Wisdom From Ayn Rand-UPDATED AND BUMPED

I originally posted this Sunday, October 8, 2007. I posted originally because a passage (quoted below) “spoke” to me about how things are going today, particularly with the islam attitude toward the Great Satan (America) and how the dems are becoming more and more communistic in their attitude.

I had no idea today was the publishing anniversary of this work.

I also got some comments calling me delusional because I didn’t interpret the book the way the commenter thought I should interpret it.

Here’s the comment:

It’s clear that your attempt to use Ayn Rand’s work as an analogy to illustrate and substantiate your beliefs is extremely misguided.

Although you acknowledge that the book must be “read and absorbed, thought about and ruminated upon,” it’s clear you have not been doing that. The use of that ‘conditional’ passage beginning with “If” means that you absurdly contend that Muslims can survive only by destroying all non-Muslims! Either your reading ability is extremely deficient, or your belief system is so extreme you’ve become delusional and are no longer able to differentiate your delusion from reality.

It’s also clear that you have little or no knowledge of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and what she stood for. Ayn Rand opposed US involvement in every war of the 20th century; WWI, WWII, Korean War, and Viet Nam. Since her views, especially about war and religion, are in such direct conflict with those you advocate on your website, it makes no sense that you would associate your views with anything from her.

It seems you were just trying to impress others by saying you were reading the book of a famous, though dubious, intellectual. However, you should not even attempt to do that unless you really understand the material and the person that wrote it. Ayn Rand actually wrote about her views on what is true knowledge and understanding; when the truth of a subject and one’s belief about that subject overlap. You would be doing yourself a great service by working on that problem so you can become more objective and less delusional.

This commenter likes to post on Real Clear Politics, using “text message shorthand”. He got a tad irritated with me and decided to try to post something on RCP intended to denigrate me–however, when one clicked on the link for the article, it went directly to the Wikipedia entry on Ayn Rand. Real original, huh?

The purpose of thought provoking literature is it touches something in each person–no one person is going to have the same interpretation of it. To attempt to slam someone for their personal interpretation, including name calling, is outright childish.

I don’t agree with everything Ayn Rand stood for. What I do know about her is this–her formative years were spent in Russia during Russia’s upheaval from a monarchy to communism. She was definitely a product of her time and yet–she was also in her own way a revolutionary. The fact she was a woman living life according to her terms, with no apologies to anyone, during the time period she lived, was remarkable. She was indeed true to herself.

To even get your head around her literature you have to have some inkling of the woman and her background. Not an easy thing to get your head around, particularly in a country where freedom is taken for granted.

Her works are visionary and sometimes frightening. We often hear about Orwell’s 1984. Yes, I’ve read 1984 as well. I found Rand’s “Anthem” infinitely more chilling. And yet, how often do we hear something called “Randian” instead of “Orwellian”?

I often bemoan the fact her works are not required reading in high schools. They are timeless and they offer much for classroom discussion. They offer a point of view not often so starkly presented. I would much rather have studied her works than Lysistrata or Dante’s Divine Comedy (yes, those were on my high school reading list–of course, I was an honors student and Cliff Notes were forbidden). It would be wonderful to balance out the Greek classics with American classics such as this.

I’m still getting through this tome, and as I find passages I think are relevant, I will continue to post on them.

In the meantime, perhaps it would be prudent to take a look at your bookshelves and reading lists. Maybe, if you’ve already read Miss Rand’s works, you might wish to revisit them–particularly in this election cycle. If you’ve never read them, maybe it’s time to start–and give yourself plenty of time. There are too many layers to read these through quickly.

Who would have thought a book written by a woman in 1957, a communist/atheist woman who followed her own drum, during a time of McCarthy, would produce something so timeless? Something still giving insight and food for thought, 50 years later?

To still be able to challenge people to think for themselves? What better legacy can one leave behind?

My friend Spree over at Wake Up America asked me a few months ago if I had ever read “Atlas Shrugged”. I hadn’t, although it has been on my reading list for years. I HAVE read “Anthem”, and found it to be not only a quick read, but very thought provoking, even after having read the last line over 20 years ago.

I haven’t had much time for personal reading lately; I’ve been in a very intense study group. I have a break until after Halloween; then I have to hit the textbooks again. So thought I would FINALLY read “Atlas Shrugged”.

While it “reads” quickly, it’s not a book one can whiz through. It has to be read and absorbed, thought about and ruminated upon.

One passage today stood out. To me, it illustrates exactly the divide between those that recognize the true nature of the islam tide and the fact they mean EXACTLY what they say they mean regarding the annihilation of Israel and the United States–and eventually world domination under sharia law and those that want to pander to our enemies, trying to “negotiate” and use “diplomacy” with them (Read: the right who fully supports our troops, their mission and the fact our troops are protecting us HERE by fighting them THERE and the left who hasn’t got a clue, preferring to live in a fantasy world with purple skies and cotton candy colored clouds).

The passage in question takes place between Dagny Taggert, Operations Manager of the Taggert Transcontinental Railroad and Dan Conway, owner of the Phoenix-Durango line, immediately after the National Alliance of Railroads has voted to abide by the “Anti-dog-eat-dog” legislation in which Dan Conway will be “punished” for being successful where the other lines are NOT succeeding.

Dagny’s brother James is a major proponent of the “common good”–and everyone has to work together with some being sacrificed–punished–along the way for being successful. Sound familiar? Think Hillary’s quote:

Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. [Emphasis mine]

And:

The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence! [Emphasis mine]

We are RIGHT THERE in this election and with the left’s ideas toward socialism.

Here is the relevant passage:

“If the rest of them can survive only by destroying us, then why should we wish them to survive? Nothing can make self-immolation proper. Nothing can give them the right to turn men into sacrificial animals. Nothing can make it moral to destroy the best. One can’t be punished for being good. One can’t be penalized for ability. If that is right, then we’d better start slaughtering one another, because there isn’t any right at all in the world!”

That about sums it up. We ARE on the road described in “Atlas Shrugged”. The real question is, of course, how many people are going to recognize it and fight it and how many are going to follow along the left’s path to the slaughter?

American Family Association ("AFA") Alert: Religious Words Such as God, Lord BANNED by Architect of the U.S Capitol


The Architect of the Capitol is responsible to the United States Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United States Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.

Currently, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, AOC’s Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, in accordance with P.L. 108-7, is serving as Acting Architect of the Capitol until a new Architect is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The above definition of the position and current position holder of Architect of the U.S. Capitol can be found here.

Someone please tell me where it states this position has the authority to eliminate religious terms, without vetting, and simply on his “views”? Yet–that is exactly what he’s done regarding certificates of authenticity for flags flown over the Capitol.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Who gave him this authority? Who ok’d this?

Were it not for AFA, I never would have known about this–would you? With that in mind, I’m printing the entire email I received from AFA:

-

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol

Contact your congressman and senators today!

Dear [Redacted],

According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation’s legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: “under God” in the pledge, “God bless you,” or “in the year of our Lord, 2007.” Never before has this official prohibition been leveled.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed.

The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office.

Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran’s 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: “This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot — to love God, family, and country. We love you!”

When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times).

Take Action! Forward this to your family and friends.

- - - -
- -

Take Action

  • Send an e-mail to your representative and two senators. Ask them to put a stop to this nonsense. A low-level employee should not have the authority to ban the use of religious words.
  • Forward this to your family and friends and ask them to send an e-mail to their representatives and senators.
-
-


If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please consider making a donation to help us continue?

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

*********************

Here is the article referencing Capitol Flag Policy in the above alert:

Article published Oct 6, 2007
Capitol flag policy assailed

October 6, 2007

By Audrey Hudson –

A group of Republican lawmakers is demanding the architect of the U.S. Capitol reverse a policy that bans the use of the word “God” on flag certificates sent to constituents.

Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio said one of his constituents, Paul Larochelle, recently requested to receive a flag that had flown over the Capitol. Mr. Larochelle’s son had hoped to present the flag and the accompanying certificate to his grandfather, an Army veteran.

The Larochelles wanted the certificate’s inscription to read, in part: “In honor of my grandfather, Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country and family.” However, when the flag and the certificate arrived at Mr. Turner’s office from the architect of the U.S. Capitol’s office, which handles the Capitol flag program, the word “God” had been eliminated.

Mr. Turner said he requested an explanation from the architect’s office, which cited one of its 14 Flag Office Services rules. The rule states, “… religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates.”

