccessRI. “We thought that our industry would be a likely incubator to get it started off the ground,” she said. “This is an opportunity for people to get basic health care at minimal cost.”  

A family from the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts sees the benefits, too, and is even willing to pay Mass’ “how dare you not purchase expensive insurance in our bloated leftist state!” fine:

Rose and Fyed Zia, of Reboboth, stopped buying health insurance for themselves and five children a year and half ago, when the cost rose to a prohibitive $1,500 a month. They run two convenience stores and own some rental property, and have few options for group health coverage. Luckily their doctors are part of Family Doctors of East Providence, which offered them the HealthAccessRI program for $25 a month. It’s been “perfect” for them, says Rose Zia.

“Having a primary care doctor, that eliminates any visit to the emergency room or even to the walk-in,” she says. “If you have a primary care doctor that you can call, they will advise you what to do.”

Under Massachusetts law, the Zias are required to obtain health insurance, but they paid the $219 per-person fine last year rather than buy it. Since then, their children have qualified for MassHealth, the state-run health plan, while the parents were put in a free insurance program with a $15,000 deductible. They don’t want to end their relationship with their doctors in East Providence, so the Zias will pass up the benefits of MassHealth for their children. For the parents, the high deductible in their coverage makes HealthAccessRI an ideal alternative for them. 

Every time, the innovation of the market will work, if only the government would get the hell out of the way.

January 18, 2008 Posted by | big government, health care | 1 Comment

Dems try to give felons housing preference over veterans

But hey…they “support the troops”, right?  From Roy Blunt (R-MO):

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today after the House passed an amendment authored by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) making sure America’s veterans are given a chance at securing adequate housing before preferences are extended to those who have violated our laws:

“If the majority is going to use this legislation to assign housing preferences to certain groups ahead of others, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to insist America’s veterans are put atop that list. Thankfully, we were able to pass an amendment on the floor today that will ensure just that – turning aside an effort by Democratic leaders to extend preferential treatment to criminal offenders at the expense of our nation’s veterans.

“Far too many men and women whose lives have been spent in service to this country find themselves today in need of public housing. At least with the passage of this amendment, these vets won’t have to stand in line behind criminal offenders – some, only months removed from prison – as they work with HUD and other agencies to secure an adequate housing arrangement.

“I want to thank Sam Graves for his hard work in helping craft and offer this amendment, and his strong and persistent leadership on behalf of veterans in our state and across the country.”

Guess what?  There were 28 Dems that told vets they were lower than convicted felons.  Then again, I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised.  Considering that in Florida in 2000, Dems were fighting to disqualify overseas military votes (knowing the votes went 70%-30% for Republicans) while trying to get illegitimate votes (including convicted felons) counted, this is their modus operandi.

January 18, 2008 Posted by | moonbats, shameful | 2 Comments

Liberal “compassion and tolerance” myth refuted by study

I’ve seen with my own eyes here on my blog, to say nothing of other right-of-center blogs, the foulness that the left can display.  If you’re one of my decent liberal visitors (e.g. Vince, jen, or HP, among others), then relax…I’m not talking about you.  I’m talking about stuff like this (from Michelle Malkin):

When I was on the book tour for Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, critics predictably countered by playing the moral equivalence card. Show them how intolerant, racist, sexist, hateful, conspiratorial-minded, and violent the Left can be, and they sputter “B-b-b-b-b-ut the Right is just as bad.”

Spend anytime in the blogosphere and it’s clear that the two sides of the political galaxy are not created equal. One side burns effigies of American soldiers and craps on the American flag. The other does not. One side wraps itself in assassination chic. The other does not. One side indulges in vicious Sambo photoshops, rank religious bigotry, death wishes, gloating over the illnesses of public figures, and fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome. The other does not.

Now comes fascinating statistical evidence that the Left is indeed more hateful than the Right. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks writes in the WSJ today about annual surveys that shed light on just how unhinged liberals really are:

Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others? A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call “feeling thermometers,” in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing.

In 2004, the University of Michigan’s American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” did have a fairly low opinion of liberals — they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are “extremely conservative” or “extremely liberal,” the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.

Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16. Sixty percent of this group gives both men the absolute lowest score: zero.

To put this into perspective, note that even Saddam Hussein (when he was still among the living) got an average score of eight from Americans. The data tell us that, for six in ten on the hard left in America today, literally nobody in the entire world can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The BDS crowd often points to conservative Clinton-haters in the 1990s to argue that the Right was just as hateful as the Left is now. That, too, is not supported by statistical evidence. Brooks notes:

In 1998, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were hardly popular among conservatives. Still, in the 1998 ANES survey, Messrs. Clinton and Gore both received a perfectly-respectable average temperature of 45 from those who called themselves extremely conservative. While 28% of the far right gave Clinton a temperature of zero, Gore got a zero from just 10%. The bottom line is that there is simply no comparison between the current hatred the extreme left has for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and the hostility the extreme right had for Messrs. Clinton and Gore in the late 1990s.

“Simply no comparison.”

Put that on a bumper sticker.

This is because liberals don’t think…they “feel” instead.

January 18, 2008 Posted by | moonbats, tolerance | Leave a Comment

McCain: Vote for him because he was a POW

Someone remind me how well that “Elect me president because I’m a war hero” strategy worked for George H.W. Bush in ’92, Bob Dole in ’96, and Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry in ’04.  From Allah:

Here’s his new spot in South Carolina. These ads always leave me torn: They’re not quite the absolute inverse of the chickenhawk argument, but they’re close. Character does matter but it’s a fine line between pitching Maverick’s steely resolve and laying a subtle guilt trip on the viewer that after enduring such an ordeal on our collective behalf the least we can do is vote for him.

Whatever it takes, I guess. … 

I guess if Her Highness can try and cry her way into the Oval Office, Johnny Mac can try to guilt trip his way into it.

January 18, 2008 Posted by | McCain, shameful | 6 Comments

Science-based predictions that fizzled

Here’s a great compilation by Anthony Watts, with my own disclaimer: I have not personally validated each and every one of these quotes.  Therefore, while I am willing to take his word for it, I am not necessarily suggesting you do the same.  In other words, feel free to check one or more of them out for yourself.

That said, here we go:

We’ve seen this sort of angst broadcast before, and it occurred to me that through history, a lot of ”predictions of certainty” with roots in scientifically based forecasts have not come true. That being the case, here is the list I’ve compiled of famous quotes and consensus from “experts”.

Top Ten Science based predictions that didn’t come true:

10. “The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. See Plate Tectonics

9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

8. “That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

So the next time you hear about worldwide crop failure, rising sea levels, species extinction, or “climate grief” you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true. 

He also left out the Great Massive Apocalyptic Earthquake of Memphis in 1990…that never happened.  Granted, that was a combination of crappy science and media hysteria…then again, so is global “warming”!

morewarming.jpg
When it’s freezing cold, global “warming” suddenly becomes “climate change”!  Where I’m from, we call those “seasons”, m’kay?

January 18, 2008 Posted by | environuts, global warming | 6 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers