We're all racist thugs now

Almost since the moment Obamacare passed the House on Sunday night, the predominant narrative in the MSM has been how eeeeeevil those awful Tea Partiers are.  I mean, from the way the news has been presented, everyone opposed to the healthcare bill hates blacks and gays (and enjoys using really nasty slurs against such groups publicly) and wants to kill all Democrats.  And, of course, it's all the fault of the usual subjects.

What was the big story on Monday?  (Yes, I mean other than the passage of H.R. 3590.)  Why, those Tea Partiers yelled the N-word at a black congressman!  Oh, wait, they didn't?  But someone heard it!  They wouldn't make that up, would they?  Well, multiple people were taking videos of this little setup, possibly in the hopes that someone would say something damning.  And yet, I have yet to see a video in which you can clearly hear someone shouting an epithet.  Yes, I'm aware that people commenting on the following video elsewhere are hearing what they want to hear, but there are no epithets clear enough to distinguish without question.  Watch it for yourself and decide:



In the same WaPo article as linked above, Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed to have been the object of anti-gay epithets.  No video exists of this.  None.  There were something like--and keep in mind this is an estimate--eleventy zillion people in and around the Capitol on Sunday, including, one would suspect, the media, and no one got video of this?  It seems suspect to me.

In any case, many media sources are reporting these epithets having been shouted as fact.  Fine.  Whatever.  The part that really riles me is that some in the MSM are using incidents which--if they even occurred--were totally isolated incidents to try to paint all people opposed to Obamacare as racists.  MSNBC ideologue Keith Olbermann, for example, went so far as to say (per Hot Air, since I'm not linking to Olby), "If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others..."

(Aside:  Keith Olbermann, in trying to paint a caricature of Tea Partiers, is apparently unaware that he himself has become little more than a caricature himself.)

So, the first truth of this week in the MSM is:  Tea Partiers, Republicans, conservatives, and you--yes, YOU--are all racists.  (More on your status as a racist from Jim Treacher may be found here.)

(Obvious disclaimer:  If, in fact, someone was yelling epithets at people, then they are (words not acceptable for publication edited).)

But after all the portraying of anti-Obamacare types as racists, there was more stereotyping left to be undertaken by the MSM.  You've probably heard about bricks being thrown through Democrat office windows.

Well, they were.  This wasn't made up.  Some people think so little of their opponents that they resort to this type of reprehensible behavior.  Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Party organizers have all condemned these actions. 

And who is encouraging these attacks?  It's the Republican Party leaders, right?  No, it's not.  It's some guy whose name I had never heard before yesterday named Mike Vanderboegh.  I'm not linking to his blog, as he's already crowing about his "enemies" sending him traffic, but I will link to this article in which he boasts about the damage his comments have caused.  (If you want to pursue the same strategies as Mr. Vanderboegh, please leave this blog now.  In fact, turn off your computer and please try to reground yourself in real life.  Kthxbye.)

I have no problem with these attacks being reported by the MSM.  They should be reported.  What bugs me is that two narratives have appeared:  1) only these saintly Democrats are the ones who are ever oppressed in such an egregious way; and 2) it's the leaders of the Republican Party that are inciting this.  (The Republicans have leaders?  Who knew?)

Let's start with a really easy item to refute.  Of course both sides have their extremists who advocate violence.

For example, courtesy Big Government, here is a typical Democrat extremist embracing this sort of violent talk:

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

That would be taken from...CNN.  ("This is CNN...conservatives can go take a flying leap.")

Here's another:

You’ve given it your best shot, you’ve tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It’s time you break kneecaps (bold in original). It’s time to destroy the Republican Party. They don’t deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No.

And that would be from the Huffington Post.  (I refuse to link to the Huffington Post; go back to Big Government if you want the link.)

As I said, it's now pretty much accepted as fact by the MSM that Republicans, in stating their anger with the way the Obamacare bill was forced through, are actively encouraging this week's violent offenders who are vandalizing offices, making threatening phone calls, and so forth.