Mr. Turner — along with fellow Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Randy Neugebauer of Texas and Steve Pearce of New Mexico — complained in a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the architect’s office had “informed several congressional offices that the use of the word ‘God’ violates the rule.” [Emphasis mine].

“This is an abuse of power, plain and simple,” Mr. Neugebauer said. “Using the nonpartisan position of maintaining the Capitol to decide what citizens can have written on their flag certificates is unacceptable.”

Stephen T. Ayers has been acting architect of the U.S. Capitol since February, when his predecessor, Alan M. Hantman, retired. Mr. Ayers’ spokeswoman was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The lawmakers are asking Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, to review the authority under which the architect’s office made the rules and that the policy “which censors our citizens’ right to expressions of their faith” be reversed. [Emphasis mine]

They also point out that as the custodian of the Capitol, the architect is responsible for a building inscribed with many religious references, including “In God We Trust” in the House and Senate chambers.

“The architect’s policy is in direct conflict with his charge as well as the scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a building containing many national religious symbols,” the lawmakers stated.

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said a Democratic proposal may help solve the problem. [Emphasis mine]

The proposal would have the architect certify that the flag was flown, and then a member of Congress could add the constituent’s message separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. [Emphasis mine]

“It will be resolved in the near future,” he said.

Lawmakers receive more than 100,000 requests from constituents each year for flags that have flown over the Capitol.

********************
Who wants to lay odds Pelosi’s office won’t do a damn thing? Even her “solution” of flying the flag and later inscribing the certificate with what the constituent wants doesn’t address nor alleviate the fact this non-elected official has taken it upon himself to do as he pleases. She simply wants to allow him to continue to do so rather than order him to follow the rules.

Sign the petition and contact your representatives about this. Just another piece of throwing our values under the bus and play politics for the dems. Disgusting.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

[Update] People were heard and God is once again allowed on the certificates.

American Family Association ("AFA") Alert: Religious Words Such as God, Lord BANNED by Architect of the U.S Capitol


The Architect of the Capitol is responsible to the United States Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United States Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.

Currently, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, AOC’s Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, in accordance with P.L. 108-7, is serving as Acting Architect of the Capitol until a new Architect is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The above definition of the position and current position holder of Architect of the U.S. Capitol can be found here.

Someone please tell me where it states this position has the authority to eliminate religious terms, without vetting, and simply on his “views”? Yet–that is exactly what he’s done regarding certificates of authenticity for flags flown over the Capitol.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Who gave him this authority? Who ok’d this?

Were it not for AFA, I never would have known about this–would you? With that in mind, I’m printing the entire email I received from AFA:

-

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol

Contact your congressman and senators today!

Dear [Redacted],

According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation’s legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: “under God” in the pledge, “God bless you,” or “in the year of our Lord, 2007.” Never before has this official prohibition been leveled.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed.

The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office.

Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran’s 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: “This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot — to love God, family, and country. We love you!”

When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times).

Take Action! Forward this to your family and friends.

- - - -
- -

Take Action

  • Send an e-mail to your representative and two senators. Ask them to put a stop to this nonsense. A low-level employee should not have the authority to ban the use of religious words.
  • Forward this to your family and friends and ask them to send an e-mail to their representatives and senators.
-
-


If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please consider making a donation to help us continue?

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

*********************

Here is the article referencing Capitol Flag Policy in the above alert:

Article published Oct 6, 2007
Capitol flag policy assailed

October 6, 2007

By Audrey Hudson –

A group of Republican lawmakers is demanding the architect of the U.S. Capitol reverse a policy that bans the use of the word “God” on flag certificates sent to constituents.

Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio said one of his constituents, Paul Larochelle, recently requested to receive a flag that had flown over the Capitol. Mr. Larochelle’s son had hoped to present the flag and the accompanying certificate to his grandfather, an Army veteran.

The Larochelles wanted the certificate’s inscription to read, in part: “In honor of my grandfather, Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country and family.” However, when the flag and the certificate arrived at Mr. Turner’s office from the architect of the U.S. Capitol’s office, which handles the Capitol flag program, the word “God” had been eliminated.

Mr. Turner said he requested an explanation from the architect’s office, which cited one of its 14 Flag Office Services rules. The rule states, “… religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates.”

