YouTube Video: Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

YouTube Video: Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

From Rush Limbaugh Radio

miltonfriedman2One sound bite is two minutes of Milton Friedman schooling Phil Donahue and his audience in greed and capitalism and virtue.

RUSH:  [Obama] was quoting Reverend Wright, and he said that’s for me, man, I love that.  White folks’ greed runs a world in need.  So let’s go to 1979, ancient times for many of you.  We may as well be going back to the Roman Coliseum for this.  Nineteen seventy nine, I was 28.  Ancient times for many of you.  Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman, and they had this exchange.  And Donahue starts off wanting to know about greed and capitalism.  Here it is.  And listen to this.

DONAHUE:  When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?

Greed Definition

FRIEDMAN:  Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?  You think Russia doesn’t run on greed?  You think China doesn’t run on greed?  What is greed?  Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.  The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus.  Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.  Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.  In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.  If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.

So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

DONAHUE:  But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Virtue Definition

FRIEDMAN:  And what does reward virtue?  Do you think the communist commissar rewards virtue?  Do you think Hitler rewards virtue?  Do you think American presidents reward virtue?  Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?  Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?  You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted.  Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.

DONAHUE:  Well —

FRIEDMAN:  I don’t even trust you to do that.

RUSH:  Milton Friedman back in 1979 schooling Phil Donahue, and everybody else who heard that on the notions of virtue and greed and just basically upsetting Phil’s applecart.  Phil wasn’t smart enough to know it was happening. He’s still running around lamenting the accident of birth. If he’d been 30 miles south he would have grown up in poverty.  Anyway, we wanted to play that for you and recognize Milton Friedman.

miltonfriedmanMilton Friedman:  “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand.” 

 Milton Friedman:  “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” 

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.”  

Boy, isn’t that true? Pass another law.  Government comes along and creates a program.  The program is an absolute disaster.  Government says, “That’s gotta get fixed.”  Government says, “Okay, we’ll fix it.”  And it compounds itself, one error atop another. (Rush)

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”  

I’ll tell you, the guy was great.  He was a genius.  He lived into his late eighties.  He would have been a hundred years old this week. (Rush)

Dinner Talk

1. Who does Mr. Friedman say is greedy?

2. Do you think political self-interest is better than economic self-interest? Why or why not?

3. According to Mr. Friedman, which system fosters a stronger economy— management by government bureaucracies (socialism), or free enterprise? Why?

Advertisements

American Culture: Gender and Feminism

Is there a War on Men in America?

‘How to Choose Husband’
author in Limbaugh Letter
Rush’s discussion with Suzanne Venker: Why ‘culture’ messed up

Is there a “War on Men” in America?

war on menSuzanne Venker, the author of the recently released “How to Choose a Husband,” believes the answer is an unequivocal “yes,” and the biggest voice in radio is 100 percent in her camp.

In the soon-to-be-released May issue of “The Limbaugh Letter,” radio icon Rush Limbaugh engages in an in-depth interview with Venker on the complexities of modern-day relationships, feminism vs. the traditional nuclear family, the breakdown of marriage and what she dubs the “War on Men.”

Here is an exclusive excerpt of the conversation. (Excerpt from the May 2013 issue of “The Limbaugh Letter” (c) 2013 by Radio Active Media, Inc. Used by permission.)

“I was delighted to chat with the Center for Marriage Policy vice president whose much-discussed essay ‘The War on Men’ is now available as an ebook; her latest book is ‘How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage:'”

Rush Limbaugh: Suzanne, how are you? I’m glad that you had time for us today.

Suzanne Venker: Thanks for asking me.

Rush: You bet. When I saw your Fox website piece, “The War on Men,” I read excerpts of it on the air, because it’s so uncommon a view, at least in the culture today. What spurred your interest in exploring this?

Suzanne: I’ve been immersed in feminist issues, and all the fallout of everything feminist, from gender relations to marriage to motherhood – just general family life, where feminism bumps up against the family. Gender relations, in particular, has become a huge issue today. We hear about it everywhere. That particular piece was really not that different from many other articles I’ve written, but it just went viral.

I think it started a really important conversation: What if we don’t focus so much on women and their problems and how they’re supposedly discriminated against? What if we ask: Where do men stand? What are their views? How are they being affected by this incessant focus on female “empowerment”?

Rush: Before we get into that in detail, why did feminism fail to attract you?

Suzanne: Well, Phyllis Schlafly is my aunt. So I was raised with an alternative view to the cultural messages, just by what she was doing with her life, going back to fighting the era in the 1970s. I was very young, of course. But what feminists said did not reflect what the women in my family felt or experienced in their lives. I had these role models, all strong women – which is what feminists supposedly said women needed to be and were not, that they couldn’t get anywhere – and my role models were getting wherever they wanted. Combining work and family wasn’t a factor either, because it was being done around me, and I saw it. So from the time I was very little, I just had a very different vantage point.

Click here to get your copy of “How to Choose a Husband.”

Rush: Now is there a specific age group that you set out to study or investigate in preparation for your book, “How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage?”

Suzanne: Yes. It’s basically for those between 25 and 35. I ideally want it to be for 18 and up, but they must have a great deal of maturity to be able to absorb the messages before 25. A lot of what I’m saying here is so counter-cultural and different from what women are used to hearing that they just naturally buck against it, because they don’t understand.

They don’t have the foresight to think ahead 10 years: “Where am I going to be, and what is it that I really want in my life?” They’re pretty much just living for tomorrow. Which is so different from the older generation, who, when they were 20, 21, 22, were far more mature in their outlook. In fact, I wrote a piece for Fox [“Whom to Marry Is the Most Important Decision a Woman Will Ever Make”] in response to the Susan Patton letter to Princeton ladies giving advice to young women to find a husband at college. I point out that the maturity levels are so different today than they were before, so it’s very hard for people to think long-term.

That’s a big problem. “How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage” requires people to be able to think long-term. You have to really think about what you’re going to want and try to make that happen when you’re younger. But, as in [Facebook Chief Operating Officer] Sheryl Sandberg’s new book, “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead,” what we’re hearing left and right now is about leaning into your career and making it the focus of your life – almost as if marriage and motherhood or men and children just don’t exist. They don’t just fit into the package by osmosis. You have to take into account what family life involves if you want a family. And that includes thinking about what kind of careers work well with raising a family.

Rush: How many of the people – women, and men, too, because as you said, you’re looking at it through the prism of men – that you’re reaching, or want to reach, have any idea that all of this, feminism and all the ancillaries, are nothing but politics? I think most of them don’t. I think most of them think it’s the way things are. They’ve been politicized and don’t know it.

feminismflipsideSuzanne: No question about it; that’s the whole reason for my last book, “The Flipside of Feminism.” I usually tell them, if you want to understand what feminism is, how it’s affecting your life, what those messages really mean when you’re hearing them in a quick way on TV or radio, read “Flipside.” You will have a completely different view of feminism when you really understand it. Most people operate in sound bites. They hear something on the news and they repeat it. It’s so frustrating for me, as somebody who has delved into this for years, to see people not get it and not absorb it. So I try to reach those people in a way I think they can understand.

Rush: You probably have a fulfilling life. You’re probably basically happy. Why do you care about other people, to the extent that you’re trying to reach them with your message?

Suzanne: What I care most about, what drives me, what so frustrates me, is knowing that those who are instilling those messages are pulling the wool over so many people’s eyes.

Rush: Exactly.

Suzanne: I can’t sit there and shut up when I know what’s happening. It’s just so wrong. It drives me to say, “Wait a minute, why do you have the microphone and spout stuff that’s just flat-out not true?” Young people need the tools and the information to be able to make the right decisions for their futures. The messages they’re getting are undermining their futures, and it’s just wrong.

In “How to Choose a Husband,” Venker says American women need a detox. If they want to be happy, or just plain satisfied, they must do a 180 when it comes to their attitude toward sex, courtship and married life.

If they do, marriageable men will reappear – and women will find the love that eludes them.

Released by WND Books Feb. 5, “How to Choose a Husband” is the perfect book for women who wonder why their Valentine’s Day lacks any romanticism.

A former teacher-turned-social critic, Venker is an author and speaker on politics, marriage, parenting and culture. She is a frequent guest on HuffPo Live and an occasional contributor to National Review Online. She has also authored the books “The Flipside of Feminism” and “7 Myths of Working Mothers.” A frequent commentator on cultural issues, she has appeared on ABC, CNN, FOX and C-Span – as well as hundreds of radio shows throughout the country, including “The Laura Ingraham Show.”

feminism2Real women don’t need “feminism.”

That’s according to “The Monstrous Regiment of Women,” a Colin Gunn award-winning documentary that undercuts any strength that might be attributed to the feminist worldview.
The DVD soberly and maturely reveals the fallacies in that attitude.

“The Monstrous Regiment of Women” explains that feminists tell women not to submit to a husband, avoid having children, listen to their “inner voice” and chase a career.

But the DVD’s voices say otherwise. They include Edinburgh University historian Sharon Adams, Jennie Chancey of Ladies Against Feminism, cadet Jane Doe, former abortion provider Carol Everett, homemaker Dana Feliciano, Buried Treasure Books writer Carmon Freidrich, “Domestic Tranquility” author F. Carolyn Graglia, John Knox biographer Rosalind Marshall, “Raising Maidens of Virtue” author Stacey McDonald, Schlafly and homemakers Denise Sproul and Kathleen Smith.

The women show how feminism’s twisted and irrational teaching has led to disaster for American women, pushing many into a frustrating, isolated existence.

They are calling today’s women back to a life filled with joy and beauty that can be found only by following God’s Word.