A common theme in this, in addition to the usual suspects (Rush et al), has been the referencing of so-called "incindiary language" by Sarah Palin.  All these stories refer to a particular tweet, which said:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.

Does anyone with half a modicum of rational thought really believe that Mrs. Palin is referring to reloading actual rifles and such?  Of course she isn't (though the aforementioned Mr. Vanderboegh sure is).  I would hope that the regular readers of this blog, including some who don't care much for the policies of Mrs. Palin, can distinguish the true meaning of what she said.

And if one were to continue to her Facebook page, one would find the same post previously mentioned in this space.  Does it have to do with targeting Democrats?  You betcha.  Of course, it's talking about targeting them for defeat, not violence.

(But Snowed, she had a map with crosshair symbols!  Yeah, she's targeting them for defeat.  I believe I just said that.  What did you want her to use, little pink hearts?  Maybe fluffy white clouds?)

This whole narrative is yet another attempt to paint Sarah Palin as an extremist who only appeals to people who like to throw bricks, or something like that.  It's not going to work.

Watch, for example, how NBC's Ann Curry tries to maneuver Sen. John McCain into condemning Gov. Palin for her language.  And watch, too, how Sen. McCain deftly deflects criticism of his former running mate.  I may not agree with Sen. McCain on everything, but he did a great job defending Sarah Palin's remarks here.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You can see more coverage of this interview over at NewsBusters.

Incidentally, one Democrat extremist once expressed a wish to "kick [Sarah Palin's] [edited]".  Who's advocating violence again?

But never mind that, it's all about making Tea Partiers, Obamacare opponents, and Sarah Palin look as bad as possible.

For further reading on the continued smearing of Sarah Palin, please check out "Lying Liberals Target Governor Palin" by Adrienne Ross, who's been mentioned in this blog before, I believe.  Well worth the read.

Incidentally, I'm curious as to what sort of reception this article will get at the Austin Post, where I tend to cross-post some of my blog articles.  The last article I posted was edited to remove the term "Obamacare", so I'm not sure this one will even make it onto the site, and if it does, I imagine I'll get a few negative votes for it.  Such is the price for being conservative in Austin, Texas, I suppose.

Timeline of Obamacare

You may want to print this entry for reference.  Or, just come back to it often.*

Per The Hill, the National Federation of Independent Business has prepared a timeline of when the many different provisions of H.R. 3590 (the bill signed by President Obama yesterday) go into effect.  This has been done to argue against the reconciliation fixes currently under (limited) debate by the Senate (H.R. 4872).

The release, in its entirety, follows:

The healthcare bill passed by the Senate and House will go into effect over a number of years. In 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, most of the bill’s provisions involve new taxes and obligations. For the most part, the healthcare system changes begin in 2014, with some aspects of implementation farther in the future. Below is a timeline of some of the major provisions of this bill.
For more information on these provisions, please visit The Kaiser Family Foundation.

This timeline reflects only the Senate bill signed into law on March 23. Now, the Senate is considering a Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 4872) which, if passed, will alter the details of these provisions. We oppose the Reconciliation Bill because in many ways, it takes a bad bill (H.R. 3590) and makes it worse.

2010
§         Small business health tax credit: This will do little to nothing to help small firms afford insurance. The credit is very restrictive and puts small business owners through a series of complicated tests to determine the actual amount of the credit. (1) Very few small firms will receive the full credit (only firms with 10 employees or less). For firms with 11-25 employees, the credit is reduced per employee. Firms with more than 25 employees get NO credit. (2) Only firms who pay their workers $25,000 or less are eligible for the full credit. The credit is reduced as the average wage goes up, stopping at $50,000. The credit is only available for a maximum of five years.
§         Brand-name drug tax: Manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs will pay a tax of $2.3 billion. This cost will be passed on to consumers.
§         Age 26: Children may stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