Mr. Turner — along with fellow Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Randy Neugebauer of Texas and Steve Pearce of New Mexico — complained in a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the architect’s office had “informed several congressional offices that the use of the word ‘God’ violates the rule.” [Emphasis mine].

“This is an abuse of power, plain and simple,” Mr. Neugebauer said. “Using the nonpartisan position of maintaining the Capitol to decide what citizens can have written on their flag certificates is unacceptable.”

Stephen T. Ayers has been acting architect of the U.S. Capitol since February, when his predecessor, Alan M. Hantman, retired. Mr. Ayers’ spokeswoman was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The lawmakers are asking Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, to review the authority under which the architect’s office made the rules and that the policy “which censors our citizens’ right to expressions of their faith” be reversed. [Emphasis mine]

They also point out that as the custodian of the Capitol, the architect is responsible for a building inscribed with many religious references, including “In God We Trust” in the House and Senate chambers.

“The architect’s policy is in direct conflict with his charge as well as the scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a building containing many national religious symbols,” the lawmakers stated.

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said a Democratic proposal may help solve the problem. [Emphasis mine]

The proposal would have the architect certify that the flag was flown, and then a member of Congress could add the constituent’s message separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. [Emphasis mine]

“It will be resolved in the near future,” he said.

Lawmakers receive more than 100,000 requests from constituents each year for flags that have flown over the Capitol.

********************
Who wants to lay odds Pelosi’s office won’t do a damn thing? Even her “solution” of flying the flag and later inscribing the certificate with what the constituent wants doesn’t address nor alleviate the fact this non-elected official has taken it upon himself to do as he pleases. She simply wants to allow him to continue to do so rather than order him to follow the rules.

Sign the petition and contact your representatives about this. Just another piece of throwing our values under the bus and play politics for the dems. Disgusting.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

[Update] People were heard and God is once again allowed on the certificates.

Democratic SCHIP Bull…Lies and Distortions


Hat tip to Wake Up America.

I have to admit I haven’t been following this as diligently as perhaps I should have. I do know the bill the dems want will increase my taxes significantly. I also know it’s quite a bastardization, offering healthcare to middle income families and adults, and NOT solely to the poor children, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

Once again, however, the Dems, in their rabid race to once again expose their rampant BDS, have forgotten to fact check their little poster boy, Graeme Frost, the 12-year old injured in a car wreck and helped back to health by CHIP in his home state of Maryland (Baltimore, to be exact). Graeme gave the weekly Democratic Radio Address in response to Bush’s veto.

One of Graeme’s quotes:

“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program. [Emphasis mine]

His entire address can be read here.

Reading his speech makes me want to throw up. There is NO question he and his sister were severely injured in a car wreck. That’s absolutely tragic; there is no dispute about that in any way.

What CAN be disputed is the facts regarding the family’s actual need for CHIP.

The family is not qualified, in general, because it doesn’t meet Federal Poverty Guidelines found here. According to the FPG, a family of six cannot make more than $27, 610. The Frost’s reported income is in the $45,000 range. Dad Halsey owns his own woodworking and design company (“Frostworks”); mom Bonnie works for a medical publishing firm. Prior to working for the medical publishing firm, Bonnie worked for Frostworks as bookkeeper and operations manager. She went to work for the medical publishing firm this year, 2007.

The medical publishing firm doesn’t provide health insurance for its employees. Apparently, Dad, while owning a woodworking and design company, refused to purchase/provide healthcare for himself, his wife and his employees. So, because of Dad’s REFUSAL to provide healthcare, taxpayers like you and I have to pay for his and his family’s healthcare.

Their financial situation is further detailed in other posts; I’ll link them at the bottom, but will round up the facts here in one spot.

The Frosts live in a 3,040 square foot home in an area where a similar end unit (although only 2,060 square feet) sold for $485,000 in March, 2007. They don’t live in the slums, people. The children attend a private school where the tuition runs $20,000 PER CHILD, per year. They own commercial real estate and they recently remodeled their home with expensive upgrades.

Uh huh. Ok.

So, they can afford to remodel their home, live in a home valued in the half million dollar range, send two of their four children to an exclusive private school to the tune of $40,000, own commercial real estate (in which another company may or may not rent space from them)–but they can’t afford healthcare AND THEY ONLY REPORT $45,000 in income.