The film takes its title from a famous tract by 16th-century reformer John Knox, “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.” The tract was written to oppose a notorious European female tyrant who sought to stamp out biblical Christianity in Knox’s beloved Scotland.

The Monstrous Regiment of Women is a clarion call to all and a must-see, thought-provoking movie.

Notable women’s advocate Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum explains it simply.

“The problem with feminism, I think the principal problem, is the cultivation of an attitude of victimization. Feminism tries to make women believe they are victims of an oppressive, male-dominated, patriarchal society. They wake up in the morning with a chip on their shoulder.”

Definitions: Capitalism vs. Socialism

Dinner Topics for Monday

Month-Defining Moment

Definition of Socialism: NOT utopia

keyWe again warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution and our free institutions set up under it. The same political tenets and philosophies that have brought war and terror in other parts of the world are at work amongst us in America. The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

 

Conservative vs. Liberal scenario: help for Homeless Guy

Rush Limbaugh

fishselfreliancecartoonYou got a conservative and a liberal walking down the street and they encounter a homeless guy.

The liberal goes, “Awwww, look at that! So sad. Oh, my God, what is our country coming to?”

The conservative says, “You know what? Maybe the guy needs to go find a job. We need to help this guy get one.”

“Oh, easy for you to say! Typical Republican cold-heartedness.  Why can’t you just have a little sympathy?  Don’t you see the man?  He’s living in a shopping cart.”

“Yeah, and it repulses me, and I want to get him into something more productive.”

“You hate-filled SOB.”

fishselfrelianceThe Democrat simply gets credit for seeing it.  “I’m a good person.  I saw a homeless guy and felt bad.  I’m a good person.  I know that blacks are mistreated sometimes.”  And that’s it!  You don’t have to act. That’s why I’ve always said that liberalism is the most gutless choice you could make.  It’s the easiest.  You don’t have to do anything.  You never have to solve anything. 

All you have to do is say you see it and then people automatically assume you care, and maybe even then you know what you do?  You go to a nice $10,000-a-plate dinner for the hungry.  Yeah, and that shows you really care when you go to a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser, and gorge yourself on five-star food and adult beverages … for the hungry.  Who are still outside begging to get into the hotel and eat with you. 

Maybe you’ll give ’em a doggie bag on the way out.

Ancient Socialism

 gadianton2Socialism has been around for thousands of years. The Karl Marx of ancient America was a man named Gadianton. He started a band of marauding robbers who took over the government by flattering the people,  and then he plundered the people. Now American politicians are trying to sell socialism again. Every time it’s tried it fails. But socialists still try to implement class hatred, saying how socialism protects us from marauding bands. But these socialists are the marauding bands, and doing it in the name of “compassion,” with a “fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them.” (McKay)

RUSH:  By the way, Elizabeth Warren talks about how all of these business owners don’t have to worry about the marauding bands that would come and seize everything at their factory because you pay for all the cops, you pay for all the security, and you pay for the firemen.  Well, she didn’t say who the marauding bands are.  You know who they are?  She is.  Hillary Clinton is.  Barack Obama.  The Democrat Party is the marauding band aiming at every private sector business they can get their hands on.

gadiantonThe marauding bands are not criminals in the common sense.  The marauding bands today are Democrats and anybody else at any government agency deciding to target any business whatsoever and to make it pay for whatever transgressions they want to accuse it of.  And it’s all legal.  These marauding bands can regulate a business out of existence. *

The marauding bands of Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the federal government can harass a business legally to the point that it makes no sense to stay open.  Marauding bands that can tell bakeries who they have to do business with.  The marauding bands today are not just your average, ordinary street thugs that everybody knows.  The marauding bands today are targeting wealth and success and achievement, and can all be found in the Democrat Party and various agencies of the federal government.  

Defining Moment: Capitalism

“Towards the End of Poverty — Nearly 1 Billion People Have Been Taken out of Extreme Poverty in 20 Years. The World Should Aim to do the Same Again.” “Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow — and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.” ~Economist

But it is not because of liberalism.  It’s not because of socialism. It’s not because of compassion. It’s not because of transfers of wealth. It’s not because of redistribution.  It isn’t because of high taxes.  It’s because of deregulated economic growth, unfettered capitalism, and free trade.  That is lifting people out of poverty in numbers greater than have ever been seen before. ~Rush Limbaugh

Capitalism liberates

From the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

capitalismWe had a guest on this program. Well, actually I interviewed him for the Limbaugh Letter. He’s Herbert Meyer, who worked in the Reagan administration in intelligence.  He wrote an op-ed, I guess about a month before or maybe two months before we had him in here as a guest.

He said, “The greatest unreported story in the world today is the disappearance of poverty around the world.”  I read that, and I said, “What in the world do you mean? That’s the greatest story in the world? Here we are saddled in the middle of an administration which is taking this country — more and more people in this country — to abject poverty, at least dependence on government, and this guy talks about ‘the greatest unreported story in the world today is the disappearance of poverty’?”

Lo and behold, The Economist, just this week in its current issue: “Towards the End of Poverty — Nearly 1 Billion People Have Been Taken out of Extreme Poverty in 20 Years. The World Should Aim to do the Same Again.” Let me give you the only important pull quote from this Economist story: “Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow — and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.”

One billion people were lifted out of poverty in 20 years, and it hasn’t been because of liberalism. It hasn’t been because of socialism.  Socialism and liberalism haven’t lifted a single person out of poverty.  Socialism and liberalism sustain people in a bare subsistence and call it compassion.  Capitalism!  One of the Undeniable Truths of Life, I think it was the second edition, said this. I forget the exact verbatim quote.  It said: One of the greatest problems in the world today is the unequal distribution of capitalism.

Herb Meyer came along years after I’d made that statement with his realization that people were escaping poverty all over the world, and it was an unreported story.  When everybody read that, when I shared it with people, they asked, “What is he talking about?”  Everybody thinks the world is sinking fast into poverty.  Why?  Because the environmentalist wackos say everybody is going into poverty. The environmentalist wackos say we’re all gonna die.

Scientists say we’re gonna die. We’re all dying from malaria. Disease is going bonkers! We’re killing people and losing people left and right. They paint this picture of doom and gloom and death and destruction and pestilence and disease. When the truth is that around the world, people are escaping poverty because of the increase in capitalism around the world! Now, it is an untold story. The Economist, I don’t know what made ’em do it but they’ve got it complete with the charts and graphs.

wealthspreadworkethicHerbert Meyer was right.  Everywhere we look… Well, not everywhere, but many places we look around the world, the world is beginning to behave as we once did in America.  We are going the opposite way! Europe, in many places, have seen them bottom out. They want to do something about it. They don’t quite know how but at least they want to.  There’s good news out there.

But it is not because of liberalism.  It’s not because of socialism. It’s not because of compassion. It’s not because of transfers of wealth. It’s not because of redistribution.  It isn’t because of high taxes.  It’s because of deregulated economic growth, unfettered capitalism, and free trade.  That is lifting people out of poverty in numbers greater than have ever been seen before. 

Education: Obama, Character, Race, and Courage

Character Education

keyThis good woman’s  understanding of  moral character, and of right and wrong, is undeniable—and we are blessed by her courage to speak the truth.

A Black Woman Embarrassed by Obama

From Rush Limbaugh Radio  Show
RUSH: Here’s Siobhan in Columbia, Mississippi. Hi, welcome, it’s great to have you here. It’s Open Line Friday and you’re next.
CALLER: Hi. I’m so happy to finally get through to you. I have one major problem, and that’s Barack Obama himself. My problem is, as a black woman, I am embarrassed to be a black-American. My grandmother is 94 years old, and I imagine that her and all of our ancestors that died and fought for what we’re supposed to call freedom, this is not what they imagined of the first black president. I mean, Congress is not doing their job. They don’t want to say anything that criticizes him.
RUSH: Wait. Hang on. Siobhan, hang on, hang on. You’re very provocative here, and I need to pick your brain.
CALLER: Ok.
RUSH: ‘Cause you’ve said a number of things about which I have questions. Your first thing, you said that you are embarrassed to be a black woman?
CALLER: Yes! To be black, period.
RUSH: You know, I happened to see the other day, some white, feminist, female professor. She taught feminist studies somewhere, and I wish I had it in front of me. I don’t have it here, but she was saying how guilty she felt at being white, that she just wanted to rip her skin off and turn herself inside out.
CALLER: Oh, don’t (garbled).
RUSH: She just can’t stand living the life of luxury she has, given that it came on the backs of people of a different color. She’s so guilty. She’s so ashamed.
CALLER: (Unintelligible) That’s what they want for people to feel guilty because of the fact that they’re white. I mean, being white has nothing to do with. It’s a matter of being educated. I don’t care whether you’re black, white, purple, green, blue. I don’t care. This man can’t even spell “respect.”
RUSH: Okay, I agree with you. But I need to go back and ask you the second question.  You said that to you and a lot of people, that this is not what you imagined the first black president to be. What do you mean?
CALLER: Meaning that as a country overall, when you look at where we were and how far we’ve come, and you get somebody in this position of power that is of African-American descent, you don’t expect Obama. This is not what you expect. You expect somebody who can actually use their brain without somebody else telling them what to say, that knows how to articulate, that knows how to do what needs to be done without looking like an idiot.
RUSH: (chuckling) Now, wait. What you’re saying… (laughing) I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you.
CALLER: Let me put it this way: When I think of a black man or black woman as president of the United States of America, Barack Obama is the last — just the bottom — of the totem pole. You need somebody, a person in that position —
RUSH: So you think…? It sounds to me like you think that Obama has… Let’s face it: The first black president could have been a huge deal, a great opportunity for the country and for everybody. You think Obama has blown it because he’s actually harmed the perception?

impeach16characterCALLER: Yes, he’s done more harm than good, and the biggest problem that I have is that when he ran for the first time, nobody voted on him based on character, and that’s one problem I have with politics in general. People vote based on what they see. Everybody saw “a black man” that could be president. “Woo hoo! That’s gung-ho! Let’s get behind this man.”

But nobody wanted to vote on the character of this man. Nobody bothered honestly look into what this man represents. What is he tried to go trying to do? How he is going to be advance this country? This is supposed to be America land of the free, but, you know, “Hey, if you say anything that goes against what she saying, you’re racist.” That’s racist in itself.

RUSH: Right, it is. But let me… Again, you’re speaking very rapidly, and I’m having trouble hearing this. I’ve gotta ask you again. Did you say that when people voted for Obama the first time in 2008, they were voting for him based on his character? Or not?
CALLER: No. They voted for him based on the color of his skin.
RUSH: Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, but I think there were a lot of people… There’s no question you’re right. But, Siobhan, I have to tell you, I think a lot of people did buy the idea that he was messianic, that he was something like we’d never had in politics before.
CALLER: Oh, yes.
RUSH: The media did it, and he helped create this impression that he was a unique character, a special human being, finally come to be among us who was gonna heal all of our divisions and bring about world peace. And that is character. People were investing in what they thought was his character. The racial component, there’s no question that was a big factor, too. But I think in the second election, in 2012, the racial aspect was of course number one then.
CALLER: Yes. And, see, the problem, people don’t stop and look at, “Okay, what good has he done?” Forget about color. You know, yes, he’s black. We can’t deny that.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: Well, what good has he done overall for this country?
RUSH: You sound like a person who is more concerned about a president’s impact on the country rather than just one group of people.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: But there are a lot of African-Americans who thought that Obama’s election would mean that he would do things specifically for them, and that hasn’t happened. Black unemployment is skyrocketing. Black teenage unemployment is skyrocketing. None of the grievances that black leaders cite have even been addressed by Obama.
CALLER: Humph!
RUSH: Okay, he announced a program for black men out of the White House. But Don Lemon said that now he finally become the first black president, as though, “Finally Obama’s doing something for us.” But you don’t look at president’s responsibility that way, it seems like to me.
CALLER: No, I do not. Because I don’t just represent African-Americans. You don’t just represent one person, one color. You represent this country, and your job as the president, whether you a man or whoever you are, your job is to advance this country. Personally, if I had my way, we’d do away with affirmative action. That’s done more harm than good for this country. There are a lot of things that a lot of black people say that we should do, we should have, that I don’t agree with. Because I don’t believe for one second that the circumstances of one’s birth or the circumstances of one’s upbringing dictates the outcome of one’s life.
RUSH: Hear, hear. You are absolutely right.
CALLER: If you want something to happen, and that doesn’t happen, you have to look at yourself.
RUSH: You are absolutely right about that. It’s up to everybody to make their own way.
CALLER: Thank you.
RUSH: They have to carve their own life, and we all have obstacles. Everybody. Some people, it’s their skin color. Others, it’s their weight. Everybody’s got something in their way that either society puts there or that they put there in their own way themselves. Nobody has smooth sailing. Hell, even the Kennedys don’t have smooth sailing! Look at that. I mean, even though the way is paved, they still screw it up.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: It’s never, never smooth sailing for somebody. Everybody has to overcome something.
CALLER: And sometimes having that last name itself can be an obstacle because they automatically just do whatever. Nobody listens because of your last name. What’s your last name have to do with it?
RUSH: Do most of your friends agree with you, think the same way you do?

CALLER: No. A lot of people completely disagree with me because of the way I was raised. I was exposed to a bunch of different things, and one big pet peeve that I have with the African-American community is the women in particular who teach their children that based on the color of your skin, society owes you something. Society doesn’t owe me anything. I see that in the black community. Nobody talks about the racism among blacks, how people who are fair-complected as opposed to people who are dark-complected. Nobody talks about the racism among black people.

RUSH: Well, you’re not allowed to. You’re not allowed talk about that.  Well, it’s the same thing as African-Americans can say the N-word all they want, but nobody else can.
CALLER: But, see, that’s wrong. Because if I’m saying it, but yet I’m saying other people, they can’t say it, they’re looking at it as, “Well, if I can’t say it, why can you?” Okay, if you don’t want other people to use the name, then you therefore should not be using it. That would be like me telling… I have a son that’s 16 years old, an intelligent young man, okay? That would be like me telling my son, “Don’t drink,” and telling him, “I don’t want you to drink,” and not explaining to him why I don’t want you to drink, but sitting there in front of him and I’m gulping the stuff every day. That’s what I’m against. That’s a contradiction, and he’s gonna look at me and say, “How can you drink and I can’t?” or “Why can you smoke and I can’t?”
RUSH: It’s gotta be frustrating to you to have so many of your friends disagree with you all the time on this.
CALLER: Yeah. Especially because it’s not just friends. It’s people who don’t even know you. They automatically assume because you look a certain way. They look at me and say, “Oh, that’s a black woman,” and they expect things from me, and when I don’t act that way and I don’t talk that way, they look at me like, “Oh, you’re very articulate. You’re this; you’re that.” What, because I’m black I’m supposed to sound ignorant and not (unintelligible) like Obama?
RUSH: Yeah, they tell you you’re not down for the struggle, Siobhan.
CALLER: No! Because everybody has struggles. No matter what, when you wake up in the morning, you should be thankful that you woke up. No matter what happens that day. If things don’t go the way you want ’em to go, then you look back at what happened and say, “Hey, what can I do to make it happen differently, to change the circumstances?”
RUSH: Well, I appreciate your call. I’m up against it on time. That’s Siobhan from Columbia, Mississippi. You know, I didn’t get into it too deep, but I’m gonna tell you, I know exactly what she means. When she says that this is it is not what everybody was hoping for with the first black, I think I know what she means. Based on what she said here, I think I know exactly what she means, but I gotta run.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: That feminazi that I was thinking of was somebody supposedly named Robin Morgan. Now, the website for this is something called IndependentFilmNewsandMedia.com, and their graphic quotes Robin Morgan. Here’s the problem. I never heard of Robin Morgan, and the Internet is famous for putting just some of the most ridiculous wacko stuff up there and attributing it to people. But on the other side of it, I can totally hear a liberal feminist professor saying this.
Here is the exact quote. Again, Robin Morgan is “a key radical feminist member of the American Women’s Movement,” and that is capitalized. So if this turns out to be is something totally made up, I just want it acknowledged that I acknowledged that possibility. “My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others’ agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free.”
This, folks, may be a bit exaggerated. This is the kind of thinking being taught young people in schools today about the founding of the country, about the arrival of Europeans, white Europeans, and the enslavement of the Native Americans and later the African-Americans. This is the exact kind of thing.
This is the guilt that is taught in schools today, which is why I have endeavored, undertaken this mission and project with my history books for children. This is the exact kind of thinking, this paralyzing guilt that everybody ought to feel, that we are unjust and we are immoral and we don’t deserve any of the goodness and the good things that have happened to us.
RUSH: So this is just to close the loop. This Robin Morgan is key, radical member of “The American Women’s Movement.” She actually is. She’s a close associate of Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, and she has written books. I think she might be a professor. But she did say that in “The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism,” published in 1989 by WW Norton & Company. It’s on page 224.
She actually wrote this, published in il libro: “My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others’ agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free.” Robin Morgan. Can you imagine what kind of fun this woman is at a party?
Other quotes from Robin Morgan. “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” “Sexism is not the fault of women. Kill your fathers, not your mothers.” That’s what she says. This is “The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism.” It’s WW Norton & Company, 1989. I don’t know if these are the quotes from that book but they are accurately attributed to her. Sexism is not… And these babes… (sigh) I’m sorry. They’re not babes. This woman and Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem have petitioned the FCC to get me punished. They say I have “hidden behind the First Amendment for too long.” So that’s who they are.

Rush Limbaugh: Bible and Real Family Life

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

keyoldWe warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. ~The Family Proclamation

The Left’s Unbridled Assault on the Traditional American Family Continues

RushDittoNYTimesArticleCoParentingRUSH LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, the assault on the traditional, standard American way of life continues unabated, and it is being conducted by a minority of people in this country.  There’s an amazing poll out there today from the Investor’s Business Daily, Investors.com which illustrates just what an extreme minority today’s Democrat Party and the American left really is, in terms of minority, in terms of thinking, the body of thought in this country represented by them.

It’s stunning, but, at the same time, it’s optimistic in a sense to learn just how insignificant in numbers they are.  Now, that doesn’t tell the whole story, obviously.  However, the interesting thing about it is also that it is they who, obviously, when you look at the questions and when you look at the answers in the poll, it’s obviously today’s Democrats, today’s leftists who are the genuine extremists.  It ain’t us, folks.

And just to give you an example, here we have the New York Times, I don’t know if you ever thought you would see something like this.  I did.  The New York Times is bidding farewell to the traditional family, the nuclear family.  Mom and dad and 2.8 kids, not possible, except for the wealthy, the white, and the elite.  Sayonara, adios, outta there.  If you have that kind of a family, you are, A, a problem, B, you are a minority, and, C, you are out of there.  And I just want to tell you that this is bogus.  This is not the case.  This is not what is happening.

