The Violence Worker!

I Don't Understand Hillary Care

Hillary wants to force us all to have healthcare.  That isn't made up, it's in the New York Times. 

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse.

Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.

And from her website: 

Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

So at some point, it appears that we will we will be forced into some sort of Government mandated system of healthcare if Hillary has her way. 

I decided that I needed to get better informed about Senator Clinton's plan so that I can make some sort of fair decision based upon facts.  I went to her website and came back with more questions than answers.

I see a lot of things, but I leave with more questions than answers.

I have pretty good health insurance from my employer.  Costs are going through the roof and my employer has decided that they can no longer offer it to me for free.  I now need to contribute.  OK, that's fair.  I have no problem with that.  It's not a huge amount. I'm not going to go through every sentence.  I'm going to highlight the parts that I have questions on.

Let's start, shall we?

The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

OK, Why would I choose a plan similar to Medicare?  Congressional health insurance is probably the Cadillac of health plans.  Why would you choose a broken down jalopy over a Cadillac for the same price - or WOULD it be the same price?

Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

That actually sounds good.  Why don't we do it now?

Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based
on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every
premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

Sounds good, but who will determine prices and how will they do that?

Employers: will help finance the system; large employers will be expected to provide
health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage; small businesses will receive a
tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

Tax credits are nice, but upfront costs are at play here.  At what point does a small employer either let people go, stop hiring or be sent out of business?

Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a
crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and
lower cost. 

How does Government do this?

Hillary says that her plan "saves" $128 Billion. But what does it actually cost after these alleged savings?

Me thinks she isn't going to tell us.

VW

Reason Number 3,690,741 to not vote for John McCain!

From the NYT:

And then he [Bill Clinton] painted this scene: “She and John McCain are very close,” he said. “They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”

If THAT doesn't persuade you to not vote for John McCain in the primaries, nothing will.

VW

The Democrats

I don't have a clue as to why Democrats are excited about any of their candidates.  First of all, they have no experience at running anything at all, let alone a country.  It's kind of like promoting a mid-level staffer to run General Motors.  Who would do that?

All of them say they are after change, but it seems that the only change they are after is what's left of my pay check.  All of them want universal healthcare and you know that isn't gonna come cheap.

Regardless of the creeping socialism they will bring to us, the Democratic line up will all be learning management on-the-job.  Obama hasn't even had a full term in the Senate. Clinton has one full term and a little more.  She also spent some time as First Lady, but I'm not sure that qualifies you for much more than being a tour guide.  Edward's only elected office was one term as a Senator and he was so bad, he couldn't even get re-elected!   All he's ever been outside of that is an ambulance chaser.

You Democrats are excited about these guys?  If I was a Democrat, I'd look at that field and shake my head and ask, is that the best that we can do?  Admittedly, I'm not all that excited about my party's candidates, but at least I'm honest enough to say it.  If you think these guys are the best out there, then you deserve what you get.

VW

Democrat Identity Politics

Listen to this "question" put to the Breck Girl in tonight's Democrat Debate:

This would be the most hilarious moment in Presidential debate history if it wasn't for the fact that these people are deadly serious. Ya know, I almost feel sorry for Edwards. 

Granted, Edwards would make the worst President since Jimmy Carter, but I almost feel sorry for him. I don't know what his answer except that it was most likely couched in his typical smarmy style.  The point is simply that there is no good answer to that kind of question for a Democrat.  He's damned no matter what comes out of his mouth.

May the best man woman African-American victim win!

VW

Hat Tip:  Hot Air

The Hillary Hostage Ordeal

When these kinds of situations come up, I think it's usually a good rule of thumb to let them play out rather than speculate and end up looking like an idiot.

A lot of bloggers were all over this story from the start and speculation ran rampant to some degree.  I didn't check, but I'll bet some lefty blogs were sure it was some right winger and some on the right were wondering if the Hilldebeast and company somehow engineered it to make her look "Presidential".  A pox on both their houses.

Even most of the breaking news stories didn't even have the correct name for the guy so how would a blogger sitting 3000 miles away even have a clue as to motive?

When I first heard that someone walked into a Clinton campaign office, my first thoughts were that it was a nut wanting to cry on Hillary's shoulder.  I told a colleague that the guy is probably demanding healthcare or he will blow himself up to get it.  It was meant as a little humor, but it turns out I wasn't far from the mark. 

Eisenberg wanted to speak to Clinton and even called CNN during the hostage standoff to vent his anger over the lack of proper mental health care. He finally surrendered to a SWAT team at about 6:15 p.m.

Eisenberg is a convicted felon, but is mostly known for being a small timer.  He is mentally ill and was coming off a bender.

Some news outlets are saying the guy was a Libertarian, but I get don't believe it. True Libertarians don't want the Government to have anything to do with providing such things as healthcare.  He might have had a Libertarian bent, but my guess is that he was probably somewhat apolitical.  He had mental issues and is probably quite depressed.  Add copious quantities of alcohol to someone like this and a gasket is bound to blow somewhere, somehow.  This guy strapped some flares to his chest and demanded Hillary listen to his plight.  Instead of some crazy suicide bomber, he turns out to be a somewhat harmless loser with more old issues than the National Geographic.

Hillary and company handled it well.  She did all the right things.  I commend her for it.  With the exception of MoRon Paul or Dennis Kook-cinich, all of the candidates on both sides would have probably handled the situation in a similar fashion.

VW

Snatching Victory From The Jaws Of Defeat

Despite the tremendous media campaign by Democrats and the media themselves, we seem to be winning in Iraq.  Despite the despicable Harry Reid and Jack Murtha, our troops are winning and it is in the New York Times.  This, of course, gives the Democrat defeatist Presidential candidates a huge problem with credibility.