2011
§         W-2 reporting: Employers will be required to report employees’ health benefits on W-2s.
§         HSA & FSA limits: Consumers can no longer use HSAs and FSAs to purchase certain items, including most over-the-counter medication prescribed by physicians.
§         HSA penalty: The penalty for making non-qualified purchases with an HSA increases to 20%.
§         FSA limits: Cafeteria plan FSAs will be limited to $2,500 (inflation adjusted after 2011.)
§         Medicare cuts: Physicians’ Medicare reimbursement will be cut substantially unless Congress enacts the so-called “doc-fix” to restore their payment levels.
§         Medical device tax: Manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices will be taxed $2 billion per year (for 2011-2017) and then $3 billion per year thereafter. These costs will ultimately fall on the consumer.
§         Small business health insurance tax: An annual fee on health insurance providers will be passed on to consumers. This tax will fall on the vast majority of plans that small businesses purchase, but not on self-insured plans (such as most big business and labor union policies). The amounts are $2 billion for 2011, $4 billion for 2012, $7 billion for 2013, and $9 billion per year for 2014 through 2016, $10 billion thereafter, with certain exceptions.
§         Tanning salon tax: A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services begins.
§         Federally subsidized long-term care: Voluntary payroll deductions begin for the CLASS long-term care program. All working adults will be automatically enrolled unless they choose to opt out. This program will almost certainly cost the federal government far more than what the payroll deductions will cover. So this entitlement is yet another unfunded liability to add to federal deficits for decades to come.

2012
§         1099 reporting: Businesses will have to complete 1099 forms for every business-to-business transaction of $600 or more – a tremendous new paperwork burden for small business.

2013
§         Cadillac tax: The government will collect a so-called “Cadillac Tax” – a 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 annually for an individual or $23,000 annually per family. This tax is inadequately indexed for medical inflation, so as healthcare costs rise, more and more people will be swept into this tax each year. This is similar to the alternative minimum tax – designed to hit the “rich” but reaching farther and farther into the middle class each year.
§         Fewer deductible medical expenses: New limits are placed on the deductibility of medical expenses on individual income tax returns. This provision raises the 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deductions to 10%. The AGI floor for those 65 and older (and their spouses) remains at 7.5% through 2016. 
§         Medicare payroll taxes: The Medicare payroll tax on wages and self-employment income in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint) will increase to 2.35% and is not indexed to inflation. This tax marks the first time that funds designated for Medicare will be diverted elsewhere – specifically to pay for the insurance policies of people under the Medicare age. This establishes a precedent for treating the payroll tax as a  revenue raiser for other purposes.