The traditional American family, yeah, we’ve got a different family makeup in places, and the definition of family is changing, by design, with the left instituting it.  But the idea that the traditional nuclear family is now an oddity and something that was never really natural and needs to be replaced is just absurd.  The entire Science Times section of the New York Times way back on November 26th — again, this is something that I missed because I chilled out. I took a break from all this.  And in the November 26th Science Times section of the New York Times they were devoted to the redefined American family, and it was written by the noted journalist Natalie Angier.

She identified the traditional family as a thing of the past.  “The old-fashioned family plan of stably married parents residing with their children remains a source of considerable power in America –” but not for long after we get through attacking and destroying it, “– but one that is increasingly seen as out of reach to all but the educated elite.”

Now, there might be a sad grain of truth in that in the sense that might explain what is happening to the traditional American family, and, i.e., the uneducated, the low-information crowd, as distinguished from the misinformation crowd. The low-information crowd are the people who are the recipients of wealth transfers, the redistribution of income.  I mean, the Democrat Party has succeeded in breaking up those families, no question about that.  The Democrat Party and the welfare state has succeeded in busting up the black American family.  There is no question about that. 

What this story tries to say is that’s normal, that’s natural, that’s the way it was always intended to be, and that’s where we’re headed. And the oddity, the exception here is the white people with mom and dad in a nice house with a family dog and a couple of cats maybe, and 2.8 kids and a picket fence and a couple of cars and a flat screen, that is what’s odd, that’s what’s gotta go, because that’s only attainable to the wealthy white elite.  I’m not making this upThis is in the New York Times and they’re celebrating it.  They’re trying to make it happen, and it’s why this poll in the Investor’s Business Daily or Investors.com is interesting.

There’s also devastating news out there for Obama on Millennials.  He’s losing ’em.  He’s losing them big time.  I’ll give you all the rest of the details on the New York Times story, but it’s just an unbridled assault.  This is not news.  This is not the New York Times surveying the country and simply dispassionately reporting.  This is advocacy.  This is a desire to destroy the traditional American family.  “It’s not fair.  It may be a good way to raise kids, but it isn’t fair that not everybody can do it, and, since not everybody can do it, nobody can do it, and so we’re gonna side with the people who have no prayer of doing it.” 

Why?

“Well, they’re uneducated.”

“Why are they uneducated?  Who has made that happen?  Who’s been in charge of education?” 

The Democrat Party.  The American left.  Why are people uneducated?  Why are they poor?  The Democrat Party.  Who is it that’s told people, “Sit around, wait for us to take care of you, don’t rely on yourself, you don’t have what it takes”?  Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party’s made all this happen.  It’s a route to power for them.  It’s insidious.  It’s the way they want to control people.  It’s the way they ensconce themselves in power, making themselves irreplaceable, making these other people dependent.  And now they have created this schism, if you will, the haves and have-nots.  They have created that.

They claim capitalism has created it.  They created it.  It’s taken ’em 50 years of the welfare state since the great old FDR and the New Deal.  But they’ve done it.  And they are relentless as they continue to do it because for them it’s about changing the way this country was founded.  It’s about getting rid of the inequities, the unfairness, the immorality, the injustice of the founding of this country and this is the way it ought to be. If you got two mommies and two daddies and a dog and they represent a family, who’s to say that’s wrong?  Who’s to say that’s wrong?  Who are you people, you nuclear family people, where are you getting your guide from?  The Bible?  Hell with that.  We don’t believe in the Bible.  The Bible, that’s just make-believe. 

This is where all this stuff is rooted.  I want to try to tell you, even though this onslaught against the traditions — and the traditions and institutions are what make this country great, there’s an attack on them, there has been for a while.  I want to try to impress upon you, while they’re having success, they are busting up families, don’t make any mistake about that, I’m not Pollyannish here, they have not destroyed it yet. They have not remade or transformed this country.  People are not happy with the direction of this country, and now a vast majority, including the Millennials, they are not happy with the way this country’s going, the direction it’s headed, they don’t like it.  They may not yet know how to properly affix blame for it.

To the Democrat Party, it is, and to the New York Times, it is.  What the picture is, you’ve got a guy, 35, 40 years old here, and his wife, and their three kids, and they’re smiling, they’re happy.  How dare they.  They’re smiling, they’re happy, but what they don’t know is it’s over for them.  They’re dinosaurs.  They’re living in Jurassic Park and the left is coming for them in their neighborhoods and they’re gonna turn it all upside down.  They’re starting all this in the schools. 

The companion story, this is from ABC News.  I’ll give you the headline: “Sites Match Potential Co-Parents, Skip Love and Marriage.”  This is about people that want to be parents but don’t want to get married. They just want to hook up and have babies and then have a family but never see the other spouse.  Kind of like a Match.com for kids.  (No offense, Match.com.)  Listen to this: “Rachel Hope of Los Angeles says she’s ready to be a mother again.  She’d like to get pregnant next month. 

“The thing is, she has no idea who the father will be.  Hope is one of a growing number of Americans interested in exploding the old 1950s notion of the nuclear family.” Isn’t this fascinating?  The New York Times on November 26th, and here we are yesterday, December 3rd, they’re already on it. These people are relentless.  They just never stop coming at us. Let’s see if we can find some woman in LA who doesn’t like the nuclear family.  “Hope is one of a growing number of Americans interested in exploding the old 1950s notion of the nuclear family.”

Beave_largeThe nuclear family goes back to the Bible, which is its problem with the left.  There’s nothing they can do about fifties.  You know, to these people, the nuclear family is Ozzie and Harriet, and Beaver Cleaver, and it just isn’t possible.  That was fantasyland, that was make-believe, that was never real, and that’s not possible today.  You can’t have mom and dad and three kids with all that wealth.  It just not possible. And to be happy?  It’s not right!  It isn’t fair.  It’s not possible. 

“She’s not looking for love.” Oh no! No. “She wants a co-parent.”   I’m telling you, folks, the idea that the nuclear family dates back to the fifties? Only in a low-information world could you make people believe that the nuclear family was invented in the fifties — and why would you do that, by the way? If you’re the American left, why would you say that the nuclear family was invented in the fifties? Well, to make it unhip, to make it uncool!

Oh, my God, that’s ancient! Also, to tell these young kids and the Millennials, “You want to live like they did in the fifties?  You can’t go back to that! Look how square things were back in then. They wore letter jackets! I mean, look at that. Did you see the movie? Who wants to go back to that?”  That’s why they’re trying to peg the nuclear family to the fifties, to make it unhip.  The nuclear family traces back to God-d, and just saying that is like showing Dracula the cross.

RUSH:  By the way, is it a coincidence, ladies and gentlemen, that the New York Times would be focusing on the end of, the destruction of, the dissolving of the nuclear family, while they have been championing the gay agenda, especially same-sex marriage for more than any other newspaper on the planet?  I’m telling you, this is an agenda.  They’re not strictly reporting what is happening.  They want this.

It’s like the same way they use polling data.  They want to bring about the end of the nuclear family.  Now, in areas where they control people’s income —I’m talking about Democrat Party and the left, the welfare state — they are destroying the nuclear family, but it’s not because that’s what those people want to happen.  People whose families are being destroyed are not voting Democrat for that to happen.

They think the exact opposite.  They think the Democrats are going to take care of ’em.  And the Democrats end up becoming the husband and the father, and the family gets blown to smithereens. That’s what’s happened to black community, and it’s not me saying it.  It’s countless African-Americans who say this. They were the first ones, in fact, to bring it to my attention, the way some of them look at it.

Now, this Rachel Hope babe, it turns out there’s a website out there called Partnered Parent, and she is trying to make a career out of this.  She has her own magazine and a website.  “Rachel Hope has a 22-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter, both from thriving parenting partnerships. While she seeks a third parenting partner for herself, Rachel’s overall mission is to include more and more parenting partners and their children in a growing family tribe and world community.

Now, we used to call that “marriage.”

RUSH:  One more thing here on this website here that’s promoting “co-parenting” as the people that believe in this are said to be eager to blow up the notion of the 1950s nuclear family.  I just want to assure all of you, the nuclear family goes back to the Bible.  The fifties had no claim on it, and nothing to do with it. They just telling you that it is a fifties creation ’cause they want you to think it’s uncool and unhip.

Make no mistake, this is not just a little human interest story.  There is an agenda to this like there is to everything the left and the Democrat Party and the media do.  There is no news.  There is no reporting.  There is simply advancing the agenda.  That is all it is.  The news today is simply a soap opera with the requisite amount of suspense, drama, heroes, villains — and it is also just like a soap opera in the sense that they never deal with the reality of anything.

Now, in this website here trying to match potential co-parents, there’s an organization from Los Angeles called “Modamily.” It’s “modern family,” I guess, and the CEO and the founder of Modamily is a guy named Ivan Fatovic.  “Ivan, what did you want to be when you grow up?”  Well, you know what I wanted to do, Mr. Limbaugh? I wanted to run a website that blew up the nuclear family!” 

If you are in a nuclear family, you are now supposed to start feeling guilty and responsible for other people’s unhappiness, and you are to feel guilty just like you’re responsible for global warming.

You are to feel guilty because somehow you have the means to have a nuclear family, and it just isn’t fair!

I don’t know who first coined the term, but “the culture war,” there’s no question about it.  Pat Buchanan has written about it.  Judge Bork wrote about it. 

