Rush Limbaugh: Sad and Disgusting Video

Posted by Tom Sawyer:

This video, which is actually just an audio clip from today's Rush Limbaugh program, pretty much says it all. Here's the video, my comments to follow.



These are the victims of socialism, the dependent class birthed by the Great Society. This is the sad and disgusting fruit of socialism.

It is sad because these people have value, they have something to offer, they have worth to society and have far more potential than they could ever imagine. Yet they have been programmed to believe that they can accomplish nothing on their own, that this is not their fault but rather the fault of an unjust society, and that voting for Democrats, who will in turn give them money, is their only hope. So instead of realizing their God-given potential they just stand around looking for handouts. The government rewards their irresponsible behavior because those who are in government derive power from them.

Here is the message of the liberal, socialist Democrat: "You are incapable of taking care of yourself. You need me. Vote for me and I will supply the needs in your life."

Government has become God to them. They perform the sacraments of voting for big-government socialists and filling out forms. These sacraments procure for them favor and the ability to live irresponsibly. Government becomes almighty and necessary for them to subsist. It is a symbiotic relationship and it is sickening on several different levels.

It is disgusting in that one class of people (the party, the socialists) is subjugating another class of people (the prols, the dependent class). Ironic, is it not, how socialism claims to abhor a class system and yet actively sets one up? Government becomes master while the people become slaves. These people are slaves and they don't even know it. But you can bet their masters in Washington do.

But it is worse than that. It is worse because government here turns these people into monsters who actually demand that they be fed, clothed, taken care of, given money simply because they exist. They offer nothing in return and they are angry when their demands are unmet. And they give not even one thought to where the money comes from.

Not one.

I would like to inform these two individuals who were interviewed by this radio station of a couple of things. First, Barack Obama has not given you any of his own money. Not one penny. The government has not given you any of its own money either for the government has no money. Detroit is in debt. Michigan is in debt. Washington, D.C. is in debt. They have no money. And even if they did have money it would be money that is not rightfully theirs for they would have had to have taken it from someone else--from other people.

But that's not all. The next thing you need to realize is that the money you are receiving is mine. It was taken from me by force. Worse than that, if you want to get more specific, it was taken from my children and grand-children, for it is they and their hard work which will be used to pay back this monstrous debt. So money was taken from us--taken by threat. If we did not give it this government would throw us in jail. We were robbed no differently than a man who holds a gun on a store clerk and demands that a register be emptied into his bag. We were robbed by a thug in the Oval Office and his cartel on Capitol Hill, and it was done for the purpose of keeping you dependent and keeping them in power.

So enjoy your money. I mean, enjoy my money.

Ann Coulter Answers the Infant Mortality Rate Canard

Posted by Tom Sawyer.

To read all of Ann's op-ed pieces go here.

To see this piece in its original location go here.

Ann Coulter: (17) America's low ranking on international comparisons of infant mortality proves other countries' socialist health care systems are better than ours.

America has had a comparatively high infant mortality rate since we've been measuring these things, going back to at least the '20s. This was the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave welfare schemes and all while the U.S. was the wealthiest country on Earth.

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.

Even with a higher-risk population, the alleged differences in infant mortality are negligible. We're talking about 7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the U.S. compared to 5 deaths per 1,000 for Britain and Canada. This is a rounding error -- perhaps literally when you consider that the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.

But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

And of course, in Milan it's not considered living if the baby isn't born within driving distance of the Côte d'Azur.

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

Also contributing to the higher mortality rate of U.S. newborns: Peter Singer lives here.

But members of Congress, such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Jim Moran and John Olver, have all cited the U.S.'s relatively poor ranking in infant mortality among developed nations as proof that our medical care sucks. This is despite the fact that in many countries a baby born the size of Dennis Kucinich would not be considered a live birth.

Apart from the fact that we count -- and try to save -- all our babies, infant mortality is among the worst measures of a nation's medical care because so much of it is tied to lifestyle choices, such as the choice to have children out of wedlock, as teenagers or while addicted to crack.

The main causes of infant mortality -- aside from major birth defects -- are prematurity and low birth-weight. And the main causes of low birth-weight are: smoking, illegitimacy and teenage births. Americans lead most of the developed world in all three categories. Oh, and thank you for that, Britney Spears.

Although we have a lot more low birth-weight and premature babies for both demographic and lifestyle reasons, at-risk newborns are more likely to survive in America than anywhere else in the world. Japan, Norway and the other countries with better infant mortality rates would see them go through the roof if they had to deal with the same pregnancies that American doctors do.