2014
§         Health insurance exchanges: Up until 2014, the bill collects a great deal of taxes but does little to change healthcare. In 2014, that begins to change with the opening of insurance exchanges.
§         Premium credits: The federal government begins subsidizing individuals up to 400% of the federal poverty line – around $88,000 today. These credits will subsidize individuals purchasing insurance in exchanges, but not those with traditional employer-sponsored plans. 
§         Medicaid eligibility expands: The income level for Medicaid eligibility rises, bringing tens of millions of new people into Medicaid. This Medicaid expansion will account for around half of the total increase in insurance coverage and will place considerable new financial pressure on states, with higher taxes a likely response.
§         Medicare cost-cutting: Beginning in 2014, Medicare must begin recommending ways to cut costs in the provision of care.
§         Benefits package: Federal government defines essential benefits package. All policies must comply.
§         Individual mandate: Starting in 2014, all U.S. citizens and legal residents must have qualifying health coverage or pay penalties. For an individual, the penalty begins in 2014 at the greater of $95 or 0.5% of household income. In 2015, it grows to $495 or 1.0%. In 2016, it reaches $750 or 2%. (For families, the figure will be $2,250.) After 2016, the amount will rise by a cost-of-living adjustment.
§         Employer mandate: The bill contains a complex employer mandate requiring some firms to provide insurance, pay penalties or both. The penalties are based on (1) the number of full-time employees, (2) whether or not the firm offers coverage, and (3) whether or not one or more employees qualify for government subsidies toward the purchase of health insurance. An employee qualifies for a subsidy if his or her household income is below 400% of the federal poverty line ($88,000 for an individual today). Here are some of the rules:
o        More than 50 full-time employees. Does not offer insurance. Has one or more employees receiving premium subsidies. Penalty = $750 per employee.
o        More than 50 full-time employees. Offers insurance. Has one or more employees receiving premium subsidies. Penalty = lesser of $3,000 per subsidized employee or $750 per employee.
o        More than 50 full-time employees. Offers insurance. Has no employees receiving premium subsidies. No penalty.
o        50 or fewer full-time employees. No penalty.
There are extra penalties for firms who have a waiting period before employees are eligible for insurance.
§         Small construction company employer mandate: In all other industries, firms with 50 or fewer employees are exempt from the mandate. In the construction industry, the exemption only applies to firms with 5 or fewer employees. Consider a construction firm that does not provide insurance and which has seven employees and a payroll of $250,000. This firm will owe $5,250 (= 7 employees x $750). In addition, the law does not define what it means by “construction firm” and leaves that definition to regulators.

* In fact, I urge all my readers to visit this blog every day.  You are also welcome to use the tip jar located in the right column.  You should do that every day too.

Sarah Palin on Obamacare Signing

Prominent Obamacare opponent Sarah Palin wasted no time following President Obama's signing ceremony for the Obamacare bill with her response, meant to bolster the hopes of those who believe, as I do, that this bill is a terrible thing for this country.  (See here for just a quick example of why I think this way.)

The first part of her comments:

With the president signing this unwanted and “transformative” government takeover of our health care system today with promises impossible to keep, let’s not get discouraged. Don’t get demoralized. Get organized!

We’re going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We’re going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies. Maybe when they join the millions of unemployed, they’ll understand why Americans wanted them to focus on job creation and an invigorated private sector. Come November, we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they’ve been printing money.

Go here for the rest.

My Taxes Aren't Going Up - O RLY? Health Care edition

Now that the House has passed the Senate's health-care bill (H.R. 3590), let's revisit once again the idea, stated very clearly by President Obama, that your taxes won't go up if you make less than $250,000 a year.  Was that true?  Well, let's take a look at the bill, as analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform.  Per their analysis, there are "seven taxes that unquestionably violate Obama’s pledge".  And they are:

Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/Jan 2014*): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill):

	Single	2 People	3+ People
2014	$495/0.5% AGI	$990/0.5% AGI	$1485/0.5%/AGI
2015	$495/1.0% AGI	$990/1.0% AGI	$1485/1.0%/AGI
2016+	$495/2.0% AGI	$990/2.0% AGI	$1485/2.0%/AGI

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/Jan 2014*):  Small business owners pay their business taxes on their personal 1040 forms.  This tax does not exempt startup small business owners even if they make less than $250,000. If the employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans would no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 bil/Jan 2011): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2011 (added on page 363 of manager’s amendment). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Medical Itemized Deductions Cap (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost of the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%. The new provision would impose a threshold of 10%. This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10% excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

NONE OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS EXEMPTS FAMILIES MAKING LESS THAN $250,000

It just blows me away that a Facebook friend just praised President Obama for keeping his promises.  If these seven taxes do not totally represent the breaking of a fundamental campaign promise to the American people, I don't know what does.

Three Responses to the Obamacare Speech

Eighteen hours after President Obama spoke before a joint session of Congress about the urgent need to secure his legacy fix the American health care system, he must be flummoxed to find that most of the attention has been diverted away from what he said. I have found three statements so far that sum up the response to the speech, at least for me. Excerpts only are shown, except for the first one.