This is why, and it’s why I’m trying to tell people to hold on.  This kind of stuff that we’re talking about, this all-out assault on the nuclear family, and on the other side here, this co-parenting.  And then on the other side have an abortion paid for by your neighbors, this is why people think the country’s falling party.  And I’m telling you, that is purposeful.  That is the result of an agenda.  Do you want to be led by the miserable, folks?  Do you want to be led by the discontented and the unhappy?  I mean, sometimes you’re discontented. I’m talking about people who are institutionally so.  Forever mad, cannot be pleased, cannot be happy, it isn’t in their makeup.  I don’t want them defining anything.  I don’t want that kind of negativism dominating culture and life and everything.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/04/the_left_s_unbridled_assault_on_the_traditional_american_family_continues

Moral Repair Plan: Pregnant Teen and Immigration Issues

Dinner Topics for Thursday

We recently started an “Abuse Report.” This lists summarized selections of the tyranny and abuses inflicted by our government. There are so many that we don’t have room to give each one its own post. To follow up with something hopefully more positive, we are introducing the Moral Repair Plan, to post whatever sensible solutions we can find to society’s many vexing problems. These are harder to find than the troubles, but we will try to post them as often as possible. ~ C.A. Davidson

Solution 1 —Rush Limbaugh: We can solve immigrant worker issue without amnesty

AmericanWorkersPIXRUSH: Let’s stay with our last caller. She’s gone, but let’s stay with what she was saying. Conservative. She’s 25 years old, her family is into farming in the Central Valley of California — which, folks, the Central Valley of California is so fertile, it feeds the world in a lot of categories. She said the reason Americans won’t do at work that they have on their farm is that they will not work for what they can afford to pay, wage-wise.

Okay.

Well, now, that’s admittedly a problem. But my question is: Why is the solution never ending amnesty for everybody who wants to come here, which is gonna turn them into automatic Democrats? Whatever happened to seasonal permitted green card immigration to come in? Seasonal immigration, which we’ve supported in the past, is not immigration, but seasonal work permits for people to come in during the growing season, the picking season, whatever it’s called — and when the work is done, then they leave?

Why isn’t that a solution. To me, and many people, this is not really about amnesty. It’s not really about immigration. It’s not about a humanitarian cause. The people pushing this are just seeking new voters who will remain in a permanent need of government assistance. There is a desire the Democrat Party for a permanent underclass. Now, they say (and the Republicans who support this say) that what they’re trying to do is service the needs of businesses like these farmers.

Farmers who cannot afford to pay full-fledged citizens or full-fledged persons, they won’t work for that money, so we need this influx of people from around the world who come from such poverty that the money they will be paid is humongous to them. Okay. I understand the business needs of farms in this circumstance. But the solution does not have to be amnesty for 20 million people who are going to become Democrat voters.

You know 15 million of ’em are gonna back Democrats. How about another solution? Just as an idea. If the farms cannot pay enough to attract American workers, then how about tax credits to allow them to? Tax credits to let them raise their wage. What about exempting them from the corporate tax rate, for example? What about exempting them from all kinds of federal taxation so that they will not have money to spend on the government, they’ll have money to spend on employees?

My point is, there are all kinds of potential solutions to this that do not involve amnesty for 20 million, whatever the number is. Seasonal migration, which we used to do and which we’ve supported. We understand economics. My point, folks, is that the people behind the immigration reform movement might want you to think that they’re trying to help that woman who called and her farm, but that’s not what they’re into.

Just like we learn from Bob Gates in his book that Obama and Hillary opposed the Iraq war on purely political grounds. Well, that’s not news to you or me because we know who Obama and Hillary are, and everything they do is political. But the same people who put a political calculation on war — and here’s Gates telling us that Obama, he doesn’t even like hanging around with military people, and he’s not even really into this Afghanistan thing.

He’s just doing this because he was handed it, and he doesn’t want to be saddled with defeat, but he’s not really behind it. Yet he is sending people into harm’s way for something he’s not even really committed to. But if we didn’t have Gates’ book, all we would know is Obama’s speeches talking about how much he does want victory and how committed he is to it. But we know he’s not. Okay, well, the same kind of people and the same thinking are here on immigration.

It is nothing more than a giant voter-registration drive to them. But they make it sound like they are concerned about farmers and migrant workers and the other itinerant or attached humanitarian causes. But that’s a smoke screen, because there are solutions that are much less damaging to the culture, to the society, and to the overall economy, not to mention the sanctity of law. Our immigration law is worthless. People are allowed to break it, and very few are ever held accountable.

We don’t need immigration “reform.” All we need to do is enforce the laws that are already on the books, and why don’t we do that? The reason we don’t do that is these bodies are desired. They are seen by both parties as potential voters. So we have this woman in Central Valley of California. She’s conservative. You could hear the Republican inflection in her voice. She’s conservative. But she can’t pay very much for the work she has done.

There are certain people who will do it for what she could afford to pay, but they’re not Americans, and she needs the work done. Her family needs the work. Okay. How do you solve that problem? Well, the problem can be solved without granting amnesty to 20 million people. That’s my only point. (interruption) Well, they would have, except we stopped it. Snerdley just said, “The problem with that is, Rush, that the seasonal people are not gonna leave when the season’s over, because they’re gonna like living here so much more than where they came from. They’re not gonna leave.” (interruption)

Well, free schools, free medical, free health care. But we’re not telling them they can bring their families. Wait a second. Under my idea, and the way it was done in the past, they didn’t bring their families, and they weren’t ending up on welfare. And when the season ended they were sent home. It was up to the employer to produce it and police. It’s been done before. No, we’re not breaking up families. Wrong. How many American fathers go over to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil fields while mom and the kids stay here? We’re not breaking up families; we’re supporting families. We’re letting people come here who want to work. There’s work here that only they will do, supposedly. I’m just accepting that as part of the theory, part of the equation.

Look, my overall point, I’m probably not expressing it well because Snerdley keeps arguing with me. My only point is that there are much more effective, smaller solutions specifically tailored to a specific need than what is being proposed. Nobody wants farms to go out of business. Nobody wants farms to close down. Nobody wants anybody to go hungry. That’s not the case here. But what we all know, what we all understand is that the people that are behind massive, as McCain said, comprehensive, meaningful comprehensive immigration reform, it’s just a voter registration drive to them. Let ’em tell us that that’s what they’re doing, see how it flies.

RUSH: I’ve got so many problems with all of this. This business that there are jobs Americans won’t do, I’ve had problems with that ever since I first heard that from an economist friend who tried to explain it to me. He believed it, thought it was rational. I’ve had problems with it instinctively from the first time I heard it. “Well, there are certain jobs Americans won’t do. Americans’ job expectations have gone way past picking lettuce.”

Okay, fine. We’ve got 90 million Americans not working, almost 91 million Americans not working. That is more people than live in Germany. As you well know, if the unemployment rate actually counted people who no longer were looking for work — who’ve given up — the real unemployment rate would be 11-point-something percent. With 90 million Americans not working, how can there be jobs Americans won’t do? And yet it’s probably true. And the reason is how much we’re paying people not to work. That’s why there are jobs Americans won’t do, is because of how much we’re paying them not to work. Pure and simple, folks.

Okay, so we’ve got an overcrowding problem in our prisons in California. How about letting them out, pick lettuce, pick peaches, and pay them whatever the going rate would be that you pay an illegal? My only point is there are all kinds of solutions here that do not involve massive comprehensive amnesty or immigration reform.

Reduce the corporate tax rate that these farms are paying. Reduce what they have to give to the government so they can pay a higher wage.

So the jobs will become those Americans will do. “But, Rush, Americans are not gonna go to the fields and sweat.” Okay, I got a solution for that. If it’s back-breaking work — and we’re told it’s really tough, I mean, it is hard, back-breaking work, then that’s what you do for college and pro football players. You send them there instead of summer training camp. You get ’em in shape. There’s no concussions.

There’s no blown knees, no strained ankles, just a bunch of people sweating in the hot sun, getting ready for football season. Now, I know it’s a stretch. I’m just giving you examples here. There are all kinds of solutions to this. But look at how much we’re paying people not to work? That’s why there are jobs Americans won’t do. And then factor in, we don’t have the money we are paying people not to work.

Solution 2: Reducing the number of Pregnant teens

Teen pregnancy drops as Planned Parenthood vanishes

New study reveals abstinence more popular without abortion industry influence

From 1994 through 2010, Planned Parenthood facilities in these counties went from 19 to zero. In the same period, the teen pregnancy rate dropped almost in half, from 43.76 per 1,000 to 24.1 per 1,000. … Those aren’t our numbers; those are government numbers.”

Bob Unruh

infants-340x161Communities looking to reduce their teen pregnancy rates perhaps should consider one move before all the others: closing down any Planned Parenthood business.

That’s because a new study of one region of the country shows that as Planned Parenthood operations shut down and moved out, the teen pregnancy rate plunged by almost half.
The study comes from the pro-life American Life League, but it uses government figures to reach its conclusions. It analyzed one section of the nation – the Texas Panhandle region – where over the course of several years 19 Planned Parenthood businesses closed or left.

The result? Teen pregnancies dropped from 43.6 per 1,000 girls to 24.1 among a stable population of about 13,000 teen girls aged 13-17.

“People don’t realize that Planned Parenthood must work hard to replace the 43 percent of its customers it loses each year,” said Rita Diller, national director of ALL’s STOPP International project. “It normally does this by promoting sexual promiscuity to teens. This study suggests that when Planned Parenthood leaves, teens are more likely to embrace chastity.”

She continued: “We know that the pro-abortion first-response will be ‘consider the source.’ But American Life League is not the source; the source is the official records of 16 counties within the Texas panhandle. From 1994 through 2010, Planned Parenthood facilities in these counties went from 19 to zero. In the same period, the teen pregnancy rate dropped almost in half, from 43.76 per 1,000 to 24.1 per 1,000. … Those aren’t our numbers; those are government numbers.”

The study is called Planned Parenthood Federation of America: A 5-Part Analysis of Business Practices, Community Outcomes and Taxpayer Funding.