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

I have news for them and you:  Trying to change the subject will not make it go away. 

The first question that must be asked of these folks is this:  "Why should we trust you if you were wrong on Iraq in the first place?"  Let's face it, their predictions and subsequent disparaging of our armed forces is indicative of only one thing.  All they've cared about all along is politics.  Their sole focus was entirely aimed at delegitimizing our strategy and efforts in Iraq.  Their purpose is purely political.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

It's called snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.  If they are trying to shift focus to political gains, then someone needs to tell them that political gains will come as the violence declines.  To pull out now would negate the impetus of the surge and return the country back to the factional fighting of before.  And you want to trust our own security to these people?  LUDICROUS!!!!!!

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

You mean we might just start paying attention to the other ridiculous things they are saying? 

Check out Hillary's idiotic statement:

"Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

"The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks," she said. "We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it."

Like I said, political gains will come as the violence subsides.  There is no civil war.  There is sectarian violence, but there are not huge sections of the country warring against each other.  It's as much a civil war as Northern Ireland was considered a civil war and eventually, even they have figured out how to get along.  Much of the Sectarian Violence has subsided.  What little violence is taking place is mostly the lasts gasps of Al Qaida. 

I think the Democrats may actually face some stiffer competition than they originally imagined if this trend continues.  They may actually have to explain their defeatism and their plans for taking more and more money from working people.

VW

 

 

A School For Elitists

Hillary Clinton wants a new Service Academy.  Similar to the Navy, Army, Coast Guard and USAF academies, this one would train "Public Servants".

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told college Democrats on Saturday she would create a national academy to train public servants.

"I'm going to be asking a new generation to serve," she said. "I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position."

The military academies provide (along with a prestigious degree) specialized training in topics other state and public universities just don't teach.  It's hard to imagine Harvard offering a course in:

• Navy:  EN455 Seakeeping & Maneuvering (3-2-4).    Topics include steering, maneuvering, motion and seakeeping. The basic equations of motion for a maneuvering ship and for ship motions in a seaway are developed, and various methods  of solution are discussed. The course also covers the experimental aspects of seakeeping and maneuvering.
• Army:   MS301 SMALL UNIT LEADERSHIP introduces the Second Class cadet to the Non Commissioned Officer (NCO) Corps and small unit leadership. Cadet Sergeants will reflect on their experiences interacting with NCO's during Cadet Summer Training and analyze the small unit leader’s ability to build team cohesion within these units. Critical to this development of team cohesion is the leader’s role in enforcement of professional and ethical standards in a unit; cadets will study this concept both on and off the battlefield in order to demonstrate the importance of creating the proper environment in which to build a team. In order to apply appropriate team building techniques, the cadet will be introduced to the human dimension of leadership and learn that only a solid understanding of this dimension will allow them to properly lead the Army’s greatest resource: people.
• USAF:  MSS 410. Advanced Studies in Joint and Coalition Operations. This course introduces the cultures, organization, doctrines, and capabilities of all U.S. military services. Discussions also include the National Military Strategy, the organization for National Security, the Unified Command structure, and the critical role of Special Operations Forces. Once this foundation is set, class discussions will center on joint U.S. and coalition operations in specific areas of Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). These areas include, but are not limited to, terrorism, proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), peace operations, humanitarian relief, and stability operations.
• Coast Guard:  2467 – Global Policy Studies: Terrorism This course focuses on introducing cadets to the phenomenon of terrorism, its origins and tactics, and counter-terrorism strategies. It provided cadets with the opportunity to research and write on 20th and 21st Century terrorist movements. Specific attention is focused on distinguishing militant Islamist terror groups from mainstream Islam, and the problems posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the hands of rogue states and terrorist groups.

America does not need some special school to teach "public servants".  We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  We have managed the last 231 years to get along without some special school for would-be elitists.  It's not much of a stretch to imagine that qualified individuals from other sources would be at a disadvantage, not because they weren't able, but because they didn't go to this elitist academy. 

Is this really what we want for ourselves, an elite class of bureaucrats running our lives?

VW

The Emasculation Of The Military

Hillary has a plan for post election Iraq.  Her prediction is that troops will be in Iraq for awhile, but if she is elected, she won't ct and run, but she will more or less surrender.

“It would be far fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.”

Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints.

“We would not be doing patrols,” she added. “We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that’s a smart or achievable mission for American forces.”

Imagine being a soldier and assigned to Iraq.  You are going to pull out of Baghdad to some point north of the city.  You will essentially be assigned to a camp and not allowed out.  It will be too dangerous because you can't shoot back.  You will be subject to rocket and mortar attacks with no authority to rapidly counterstrike and take out those who are attacking you. 

You are there for some vague mission concerning anti-terrorism, but with the constraints placed upon you by your Commanderette-in-Chief^TM, you may as well be standing around waiting for a mortar with your name on it...oh wait, you will be doing that.

You cannot run the military like this.  You cannot emasculate the US Military and expect results.  This comes from Mrs. Clinton's profound distrust misunderstanding and downright hatred of the Armed Forces and their role.

This is why the Hill-da-beast cannot be elected to be our Commanderette-in-Chief^TM.

VW

In To Win

From ABC News:

Jan. 20, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has announced that she is forming an exploratory committee for president, thereby launching a bid to become the first female chief executive of the United States.

"I'm in," she said on a Web site, hillaryclinton.com. "And I'm in to win.

If you didn't know this was coming, you have either been in a coma or you just learned to read.

She was gonna hold off and come in as a savior type, but Obama beat her to the cross.

VW