1. Joe Wilson (R-SC), whose statement is shown in its entirety and which you've probably already heard 418 times by now:

You lie!

That comment, regardless of its validity, was stated in the wrong context. Rep. Wilson should have gone out and held a news conference to call President Obama a liar, as pretty much every Democrat in Congress did with regard to President Bush.

But was President Obama lying in his statement about illegal immigration which unintentionally solicited Rep. Wilson's outburst? More on that in this next response.

2. Kathleen McKinley, aka Rightwingsparkle:

I didn't hear anything different from the last 28 speeches he has given on health care. He said the same things that have been disputed as well.

[...]

He denies that abortion and illegal immigrants will be covered in the bill, and yet every wording that has been submitted by Republicans that specifically requires those things not be covered , in writing, has been rejected and thrown out by the Democrats. They know that if it isn't specifically rejected in the bill, it will be covered. It will fall under some other provision. It's their dirty little secret. Why else reject the language?

He says "nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." Notice the nuance there. No, of course nothing "requires" it, but if your employer chooses the public option, then you have no choice but to change. The stone cold truth is that the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and reported that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

Ms. McKinley does a nice job of pointing out what could at best be described as half-truths presented by President Obama. She goes on to make other salient points that aren't covered here because I want you to go read her blog.

3. Sarah Palin:

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

[...]

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

When it comes to the so-called "death panels", many people, including myself, had not done our homework when it came to the context of the House health care bill (HR 3200, Sec. 1233), but Sarah Palin certainly had.

And none of these excerpts cover the other main objection I have to a lot of these large spending bills, which is, of course, that we have to pay for it somehow. Kathleen McKinley sums that concern up:

He said that he will not sign a bill that will add a dime to the deficit. I don't think there is a reasonable person out there that believes that. The Congressional Budget Office said that the bill the House Democrats have offered would add $220 billion to the deficit over ten years.

And as for the response to these types of responses to the opposition? Again, Kathleen nails it:

Pres. Obama also said " I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility." He might also send that memo to the Democrat leaders who call ordinary Americans who oppose the public option "evil mongers," compared them to "Nazis," and call them "an angry mob."

One need only look at the people who troll the comment section for pretty much every Sarah Palin post on Facebook to see that this memo is needed, not just for the Democratic leaders, but for all of us--the sooner, the better.

A Conservative Dad's View of the Austin Tea Party

On Saturday, I checked out the Tea Party at the Capitol, and I thought it would be educational to bring the 5-year-old along. The trip turned out to be an educational experience for both of us.

First of all, as we drove into downtown Austin, we saw at least three people with signs saying "I Need Tickets." The 5-year-old pointed out that those people shouldn't have been there because they should have gotten their tickets already. (This makes the 5-year-old wiser than many adults, apparently.) I then explained that many times, these people end up paying much more than the original ticket price, which pretty much solidified the 5-year-old's opinion on the matter.

Finally, we got to the Capitol Parking Complex, where I discovered, to my chagrin, that unlike what I had been led to believe, the first two hours of parking were not free. This led directly to my first real takeaway from this event, which should be passed along to anyone wanting to schedule an event in downtown Austin: never schedule an event in downtown Austin on the day of a UT football game. (The corollary to this would most likely be that people should never drive anywhere near downtown Austin on a UT game day without expecting to sit in traffic.)

We got to the Capitol grounds about twenty minutes before the event was supposed to start. There were already quite a few people there, as I expected. I haven't heard an official count (this site says more than 4000 were there), but we were both given wristbands (so "the media can't say 45 people were there", someone said later). The first person we met asked me if I was aware that Debra Medina (warning: page has embedded autoplaying video) was running in the Republican gubernatorial primary against Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison (I was). Most others were similarly genial, although there was at least one person shouting about his pet issue (in the case I'm remembering, the right to own guns). The 5-year-old didn't understand why he was shouting, and I tried to explain without going into a lot of detail.