On the topic of community outcomes, it reports that Planned Parenthood offers numerous suggestions to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, none of which involves abstinence. Instead, it suggests “sex education” that begins in kindergarten.

“While many things factor into the teen pregnancy rate, the fact that the TPR continually declined as Planned Parenthood facilities closed – and reached its lowest point in recorded history two years after disaffiliation of the last two remaining facilities – was a significant confirmation that Planned Parenthood’s presence and its ‘evidence based’ sex education programs are not a necessary component to reducing teen pregnancy,” the report said.

The report noted that the closures happened because of “education and activism against Planned Parenthood.”

Other findings of the study include that PPFA now gets $542 million annually from taxpayers but that it still was reducing “health services” while taxpayer funding rose 78 percent over the last six years.

It also found that while it brands itself has a health-care provider, the services it provides actually are plunging.

“There is no evidence that PPFA acted to provide enhancement of healthcare services but PPFA set a new record for abortions performed and total abortion market share,” the report said.

It also is generous with its executives, paying director Cecile Richards more than $583,000 and each of 74 other executives an average of about $166,000, the report said.

“Planned Parenthood at its zenith in 1978 had 191 regional affiliates. In 2012, this number was whittled down to 74, according to Planned Parenthood’s own releases,” the report said.

Regarding delivery of health-care services, ALL reported, Planned Parenthood cancer screens dropped 29 percent and the number of female contraceptive clients was down 18 percent.

All categories of services, in fact, were down, ”except one – abortions,” according to Jim Sedlak, ALL vice president.

And its business model would collapse except for the taxpayer funding it gets, the report said.

“Claims that PPFA ‘preventive healthcare services’ are critical to reducing teen pregnancy are not supported. To the contrary, results suggest that further study of Planned Parenthood’s impact on communities is warranted, considering the fact that its comprehensive sex education model, recruiting of teens to recruit other teens, and promotion of contraceptives as sexual freedom are in decline,” said Brown.

The study showed that PP has received more than $6.8 billion in taxpayer money since 1964, with huge increases coming in recent years under the direction of President Obama. And since 1970, it has terminated the lives of 6.3 million unborn children, equal to the populations of Chicago and Los Angeles.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/teen-pregnancy-drops-as-planned-parenthood-vanishes/#e3TpgDPX7ew3hu7k.99

Obama Agenda vs. Liberty, American Citizen

Obama’s Liberal Democrat Agenda Creates Tyranny in Senate, Robs Liberty from American Citizens

 

Sen. Mike Lee R-Utah called it an attack on the Senate itself and a move toward one-party rule.

Lee told WND, “Today’s decision by the Democrats to break the rules of the Senate are a partisan attack on the very purpose of this institution. The Senate protects the American people from authoritarian one-party rule by requiring at least some consensus to move anything through this body. The Democrats have just done great damage to this principle by putting politics and partisanship ahead of the interests of the American people.”

iobamadictatorThe Washington Post said it “reverses nearly 225 years of precedent and dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents.”

The paper also said it would lead to “severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.”

Under the new rules, it only takes a majority of senators, or 51 votes, for confirmation of federal judge nominees and presidential appointments. That replaces the 60-vote super-majority that has been required for more than 200 years. The new rule does not apply to Supreme Court nominations.

The measure passed by a vote of 52-48. (3 Democrats sided with Republicans against this power grab.)

 

 Rush Limbaugh

In the five years that Barack Obama has been president, he has nominated genuinely extreme people who are out of the American mainstream, to sit on courts, to be cabinet secretaries, to sit over at the EPA, you name it, really genuinely radical leftist extremes who are not part of the American mainstream.  The Republicans have filibustered a number of these nominees in order to keep genuine radical leftists out.  The Democrats are fit to be tied over this because their view is Obama won and he should be able to nominate whoever he wants. 

The rule now is, the practical meaning of the rule is that there are no rules, and the Republicans’ votes mean nothing.  Whatever is proposed, the Republicans, if they stay unified, 45 votes against it means nothing.  There’s nothing they can do unless they can convince some Democrats to join ’em and deny the Democrats 51 votes.  If that happens, Dingy Harry might change the rule again to say all we need 50 on this particular issue.  Once you start changing the rules as the majority — the Founders were terrified of the tyranny of the majority.  One of the reasons that the Senate was structured and founded the way it is, as opposed to the House, it was designed for gridlock.  It was designed to stop massive new laws being passed and voted on daily.  It was designed to stop the growth of government. 

I Think This Behavior Will Come Back and Bite the Democrats

RUSH: I want to tell you something else.  This is going to incur the wrath of several of my friends who are gonna accuse me of having my head in the sand.  All I can do is share with you what’s in my heart.  This stuff that the Democrats are pulling here, all of it, the filibuster, Obamacare, all of this stuff, I have to tell you, I’m an optimistic person and I have faith, and I may even be a little Pollyannish at times, and I understand that you have to make things happen.  You just can’t sit around and wait for ’em to happen, but I’m telling you, I think all of this is gonna come back and haunt these people.

This is Really Evil Behavior

I think it’s gonna bite them.  They may temporarily get away with some of this stuff, but this is evil stuff that they’re doing.  This is really evil behavior. They’re just making a mockery of the way this country was founded, making a mockery of the Constitution, laughing at spending taxpayer money on their own health care or on vacation trips to the Caribbean with prostitutes and whores that they’re hiring.  And it gets known, they get caught and they don’t care. They just keep doing it.

ObamacareCapitol3RangelCharlie Rangel doesn’t pay his taxes. He’s living a lifestyle of somebody who makes 10 times what he earns, and he gets away with it.  There’s no problem whatsoever.  And if you call him on it, you’re a racist.  And I’m just telling you know, I sit here, the first half hour of this program, if you just look at it in a self-contained way, it’s depressing as hell.  The filibuster alone, 45 Republican votes now don’t matter, and the people who elected those 45 have no voice.  This is not Venezuela.  It’s still the United States of America.

Now, the cut-and-dried, dispassionate way of telling you that, it sounds desperate, it sounds horrible, what are we gonna do?  Especially when we have a party that’s unwilling to fight back.  We have a party that seems more interested in wiping out its own base than taking out their real enemy.  But I still think — and it’s not blind faith.  It’s actually faith in the majority of people in the country.  I still have that.  I know we’re plagued by a bunch of ignorant low-information people that the Democrat Party have created and continue to cultivate.  I understand all that and I know the media is what it is.  I know all that. I just have — call it naivete — I have this sense that justice happens at some point.  It all evens out.

They’re going to pay for this, and I don’t know how, and it may not even be in my lifetime, but they’re not going to get away with this.  They are the majority, they changed the rules whenever they want?  There aren’t any rules.  That can’t go on.  I mean, the country can’t survive as it is.  The Senate cannot function.

ObamacareSocialismdictatorWhen there are no rules whenever whatever Barack Obama and Harry Reid want ’em to be day to day.  You look at public opinion, Democrats are not overwhelmingly popular.  This country’s not in love with these people.  Obamacare’s hated.  Obamacare’s despised.  Obama himself, the bloom is off that rose. 

He is not the messiah any longer.  He is now your standard, ordinary, everyday politician who lies, who breaks promises, who’s in it for himself, who can’t do anything on his own.  He’s not qualified.  All of this is becoming known, sadly, too late.  The media has not been able to protect him from this, ultimately.  They did for a number of years, but this is my point.  For five years, Obama was able to keep the truth about himself hidden.  It’s now out there.

Despite the media, despite every cover-up effort that they have engaged in, despite every ounce of energy they have expended to portray Obama as a messiah, the truth has surfaced.  I understand the linkage that leftists have to the Democrat Party and how they hate us and so forth. I understand all of that, and I know that it’s gonna sound… Because a lot of people on our side are fatalists and a lot of people on our side are trying to make money off the fatalism, to tell you the truth — which is not uncommon, by the way.

People that have financial newsletters will tell you that their subscriptions skyrocket the more they predict a crash.  So there are a lot of people wrapped up in negativity and trying to profit from it.  I understand all that, and there are a lot of people who have given up, and there are a lot of people who think there’s no recovering from this, and that may be.  I am just telling you that I have faith. I can’t even tell you why I’ve got the faith, other than I have faith in the country. I have faith in the people that live here.

I have faith in the people who actually make this country work — and in my life, in a personal sense, people who have behaved in reprehensible ways have always gotten theirs. At some point, somehow.  Not that I ever had anything to do with it.  It just happens.  Now, bad things happen to good people, too.  I don’t want, in any way here, to be thought naive.  But I have faith, folks. I have faith in this.  This is so evil and reprehensible, what is happening here, and there’s not ultimately going to be a reward for it.

Just mark my words.  People engaging in all this are going to pay a massive price someday.  I don’t know how or when, but I know human nature — and I also know that no matter what they do, the left, and no matter how much they win, they’re never going to be happy.  They’re never satisfied.  They could get everything in the world they want and they would not be happy.  If they were able to totally exterminate every single person who opposed them, they still wouldn’t be happy.  They’re not capable of it.  They’ll never be satisfied.

CALLER:  I wonder how much of that is even being helped by, you know, Colonel Allen West and Dr. Carson in not being afraid to speak out, either.  I mean, perhaps, you know, having eloquent gentlemen like them speaking out against it, and the race card really can’t be pulled on them, although they try —

RUSH:  Oh, but it is.

CALLER:  — to encourage people.  I know.  They keep getting called racists as well.  But neither one —

RUSH:  No.  They’re called Uncle Toms and traitors and — —

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  — the IRS was sicked on Dr. Carson.