As Nicholas Eberstadt demonstrates in his book "The Tyranny of Numbers: Mismeasurement and Misrule," American hospitals do so well with low birth-weight babies that if Japan had our medical care with their low birth-weight babies, another third of their babies would survive, making it even harder for an American kid to get into MIT.

But I think it's terrific that liberals are finally willing to start looking at outcomes to judge a system. I say we start right away with the public schools!

In international comparisons, American 12th-graders rank in the 14th percentile in math and the 29th percentile in science. The U.S. outperformed only Cyprus and South Africa in general math and science knowledge. Worse, Asian countries didn't participate in the last 12th-grade assessment tests.

Imagine how much worse our public schools would look -- assuming that were possible -- if we allowed other countries to exclude one-half of their worst performers!

That's exactly what liberals are doing when they tout America's rotten infant mortality rate compared to other countries. They look for any category that makes our medical care look worse than the rest of the world -- and then neglect to tell us that the rest of the world counts our premature and low birth-weight babies as "miscarriages."

As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they're embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?

Don't be discouraged, liberals -- when it comes to utterly frivolous lawsuits against obstetricians presented to illiterate jurors so that John and Elizabeth Edwards can live in an 80-room house, we're still No. 1!

Lemuel Calhoon Nails It Again

Posted by Tom Sawyer

Swinging his rhetorical hammer like a cyber John Henry, our friend Lemuel Calhoon over at Hillbilly White Trash has blasted through the mountainside of healthcare debate misinformation and carved out a tunnel of truth wide enough to drive a train through. The following is an appetizer, but you really ought to go over there and read the whole piece by clicking here.

Lemuel Calhoon:

"This reflects the American free market health care system's commitment to providing the best health care possible rather than the best care possible within budgetary constraints.

This commitment to healing injury curing disease and providing an ever higher quality of life to senior citizens is simply not possible under any system of socialized health care. Without profits to fund research and development what little R&D that occurs is government funded which means that the sought after outcomes (whatever anyone says to the contrary) will be political rather than scientific.

Remember a few years ago when Phillips first began marketing plasma TV's? They had this commercial where some geeky looking teenagers carried a plasma up to their apartment and sat on the couch watching Flipper.

At the time that TV cost more than $20,000.00. I just bought a Samsung 46" LED TV which weighs less, generates far less heat, uses far less power, will last far longer and produces a vastly superior picture for less than a tenth of what those first Phillips plasmas cost.

This is what happens to the prices of goods and services in a free market economy - they become much better and cost much less as time goes by. That this process is not happening to health care costs faster in the United States is due to the distortions in the market caused by government bureaucrats and unscrupulous trial lawyers (like celebrity baby-daddy John Edwards). Remove the dead hand of government and the greedy hand of the tort bar and the health care market in the US would normalize and we would see more rapid advances in technology and reductions in price."

Don't forget to go read all of it.

Faith and Reason

Posted by Friar Rick

I suppose I should say "hello" first and perhaps introduce myself. I'm Rick, friar Rick. I'm not really a friar, though if I were it would likely be after the Augustinian order. Neither am I mendicant in subsistence, but rather am blessed of God through the fruits of my own labors. I also abstain from all forms of celibacy, being happily married and joyfully engaging in those benefits which the Lord has enjoined to that vocation.

The idea connoted, however, by the word "friar," specifically that of spending quality time seeking out the truth in matters of the holy, meditating on them, searching out their intricacies, and passing along what knowledge I attain to others, is an idea that appeals to me and that is why I have chosen my specific and peculiar appendage.

Tom has asked me to contribute to this blog on the subject of Christian apologetics. I have agreed with the caveat that I must be able to inform you that I am no professional, nor any great authority on this subject. I lean heavily on my teachers and they are numerous. They are the experts and I am but a poor reflection of them. However, I will endeavor to post their arguments in as clear and concise a manner as I can and do you the favor of translating them into layman's language. An argument does no one any good if it is either unclear because of technical terms or too uninteresting to endure. Thus I shall attempt to add a little spice to them as well. I will let you be the judge of whether I am successful or not. Enough of me, let's lay a brief foundation.

A favorite canard of the atheist against religion is that religious thought is the antithesis of reason. Here is a pertinent quotation:

"Christian theism must be rejected by any person with even a shred of respect for reason."--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989), 51.

I cannot help but laugh at the blatant irony embodied in such a statement. The ignorance of Christian theology which this and a thousand other similar statements made by atheists demonstrates their total lack of having attempted to learn exactly what Christians believe and why they believe it. It is as if two thousand years of Christian theologians and apologists never existed or if they did none of their writings were ever published. Men of the cloth have been defending their faith against all other belief systems, whether they be pagan, atheistic, or otherwise, since the great Apostle to the Gentiles first took up his pen. And they have been doing so with reason.