As expected, there were hundreds of signs to be seen at the Tea Party. The 5-year-old wasn't paying attention to most of them, which was a good thing (because the 5-year-old reads quite well, thank you). Of course, everyone who wanted to be there came because we are not happy with the way the Obama administration has handled, well, pretty much every major item (I, for one, am not thrilled that the 5-year-old will have to help pay for this mess), but some of the signs were juvenile at best. I mean, do we really need plays on Obama's name, rude insults thrown at him (mostly...some were thrown at Nancy Pelosi and others), or whatever else? I feel about this about the same way I feel about people who use the term "teabaggers".

Anyway, about five minutes after the event was scheduled to start (and after the 5-year-old had asked me about 15 times when it would start), the canned music was turned off, and the first of many people took the microphone. I won't go into a lot of detail about what was said (the entire event has been posted on YouTube, starting here), but I will note a few things. First, I was surprised to see the event start with a prayer (that our country would do God's will), and I was happy that the 5-year-old got to see/hear someone sing our national anthem. Most of what I heard (I don't always hear too well, thanks to the 1990s and many pairs of earbuds) was about what I expected. Steven Crowder, who emceed the event, was his usual funny self.

With that said, I wasn't thrilled with what others said. Someone, I never knew who, raised the specter of whether Obama would allow elections in 2012. Um, yeah, didn't we hear the same thing about both Clinton and Bush? Besides, there are enough legitimate things to worry about with this administration, such as whether the dollar will have any value left after we print a bazillion of them to pay for everything. My takeaway from this: if you're concerned about a current issue, focus on that, rather than raising what-if scenarios to make things seem even worse. Both sides are bad about this, of course, but for me to be present at this particular event when someone said such a thing made me feel as if I was tacitly agreeing with him. Not so.

And this reminds me of something else I learned: if you didn't enjoy scheduled pep rallies in high school, you probably wouldn't enjoy political rallies such as this one. I always hated having to cheer on cue back then, and I felt rather silly when it was encouraged by the speakers at the Tea Party. Yes, I enjoyed hearing most of the speakers, you know, speak, but I wasn't moved to yell and scream in agreement by most of what I heard Saturday.

I did see some counter-protesters (three) holding signs in favor of a public option for health care and against "big insurance", but I didn't see much of any interaction between them and the main crowd. (One of them yelled about stopping big insurance, but no one knew what to do with such a remark. Seriously, everything stopped for about ten seconds.) But at least there were no hostilities that I could see. Takeaway: it is possible to protest and counter-protest without getting into fights, or, say, biting someone's finger off. (No, I'm not linking to the story, as most of my readers probably have seen it already, and it's gross.)

As it turned out, though, I did not get to see/hear all of the speakers (for example, I missed Joe the Plumber). The 5-year-old apparently has little tolerance for sitting and/or standing around listening to people speak for three hours about topics which are not quite as interesting to a 5-year-old as they are to me. I attempted to explain to the 5-year-old that people were not happy with what the president was doing, but later, the 5-year-old could only summarize what I said as something to the effect of "President Obama needs to stop." (At least she was trying to listen to me explain this.) The 5-year-old also wanted to go inside the Capitol and view the dome, which we did, and after that, we did not stay much longer, as the 5-year-old was "homesick", which I took to mean extremely bored.

And that brings us to the main lesson to be learned in all this, which I think many could stand to learn: don't bring a 5-year-old to a political rally.

You're welcome.

Doggett, BOR Take Cheap Shot at Retired Lady

Austin's tolerant left has set their sights on...a retired lady in Fayette County.

The backstory, as has been reported at statesman.com and elsewhere, is that Fayette County Judge Ed Janecka called Chris Boyle, VP-Secretary of the Fayette County Taxpayers Coalition, to ask her not to protest the opening this week of a Veterans Administration clinic in La Grange, an event at which Rep. Lloyd Doggett is scheduled to appear. Ms. Boyle, as might be expected, is protesting Rep. Doggett's support of HR 3200, the so-called Obamacare bill; she also added in a statement that Rep. Doggett had nothing to do with having the clinic in La Grange.