CALLER:  Oh, absolutely, I heard that.

RUSH:  And they took Allen West out. They’ve found some way to get him out of office.

CALLER:  But these two gentlemen still have the strength of character to not be afraid.  They still stand up every day.  I’m so encouraged by their courage that it helps me to get up every day just to hear that —

RUSH:  Oh, okay, I misunderstood what you were saying.  I thought you were asking them to speak up.

CALLER:  No, they do, and I think that is courageous.

RUSH:  It is.  There’s no question.  But a lot of people have been speaking up for five years, not many, but a lot of people have, and look what happens to ’em.

CALLER:  I know.  I know.  But every day more and more folks are standing up and I think now that even Hollywood is starting to get on ’em a little bit. Keep doing what you do, Rush, because perhaps the tide is beginning it turn.

RUSH:  Well, it’s like I said earlier.  And I know this sounds kind of dissatisfying and empty because I can’t provide any specifics, and I admit that this is rooted in faith.  I have no problem admitting that.  I’m gonna sound like a first-grader in civics class here, folks, but I really do,

I believe bad people end up getting theirs in the end.  I just do.  Some seem to always get away with it, but most don’t, and I don’t know when are how, but this is not gonna be ultimately rewarded. 

History: Kennedy and Liberal Fiction

Fiction: Liberals Rewrite History to Blame Dallas and Conservatives for JFK Assassination

Rush Limbaugh

kennedydallasRUSH: A little pop quiz. What do you call a politician who is pro-life? What do you call a politician who is for lower taxes? What do you call a politician who is for a strong national defense? What do you call a president who is a proud nationalist, proud to be an American? What do you call that person?

That is John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That is who JFK was. And that is the second attempted Drive-By Media Democrat Party distraction today. Although there’s a little bit more justification for spending time on the 50th anniversary of that assassination than there is on this nuclear option business. Let me tell you how ridiculous this is getting. You and I all know, Warren report, whatever, we all know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. (interruption) I know. I can hear right now people throwing things at the radio, shouting things at the radio. We know that Lee Harvey Oswald fired on the president, okay? We know this, and we know what about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist. We know that a leftist, a communist assassinated JFK. That is the official Warren report conclusion. And yet the media cannot let go of the fact that because there were a lot of white Republican businessmen in Dallas, that it was a climate of hate, a climate of fear, a climate of extremism in Dallas that led to Kennedy’s death. Every conspiracy theory that you have heard that makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin was started by the Democrats. Every one.

You go back and look at these wacko movies that they made with all the focus in New Orleans and you will find wacko leftist filmmakers who started all of these conspiracy theories. And the reason why is that the Democrat Party and the American left at the time were flabbergasted. They were shocked. They were stunned. They were just in a state of massive disbelief. At the time, ladies and gentlemen — I can show you the documentation — at the time the Democrat Party and the American left, just like today, felt that the right wing, people like Reagan and Goldwater, posed a much greater threat to America than Soviet or ChiCom communism. There’s no mistake about it. It’s not arguable.

That’s why they were so discombobulated over the fact that a communist killed JFK, a communist killed and wiped out Camelot, which, by the way, didn’t even exist while Kennedy was alive. Camelot was created as a massive public relations scheme by Jackie O. Well, she wasn’t Jackie O yet. She was still Jackie Kennedy. Massive PR scheme. Last night, I think it was last night. Maybe it hasn’t aired. I read a little blurb promoting a piece that Bob Costas is doing on some NBC cable network on the Kennedy assassination and what it was like to be a member of the Dallas Cowboys that year. The shame, the embarrassment of being from Dallas.

And the blurb on this program — now, get this — the blurb on this program that I read said that one of the Cowboys from that year, 1963, to be interviewed by Bob Costas on the NBC cable special was tight end Pettis Norman, and in the blurb that I read promoting this Bob Costas show on NBC, some cable network, Pettis Norman is quoted as saying, “We were all worried that some right-winger was gonna kill the president.” Really? We’re being asked to believe that the Dallas Cowboys had a player or players prior to Kennedy’s trip to Dallas that were worried the right wing was going to assassinate JFK? The blurb that I read — and I’ve not seen the show. I don’t know where to find this cable network. I haven’t looked very hard, but some of you may have seen the show. The blurb that I read said that Pettis Norman, a receiver for the Cowboys, actually said this.

That’s an example of how just off the rails this is, and the attempt to totally change the narrative. Folks, a right-winger didn’t kill Kennedy! A right-winger didn’t even get a gun and get camped out to kill Kennedy. A left-winger, a communist, killed President Kennedy. And the left still can’t accept that. They still have to indict Dallas, the Dallas of the day. (interruption) Even though who was from New Orleans? Well, Oswald, he was from New Orleans but he lived in Dallas. But he was from Moscow! Oswald was from Moscow.

He came back from Moscow, from Soviet-sponsored training for this. He was working with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I mean, really on a sports show? You know, the Cowboys went into Cleveland and played the Cleveland Browns. What they’re also trying to do is history revision. Every sports network and website is now saying that that weekend is the darkest weekend in the history of the NFL, because Alvin “Pete” Rozelle, the commissioner of the day, made the decision to play the games.

Now everybody still alive that was in the NFL in those days is now saying, “We now Pete not to do it. We told Pete not to play the games. Nobody wants to play,” and Pete Rozelle was on an island, apparently, that weekend. He was the only guy now that wanted to play. I mean, this is revisionist history. This is just over the top. I don’t know Pettis Norman, and I firmly believe that the media can create people thinking this kind of thing.

I’m sure Pettis Norman, if he says, “Yeah, we were worried some right-winger was gonna come in and kill Kennedy,” that’s probably the result of the media since the assassination that has put the notion in everybody’s mind that Dallas was a hotbed of what? Right-wing assassins! I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe in the Cowboys locker room that week were all worried that Kennedy was coming to town and some right-winger’s gonna kill him.

But that is what he’s quoted as saying — and he apparently does say it, so who am I? It’s just out of this world. Kennedy was not assassinated by anybody right winger from Dallas. These conspiracy theories — many of them, I kid you not. Soviet specialists who’ve analyzed a lot of these have concluded that the KGB funded a lot of the conspiracy theories. You remember one of the great conspiracy theories — I say “great,” but one — was by a guy named Mark Lane.

He was probably the first conspiracy theorist funded by the KGB, whether he knew it or not. Mark Lane wrote the first conspiracy book on the Kennedy assassin. It was called Rush to Judgment. That’s before anybody knew who I was. That’s a sign of the power I was yet to acquire. Rush to Judgment. It was the first to attack the Warren Commission. It came out before the Warren Commission Report. Lee Harvey Oswald lived in Dallas for a few months, all told.

He was from Moscow by way of New Orleans, and according to former KGB officer Vasili Mitrokhin in his 1990 book The Sword and the Shield, the KGB helped finance Mark Lane’s research on Rush to Judgment without Mark Lane’s knowledge. The KGB allegedly used an intermediary, a friend of Lane who was a KGB contact. I mean, all of this conspiracy crap back then was leftist conjured. The conspiracies were of leftists.

The real conspiracies that held water were that leftists had permeated, communists had infiltrated the US government. Yet the history revision is just amazing. It’s a great illustration of how the media gets on to something and it becomes a project, if you will, and they don’t let go of it, and the project is somehow to make everybody think that, “Yeah, Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger, but that doesn’t matter. Dallas did it!

“H. L. Hunt — you know, all these rich industrialists in Dallas, these rich Republican guys, friends of Joe McCarthy! Dallas was a hotbed of right-wing extremism.” I have a New York Times story from yesterday, written by a guy named Manny Fernandez. Now, I don’t know, but I’m gonna guess that Manny Fernandez wasn’t even alive during the Kennedy assassination. “Dallas — When President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade left the airport here shortly before noon on Nov. 22, 1963, the man seated in the lead car was the county sheriff, Bill Decker, 65, a storied Texas lawman who led the hunt for Bonnie and Clyde.

“Fifty years later, the badge belongs to Lupe Valdez, 66, the daughter of Mexican migrant farmworkers. She is the only sheriff in America who is an openly gay Hispanic woman. Voters re-elected Sheriff Valdez, a Democrat, to a third term last year.” What in the name of Sam Hill does that have to do with the Kennedy assassination? That the old sheriff is some beat up, broken down right-winger by the name of Bill Decker and that the current sheriff is Lupe Valdez, the daughter of Mexican migrants?

This is designed to show how enlightened Texas has become. This is designed to show how modern Texas is. This opening paragraph is designed to show how backwards Texas was. Yeah, there was 65-year-old broken down, gun-slinging, longtime sheriff named Decker who brought down Bonnie and Clyde, but now somebody who really knows their business — Lupe Valdez, the daughter of migrant Mexican farm workers who’s gay and Hispanic — is there.

“Dealey Plaza — where the darkest day in Dallas history unfolded 40 minutes after the motorcade began — looks eerily similar to what it was then, the sixth-floor corner window of the former Texas School Book Depository still cracked open slightly. But Dallas itself is almost as different as Bill Decker is from Lupe Valdez.” Lupe Valdez, by the way, is not related to Juan Valdez of Folger’s Coffee fame. Juan Valdez might just be a made-up figure.

“And the tension between past and present has unleashed a wave of citywide self-reflection a half-century later in a distinctly American place that is part Dallas Cowboys, part Texas excess and part urban melting pot, where the public school students come from homes where 70 languages are spoken. Painful, embarrassing memories of the angry anti-Washington culture that flourished here 50 years ago — and now seems a permanent part of the national mood — have resurfaced, confronting Dallasites daily.”