So let me assure you now that the Christian faith is a reasonable faith. The God Who Is approaches us through the faculties of reason and offers us a reasonable system of belief for he, himself, is the author of reason and the only perfect practitioner of it.

Faith cannot be the antithesis of reason, for God is not a contradiction, nor does he allow the existence of such in his universe. Everything is ordered, everything is logical, everything is completely whole. God is truth. Therefore truth, being a reflection of him, is owned by him in every way. He never asks us to believe something unreasonable.

It will not be necessary for me to prove this assertion with arguments. I simply state it in the beginning and will endeavor to demonstrate it over time. I will engage atheistic thought on its chosen turf, staking the claim that this turf was never rightfully theirs to begin with, but God's. May God be my help.

A Word About the New Blog

Posted by Tom Sawyer

As Dennis Miller would say, "Let's light this candle."

I have invited a friend or two to join me in this little excursion down Heraclitus's metaphorical river. I hope you will grow to appreciate their navigational skills as much as I do. They each have their peculiar strengths to add and I trust my faith in them is well-placed.

We will not always agree. That's a good thing.

But we mostly agree, and in agreeing we hope to put up a strong front for liberty in the face of impending tyranny, a bulwark of truth amidst a modern promenade of pretense.

We hope to challenge you and do not mind if you try to challenge us. We believe we are ready. Truth has nothing to fear from error and to be challenged can do nothing but serve truth's greater cause.

Montana and Gun Control

From Newsmax.com - (read the whole article.)

HELENA, Mont. -- If Montana has its way in a lawsuit filed Thursday, there will be far less federal gun control in the state.

The state's libertarian streak--which has spawned efforts to buck the federal Real ID Act and sparked widespread contempt for the Patriot Act--is now triggering a fight over whether Montana should have sovereignty over made-in-Montana guns and equipment.

If gun advocates win, the state could decide which rules, if any, would control the manufacturer, sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia. And Montana would be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

"For guns, it means we can make our own in Montana and sell them in Montana as long as they are stamped 'Made in Montana' and don't leave the state," said Gary Marbut, who runs the Montana Shooting Sports Association and is leading the lawsuit. "We will be able to do that without federal regulation, or having the ATF breath down your neck."

The association, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, hopes to ultimately win a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the application and reach of federal rules over state business. The suit is challenging the right of the federal government to oversee gun sales under the guise of interstate commerce regulation.

This is wonderful news. Once upon a time, the federal government did not dare to overstep its bounds and usurp the authority of the individual states, as spelled out in the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then came FDR and the search for a way around the Constitution in order to expand federal power and control everything from Washington D.C. It was found in the interstate commerce clause. This clause was used as a pretext to, in effect, overturn the 10th amendment, make it pointless. Their willing accomplices in the Supreme Court at the time shamelessly aided and abetted them in this virtual coup. The interstate commerce clause has since been the pretext by which the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the individual states in a whole host of areas.

Understand that much of what Washington has done over the last 80 years would have been considered unconstitutional by the framers of the Constitution, and while some of them warned that this sort of thing might eventually happen (the anti-federalists, for example), others of them believed that there were enough safeguards to ensure that it would not (the federalists). All of them would be appalled at what Washington has become.

But the last few months have brought us the rumblings of a coming storm. Some of the states have had enough and are starting to push back. We saw this when a few governors spoke out against the stimulus bill and threatened to turn down funds allocated to their states because of the controlling strings which were attached. Here in Texas we have heard this kind of anti-Washington-control rhetoric from our governor Rick Perry, who is moving swiftly to the right in an attempt to secure the Republican nomination for another term as governor in the face of stiff opposition from Kay Bailey Hutchison. Now we have Montana deliberately pushing back against the machine. It could not come at a better time. Let us hope for the best.

I will keep you posted.

The Future of Health Care?

The Future of Health Care?

Dr. Lemuel Calhoon, magister maximus of Hillbilly White Trash, posted this gem at the end of one of his weekly re-postings of Ann Coulter's op-ed genius. I wanted to bring it here because, well, he is exactly right.

Read it for yourself here, or go there and read it.

Lemuel Calhoon:

"The absolute worst thing about socialized medicine in the US is that it will slow the advancement of of medical science in the whole world to a glacial pace.

