Look and see what the future of America looks like if the Democrats get their way on healthcare.

Gordon Brown was warned last night to raise the retirement age above 65 and introduce NHS charges to tackle the soaring state deficit.

In a devastating intervention, the International Monetary Fund called for radical changes to the pension system and spending cuts that go far beyond the plans outlined by the Prime Minister this week.

The global watchdog said root and branch changes to public sector spending would be necessary to 'help keep a lid on the debt' and restore financial stability.

The system in the UK is broke, it is rationing care that is considered ordinary by American standards, and now citizens will be expected to pay for treatments that were formerly free under their womb-to-the-tomb government controlled healthcare system. That will be the future for Americans if Obama and the Democrats get their way.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Gotta love this one.

Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers.

Well, that is true – but then again, it isn’t like Thomas is responsible for actually accomplishing anything, unlike a president.

Just for fun, can you think of any other differences between Thomas and Obama? IÂ’ll start you off with a few.

Unlike Obama, Helen Thomas sleeps in a coffin filled with moist earth and can be only be killed with a stake through the heart.

While Barack ObamaÂ’s followers may mistakenly believe he is Jesus, Helen Thomas dated the real Jesus back when she was an exchange student at Nazareth High School.

Feel free to add your own.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Last time I checked, the First Amendment still read as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So why, in this story about yet another expression of anti-Obama sentiment (what used to be called “dissent” and “the highest form of patriotism” when it was directed against George W. Bush), do we get this question asked?

Let us know what you think. Is the sign offensive, or is it freedom of speech?

Let’s try this answer on for size – it is certainly freedom of speech, but its offensiveness is purely in the eye of the beholder. The mere fact that something is offensive does not strip it of its First Amendment protection. Indeed, it is precisely those sentiments found offensive by the majority – or by a politically powerful minority – that are most surely covered by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. That’s why I find the question asked in the story to be so inane – and the equivalent of asking if a certain type of food is nutritious or delicious without considering that it could be both.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE -- 10/1/2009

Interesting, isn't it, that all of this Democrat uproar -- including death wishes for the perpetrator -- was directed at something that was the work of a juvenile, just like the case I commented on (to much ridicule) three years ago. Will anyone on the Left admit that I was right three years ago -- or admit that they were wrong to get so upset over some kid playing around?

ORIGINAL POST -- 9/28/2009

When I wrote about this incident three years ago, liberals poo-pooed it as not a big deal. Indeed, some were outraged that the Secret Service would even investigate such a thing on a social networking site.

Well, now the Secret Service is investigating an incident that I consider every bit as serious -- and this time the liberals are up in arms and spewing their venom.

The Secret Service is investigating the origins of a poll that appeared on Facebook that asked whether President Obama should be killed.

Posted over the weekend, the poll was removed by Facebook after the Secret Service received a tip and contacted the company, which was not aware of the survey, sources tell ABC News.

"When the Secret Service became aware of the poll we worked with Facebook to have it taken down and are conducting an investigation," said a spokesman for the Secret Service.

The poll asked: "Should Obama be killed?" The answer choices: "No," "Maybe," "Yes" and "Yes if he cuts my health care."

Now liberals are upset over the poll, and want the perp investigated and prosecuted.

So do I.

The difference -- I was for such actions by the Secret Service when the president was George W. Bush and not Barack Obama. They weren't. In short, I am consistent -- they are hypocrites.

Posted by: Greg at 05:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, if the federal government is going to take care of "structural imbalances" in broadcasting and healthcare, shouldn't Congress also take action to address such imbalances in the publishing industry, where liberal political books are markedly less successful than their conservative counterparts?

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine that – her co-author is a conservative Republican who is an evangelical Christian!

Sarah Palin's most consequential choice since leaving the Alaska governor's mansion may be her co-author - a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian, and intensely partisan Republican from far, far outside the Beltway.
Lynn Vincent spent the summer working with Palin on a closely-guarded 400 page memoir, "Going Rogue: An American Life." The book is due out from HarperCollins Nov. 17 - but it shot to the top of the Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists Wednesday as word of its publication spread.

Sarah Palin is trying to communicate who she is and her vision for America. In order to best do that, she needs to work with someone who is sympathetic to her point of view. If she didn’t, she would spend more time fighting with her co-author than writing the book. The choice of Lynn Vincent is therefore a good one – an experienced writer who shares Palin’s vision to communicate Sarah’s ideas. Sounds like a smart choice to me.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is, from where I sit, the heart of DionneÂ’s argument on why it is common sense that so-called moderates should support the public option is found right here.

The strangest aspect of the debate over a public option for health coverage is that the centrists who oppose it should love it.

It doesn't involve a government takeover of the health-care system. The idea is that only consumers who want to enroll in a government-run health plan would do so. Anyone who preferred private insurance could get it.

The public option also uses government exactly as advocates of market economics say it should be deployed: not as a controlling entity but as a nudge toward greater competition. Fans of the market rightly oppose monopolies. But in many places, a small number of insurance companies -- sometimes only one -- dominates the market. The public option is a monopoly-buster.

He’s right in noting that the preferred method of folks in the middle – and on the right, too – is for the market over the government. The problem is that he doesn’t recognize the fundamental objection to the government entering the marketplace – namely that it will NEVER compete on an equal basis. After all, not one insurance company has the unlimited financial reserves of the federal government behind it, with the ability to operate at a loss in order to keep rates artificially low. What’s more, the impact of such a government player in the market would be to warp it in favor of the government and against the private sector – ultimately creating a system in which there is only one dominant company in the market – namely the government-backed option. The result will inevitably be the collapse of private insurance companies unable to compete with an entity bound by different rules and a different economic model – in effect meaning that while there will be no takeover today, there will be one tomorrow or the day after.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.