This is absolute BS.

This is absolute, 100% hogwash.

So you see how they’re continuing here to try to portray Dallas as responsible then, and it’s still nothing to write home about. But then there is this: “In 1963, Dallas was the 14th-largest city in the country, with a majority-white population of nearly 700,000, a provincial place whose mostly white, mostly male establishment set the agenda.” That sounds exactly like the New York Times today, to me! It has a majority white population, provincial place, mostly white, mostly male establishment sets the agenda. Mr. Fernandez, in describing Dallas, has also described the New York Times.

RUSH: Pettis Norman, the Dallas Cowboys, says the team was very, very worried that some stupid conservative right-winger was gonna kill the president when he came to town. I guarantee you, before this all said and done, it was the Tea Party that did it. Before it’s all said and done, before they finish with this, the Tea Party will actually be said to have had its roots in Dallas in 1963 and that the madcap, extremist, right-wing lunaticism is actually the spawning place of the modern day Tea Party.

Don’t doubt me.

Look, even when I make jokes about these people I end up being right about ’em, so don’t discount that.

Obama Health Insurance Death Panel vs. American Citizen

The Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived

obamapinocchioObama promised over and over that People could Keep their Doctors. The Truth Is …He Lied.

What Happens when People Start Dying Because They Can’t Get Health Care? What Have We Become?

Jane asks the President if her 100 year old mother (now 105) would have gotten a pacemaker under his plan. Well now that’s a tough one … that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill. Priceless.

Obama’s answer: Just Take a Pill—See video

“This is becoming so ridiculous, that even the biggest liar can’t top himself,” Mason, 82, told host Aaron Klein on WABC in New York City. “He looks at you straight in the face, and tells you that if you want your plan, you got your plan, you keep your plan. Now, a month-and-a-half later, you got no plan, you lost your plan, and he tells you still got a plan.”

The stand-up comic, who calls himself “The Ultimate Jew,” continued on Obama: “He has a whole country walking around dizzy wondering who we’re listening to. If this is a president of a country, how come he’s the only one in America who doesn’t seem to know what’s going on here?

“Never did I expect a guy like this, the head of a country, to blatantly lie to your face, and then not only lie to your face, then lie about the fact that he never lied. Then lie again about the next lie he told. There used to be a time when you would worship the president, even if you didn’t like him. You knew he told the truth because he’s the president of a country. Now, he’s the only guy in America who would have the nerve to lie this much.

“The latest is that it’s only 5 percent of the people, only 15 [or] 20 million people who are going to lose their plan. …  What if you shoot a guy? He’s only one person out of 300 million. How come it’s in the paper that you shot an innocent person and you go to jail for it? … Since when do you destroy people and it doesn’t count because it’s too small a percentage?” ~Jackie Mason

From Rush Limbaugh

Ninety million that are not working, and over there is the individual mandate that requires them to get insurance. However, over there is a little piece of the law that says the IRS can’t collect money unless you have a refund coming. So there really isn’t a mandate, but they don’t want anybody to know that. So the bottom line is, folks, if you don’t have insurance, it means you don’t have an employer plan. If you’re without insurance right now, that’s what it means. So the only option you have is an individual plan, and that’s what people are encountering.

All of these horrors stories of premiums going up and deductibles going up, out of pocket going up. Those are individuals trying to follow the law, and they are finding that they can’t afford it, because Obamacare is destroying the individual insurance market, not the evil insurance companies. They simply are complying with the law as well.

Cancer Patient Can’t Keep Plan or Doctor

obamacaresocialismAn example. Wall Street Journal by Edie Littlefield Sundby. “You Also Can’t Keep Your Doctor.” And this tells the story. And, by the way, do you know what this story is? This is the story that Sarah Palin told us all those months ago about death panels, and people laughed. People started insulting her, laughing at her, impugning her. People started saying, “There she goes again. This absolute lunatic broad doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” And she nailed it.

If this isn’t a quasi-death panel, I don’t know what is. This article is a gut punch to Obamacare. “I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I’ll live,” by Edie Littlefield Sundby. “Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

“My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

“My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits. Countless hours –” and this, by the way, this describes so many people. “Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don’t have a clue how to best proceed.”

She says that her grievance isn’t political. It is. She just doesn’t know it. That’s another story, though, and I will leave it aside for the moment.

“Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University’s Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

“Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers. But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.”

“The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October. You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan — a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage.”

We talked about this last week. You go to the Cleveland Clinic, and if one doctor there is out-of-network, meaning not covered by Obamacare, you could end up going bankrupt. And this is what Edie Littlefield Sundby found out. “Anthem EPO, exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage.” So the doctors and everybody that she was using to treat her stage-4 gallbladder cancer are not in this network. She doesn’t get to keep her plan. She doesn’t get to keep her doctors.

She says, “So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive — but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are. Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.”

Did you know that? Before Obamacare, “health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.” Well, Stanford and San Diego are not in the same county in California. Then she writes, “What happened to the president’s promise, ‘You can keep your health plan’? Or to the promise that ‘You can keep your doctor’? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician. For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.”

Hello, Sarah Palin!

Hello, death panels!

And may I make one more point here, folks? Yes, I can, because this is my show. I want to take you back (I don’t need the audio, Cookie) to that ABC primetime special. A woman stood up — I’ve never forgotten this, and I never will — and asked the president of the United States if her 93-year-old mother could get a pacemaker because of her will to live, her spirit. Obama said, “Nah, we can’t calculate spirit and will to live into these kinds of decisions.

“At some point we’re all gonna have to realize that maybe the answer is give them a pain pill and forgo any more surgery and just ease them for the rest of their lives.” And that’s what Edie Sundby is facing. She may as well have been told that. She can’t keep her doctor, a specialized oncologist. She’s faced stage-four gallbladder cancer, and can’t keep her insurance, all because of Obamacare.

The private insurance market policy that she has is gone. It’s not permitted anymore. She’s gotta go through an exchange, and the exchange can’t help her. Whatever replaces what she’s got is far more expensive than she can afford. It’s not coordinated. She doesn’t get to keep her doctor. There’s another similar story to this from Seattle that I’ve got backing this one up. It sounds like Edie Littlefield Sundby wants to live.

It sounds to me like she has no desire to give up.

But Obama once told a woman asking about her mother getting a pacemaker operation, “Well, no. We can’t factor those kinds of things into our medical decisions — will to live, the spirit. No, we got to maybe just give ’em a pill.” So Ted Cruz: Validated, right on the money. Sarah Palin: Validated, right on the money. Barack Obama: Discredited like no president in my lifetime, including Nixon. This is huge, folks. This is absolutely huge. Do you realize all of these people reelected Obama on the basis of these two promises?

That’s how much they meant to them.

RUSH: The companion story to Edie Sundby in the Wall Street Journal is in the Seattle Times. “Canceled Health Insurance Plans Add to Angst at Change,” and it’s about a guy named Bill Fullner, who’s reached his breaking point, and here’s the pull quote. “‘This whole experience has converted a lifelong Democrat into a foot soldier for the Republican Party,’ Fullner said.” This guy has had it. He bought it. He bought Obama’s promise. A lot of people did. A lot of people did.

Obama Health Insurance: More Harm than Good

Fallout on Obamacare: Ending the Shutdown notwithstanding, everyone from all walks of life is finding that government-run health insurance is more about lies, corruption and abuse; more about harm than good. It is still socialism, still robs people of their liberty.

 

Senator Ted Cruz has the courage to spell it out.

obamacaresocialismCRUZ:  The deal that has been cut provides no relief to all the young people coming out of school who can’t find a job because of Obamacare.  It provides no relief to all the single parents who have been forced into part-time work, struggling to feed their kids on 29 hours a week.  It provides no relief to all the hardworking families who are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and it provides no relief to all the seniors, to all the people with disabilities who are right now –

CRUZ:  — getting in the mail notifications from their health insurance companies that they’re losing their health insurance because of Obamacare.

CRUZ:  It is my understanding from leadership, it is likely to occur today.  I have no objections to the timing of this vote.  And the reason is simple: There’s nothing to be gained from delaying this vote one day or two days.  The outcome will be the same.  Every Senator, every member of the House is gonna have to make a decision where he or she stands. But there’s no benefit, I’ve never had any intention of delaying the timing of this vote.

CRUZ:  Fifteen thousand UPS employees got a notification in the mail that they were losing spousal coverage, that their husbands and wives were all losing the health insurance that they wanted and they like.  That is happening all over the country.  It’s wrong.  And the focus in my view should not be on the politics of Washington.  The politics of Washington at the end of the day doesn’t matter.  What the focus should be is on making Washington, DC, listen to the American people and respond to the very real harms that Obamacare is causing to millions of people.

RUSH Limbaugh: The Democrat Party and their buds in the media have lied to the American people about Obamacare.  They have purposely kept from them the truth about it, and they are going to learn the truth simply by living their lives and doing what the law requires them to do.  They are going to learn the truth about it from the actual interaction with it, not from hearing somebody tell them about it that they might not believe.

They’re going to encounter the truth by actually coming into contact with it. It’s already starting to happen, and there’s gonna be a price to pay for this, for Obama and his buddies in the Democrats.  I don’t pretend to know what the price is.  But there’s gonna be a price.  They have totally misled people. They’ve totally lied.  They didn’t vet this bill just like they didn’t vet Obama.  They have purposely lied!  People in the media have purposely misled people about what this health care reform bill is.

They have been told it’s free or it’s cheap, that the cost takes $2500 off your premium, that the uninsured are gonna be covered and that everybody’s gonna get treatment, and none of that is true for anywhere near a majority of the people.