Rep. Doggett of course, said that he had everything to do with it, saying "With meetings in both Washington and Texas, I have been working on getting this clinic to La Grange since 2006. Last year, I invited the VA to a meeting with veterans at the Fayette County Courthouse to involve them in the planning for this clinic." (Figuring out how much holding meetings had to do with the actual placement of a clinic in La Grange is left as an exercise to the reader, but given that he didn't claim credit for getting the money appropriated in the first place, I'm gonna guess it happened before La Grange became part of his district.)

Then, with his usual grace, Rep. Doggett added, "These Teabag extremists have every right to protest my unwavering commitment to health insurance reform anywhere that I go..." One gets the feeling that he's making a sly reference the same unfunny euphemism to which people losing the public-relations war have clung since April, "teabagger". (Finding out the definition of this phrase is also left to the reader, with the caveat that the definition is NSFW.)

In reporting this, as might be expected, the Burnt Orange Report threw the offending term right into the title of both its two posts covering it. Along with this, the writers there have no problem coming right out and calling Mrs. Boyle "crazy", telling her to "seek psychiatric help", and so forth, while also making up viewpoints for her, such as that she wants Congress to "[s]top meddling in the lives of those veterans and giving them medical care." (Yes, it was probably hyperbole. But yes, it was also disrepectful.)

Until both sides can have a discussion without resorting to names and insults, expect this sort of behavior to continue.

Sidenote: And why would people feel the need to protest Lloyd Doggett at this event? Possibly because some of them were refused entrance into his townhall meeting Saturday, as shown:

"He told me, 'This crowd would not want you in there anyway.'"

And why were there so many people who would not want a dissenting opinion about health care? According to Ramparts 360, MoveOn.org members were bused in from Dallas and elsewhere to pack Rep. Doggett's meeting. As for those people against the current health-care bill, there are reports that people were verbally and physically intimidated by people up to and including the senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Austin.

With this sort of behavior by Rep. Doggett's supporters, is it any wonder why people have taken to protesting?

Single-Payer Advocates to Protest at Whole Foods Today

The Washington City Paper reports that as part of its boycott of Whole Foods, a group calling itself Single Payer Action has organized a protest to take place today at several Whole Foods locations because of CEO John Mackey's recent Wall Street Journal op-ed opposing a public option in the increasingly less popular Obamacare plan. And, since Austin is home to the headquarters of Whole Foods, it makes sense that one of the locations at which they will be protesting is this one.

Single Payer Action's call to action may be found here. In it they say, among other things:

Our demand: That Whole Foods allow single payer advocates to set up shop inside Whole Foods stores around the country and allow them to counter the lies and distortions of their CEO John Mackey on health care.

Oooookay, that seems likely. I don't suppose you guys would be happy if John Boehner, Sarah Palin, and whoever else set up shop at Robert Gibbs events and countered whatever misstatements he might be making? (I'd enjoy it, but let's be serious.) And while we're at it, do you expect to get a lot of traction calling Mr. Mackey a liar?

Anyway, they'll be at the 6th/Lamar Whole Foods from noon to 1:00 today if you want to go and make fun of them for standing outside in the Austin heat for an hour.

You know, I may go shopping at Whole Foods in the next few days just to spite these people.

p.s. At least in Washington, Republicans are planning to counter-protest. Story here.

(hat tip: @RepPartyofTexas)

Dispelling Obamacare Falsehoods: 5 Freedoms You'll Lose

(Hope you enjoy this post...it's likely to be the first of many in a series.)

After hearing from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Lloyd Doggett, and dozens of others that Obamacare will save us all, we have nothing to fear from it, everybody wants this, and whatever other talking points they have on a particular day, I decided that my blog (with its incredibly tiny sphere of influence) needed to point to some actual truth about it. Let's face it: people on both sides of this have made some pretty absurd statements.