Right now the vast majority of new medical techniques, drugs and technology are discovered in the United States. This is because America still has a thriving free market health care system. For-profit companies which develop and manufacture drugs and medical equipment are free to pour their profits into research and development to bring new medications and medical equipment to market. All in pursuit of profit.

Because our doctors are not employees of any kind of National Health Service they are not required to see X number of patients per week and to choose only from a government approved list of treatment options (approved more for reasons of cost than effectiveness). Doctors in the US are free to innovate and experiment.

The fact that in America we attempt to keep our elderly people alive as long as possible and give them the best quality of life possible (in addition to proving our moral superiority to other nations) provides a test bed for methods of managing, treating and even curing chronic conditions which are associated with (but by no means exclusive to) aging. You can see that this is far more conducive to creating an upward spiral of medical knowledge than the "give granny morphine until she stops breathing" approach taken by nations with government run health care.

Let me tell you a true story about Mother Calhoon, who is 76. Earlier this year she broke her leg. In 1950 the doctor would have set the bone and put her leg in a cast. The bone would have taken the better part of a year to heal and would have never been the same. During this time her mobility would have been so severely restricted that she would have not been able to live at home alone. So mom would have gone to a nursing home where she would probably have spent the rest of her life. But the doctor's bill for setting the leg and applying the cast would have only been a few hundred dollars.

Today mom was taken to an excellent hospital where a doctor operated on her leg installing a metal rod to support the bone so that it would not break again. She was given a battery of tests which determined that she had mild osteoporosis and was put on medication to treat the condition. After a few days in the hospital she was sent home where a nurse looked in on her three times a week for the next three months. The cast on her leg was designed to allow her to walk and she was encouraged to do so (with the aid of a walker, then a cane). As time went by she was instructed to put more and more weight on the leg until now, less than a year later, she has no cast and no longer needs walker or cane (unless she is going to walk for more than two miles or so, then she brings along the cane). The cost of the entire episode came to around $40,000.00 - which comes to $4500.00 in 1950 dollars.

Assuming that we do not plunge down Barack Obama's rat hole of socialized medicine and freeze the advancement of medical science what can a 76-year-0ld woman with a broken leg expect in 2050?

With the proviso that no one can predict the future with absolute accuracy I would assume based on current trends in medical science that it would go something like this:

The ambulance brings the patient to the emergency room where a doctor scans her leg building a detailed three dimensional picture of the injury, including damage to tissue and blood vessels caused by the broken bone. The doctor then looks over the computer's recommended course of action and signs off on it. The patient is then sent to surgery where the surgeon adds a few refinements to the computer generated plan.

In the operating room the woman is sedated and her leg is immobilized. A robot surgeon will then set the bone and repair any other damage to the leg - while a human doctor and nurse observe ready to step in if required. The leg will then be placed in a rigid cast and the woman will spend the next few days in a hospital room while bone regenerators heal the fracture.

A few days later she leaves the hospital with her leg as strong or stronger than it was before. While it is impossible to estimate the dollar amount of the bill for this treatment I very much doubt that it will be more, in 1950 dollars, than the 2009 bill. But look at how much better the outcome for the patient!

But what if we adopt Obama's plan for government run health care? What will a 76-year-0ld woman with a broken leg face in 2050?

The doctor will set the bone and put her leg in a cast. The bone will take the better part of a year to heal and will never be the same. During this time her mobility will be so severely restricted that she will not be able to live at home alone. So she will have to go to a nursing home where she will probably spend the rest of her life. But the doctor's bill for setting the leg and applying the cast would have only been a few hundred dollars - in 1950 dollars.

This assumes that the hospital's rationing panel (we won't call it the "death panel") doesn't decide that at her age she (who will never again pay income taxes) simply isn't worth the money to treat. Then she will be put in a bed and given morphine until she stops breathing. The bill for that will be under a hundred bucks.

The problem with a government solution to anything is that government is a piss-poor innovator. Let the government decide that something is so important that the private sector cannot be trusted to run it and whatever "it" is becomes frozen in time. It cannot be otherwise when a powerful entrenched bureaucracy has a massive vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are.

Someone suggested this thought experiment. Imagine that some visionary in government had looked at Henry Ford's Model T and realized how important the automobile would be to America's future. Suppose that this visionary had been able to convince the legislature and the president that the development and manufacture of cars was too important to be left to the profit-seeking private sector.

You don't have to imagine what the result would have been. All you need do is look back to East Germany before the Wall fell and remember how an East German could spend his fifteen years on the waiting list dreaming about what he would do when he took possession of his new Trabant.

Some things are too critically important to be taken out of the hands of the private sector. Our health care is one of them."