But here is some truth, as disclosed by CNN, of all places: you'll lose 5 key freedoms under Obama's health care plan. The article discusses these in detail, but in short, those freedoms are:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors

Do please check this out, since some of these items have been routinely misrepresented by President Obama and others. The gist is this: did you like the HMOs of the early 1990s? Then you'll really love Obamacare. If you didn't, then tell your representative and senators before it's too late.

(Hat tip: Conservatives 4 Palin for the link)

Congressman Doggett, Meet Reality

Congressman Lloyd Doggett seems to be doing a good job of milking the attention he's gotten from his August 1 town hall meeting at Randalls (see here and here for examples), but apparently he has not taken the time to get his facts straight about the controversial Obamacare bill before speaking about it publicly.

Case in point: at a meeting at a local Holiday Inn today (as covered here by KXAN), Rep. Doggett responded to a "what's the rush?" question thus:

"Maybe it was a rush when Harry Truman proposed it," responded Doggett. "But, it's not a rush anymore. We have been working on this bill since last year."

To the credit of at least some of the audience, he was rewarded with a fair amount of jeering laughter. It is obvious that the Democratic leaders are trying to rush this bill through. If nothing else, their own words say so, as shown:

"This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can’t afford to wait any longer for reform."

[...]

"Number one, I’m rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, can you help? So I’ve got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, our daughter just found out she’s got leukemia and if I don’t do something soon we just either are going to go bankrupt or we’re not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs. And in a country like ours, that’s not right. So that’s part of my rush."

--Barack Obama, 23 July 2009 (courtesy the Wall Street Journal)

"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.

"This fall, at long last, we must [emphasis mine] reach it."

--Nancy Pelosi & Steny Hoyer, "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate", 10 August 2009 (courtesy USA Today)

Afterwards, [President Obama] told reporters that what he heard only strengthened his conviction that health care reform is needed now.

--"Obama Steps Up Campaign for Health Care Reform", 20 July 2009 (courtesy Voice of America)

It is time for Rep. Doggett to step up and be truthful with his constituents. It would be a lot more productive than continuing to complain.

Doggett Gets an Earful...Again

It seems that Lloyd Doggett (D, TX-25) can't go anywhere without hearing from people not happy about the health-care bill. As most people heard Saturday (except me, because I was apparently not keeping up with anything that day), Rep. Doggett was met at his town hall meeting at a local Randalls by such a group. As I'm two days late with this news, I'll simply refer people to Michelle Malkin and Robbie Cooper. And, I'll go ahead and post the video everyone's already seen (or not, if they stay as well-informed as I did this weekend).



Commenter "Sara" at Robbie's blog had an interesting fact to add:

It actually started after he decided to cut his “office hours” short by 40 minutes and leave in a huff.

It doesn't appear from that as if Rep. Doggett was interested in hearing what people had to say. And while the Stateman's writeup of the event indicated that the crowd was angry and yet respectful (according to someone present at the event), Rep. Doggett felt the need to issue a statement denouncing the protesters as a "mob, sent by the local Republican and Libertarian parties". (Writeup, again per the Statesman, may be found here.)

And after that note of camaraderie, Rep. Doggett apparently held a press conference today on an unrelated matter. I say "apparently" because the KXAN report I saw covering it had more to do with his complaining about the protesting, complaining that they don't want anyone else to be heard, blah blah blah. It should be noted that KXAN reporter Jenny Hoff stated that she did not observe any protesters at the event today. That report is right here:



So I guess the question at this point is: why complain about protesters if no one was there today protesting, Rep. Doggett? Is it because you want people opposed to the health-care bill to shut up, as you accuse them of wanting of you? And if so, doesn't that seem the slightest bit, well, hypocritical?

And, more importantly, if this was so organized, as you claim, why didn't I know about it?