The math doesn’t add up, for starters. They don’t meet Federal Poverty Guidelines. They CAN AFFORD healthcare but CHOOSE NOT TO purchase it, preferring taxpayers foot the bill for them.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the poster family for SCHIP. This is who Dems use to “prove their point” for the underprivileged who have NO HOPE of affording their own healthcare.

I don’t think so. SCHIP is meant for those who cannot afford any kind of healthcare and are not provided care through their jobs. NOT over-privileged families who can afford it and choose not to provide it to their own families, relying on the government and our tax dollars instead.

President Bush’s speech regarding this issue can be found here.

Text of the SCHIP Bill can be found here.

********************
And here is another article in which the White House sets the record straight regarding Pelosi’s Misrepresentation of SCHIP:

Setting the Record Straight: Speaker Pelosi Misleads on SCHIP
Congress’ Bill Would Expand SCHIP Beyond Poor Children It’s Intended
To Help; Move Children From Private To Government Insurance

“The policies of the government ought to be help poor children and to focus on poor children. … Poor kids first.”
– President George W. Bush, 10/3/07

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrongly stated Congress’ bill is “just enrolling all of the children who are eligible” and not “expanding an eligibility” for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

  • There are hundreds of thousands of children eligible for SCHIP under current law who are not signed up for the program. SCHIP was created to cover children in families with annual incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  • Congress’ bill explicitly rejects a requirement that 95 percent of eligible children from families with incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level must be enrolled in SCHIP before children in higher-income families can be covered.
  • Congress’ bill would also allow SCHIP to cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year – 400 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Speaker Pelosi inaccurately claimed Congress’ bill is “about private medicine.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

  • Under Congress’ plan, one out of every three additional children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private insurance. Of the approximately 6 million enrollees Congress’ legislation would attract by 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 2 million would drop private insurance to enroll.
  • The policies of the government ought to be helping people get private insurance, not Federal coverage. That’s why the President believes strongly in Association Health Plans to help small business owners better afford insurance for their workers and believes we ought to change the Federal tax code to help individuals better afford insurance in the marketplace.

Speaker Pelosi falsely accused the President of “miss[ing] an opportunity to say to the children of America, your health and well-being are important to us.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

  • Today, President Bush reiterated his strong support for SCHIP. THE PRESIDENT: “I strongly support the program. I like the idea of helping those who are poor be able to get health coverage for their children. I supported it as governor, and I support it as President of the United States.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Lancaster Chamber Of Commerce And Industry, Lancaster, PA, 10/3/07)

This year, the Administration will spend about $35.5 billion to provide health insurance for poor children through Medicaid. THE PRESIDENT: “In other words, when they say, ‘Well, poor children aren’t being covered in America,’ if that’s what you’re hearing on your TV screens, I’m telling you there’s $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Lancaster Chamber Of Commerce And Industry, Lancaster, PA, 10/3/07)

********************
People, get your heads in the game on this issue. This is plain and simple the first step towards socialized medicine. Aren’t we taxed enough? Why should we provide healthcare to those that can afford it themselves? Why are they even receiving benefits when they don’t even qualify under the FPG?

“Morally unacceptable” is how the Dems are representing the president for vetoing SCHIP as they presented it (once again, as they waited until the last minute to present it to the president and even with their foreknowledge he would veto it in the form they presented).

However, it’s “morally acceptable” in THEIR eyes to cheat those who truly NEED the bill by parading a family who is far too wealthy to be receiving this care.

Who truly is risking the healthcare needed by the poor?

It’s not the president and it’s not those who voted against this travesty–once again, it’s the Dems, playing a partisan game for politics, parading the wealthy in the guise of the poor, refusing to check facts and attempting to force their socialization on us, the taxpayer.

Others writing about this:
Wake Up America
Don Surber
Brutally Honest
The Corner
Wizbang
The Shotgun Blog
Blue Crab Boulevard
Protein Wisdom

Catch the wave!

Democratic SCHIP Bull…Lies and Distortions


Hat tip to Wake Up America.

I have to admit I haven’t been following this as diligently as perhaps I should have. I do know the bill the dems want will increase my taxes significantly. I also know it’s quite a bastardization, offering healthcare to middle income families and adults, and NOT solely to the poor children, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

Once again, however, the Dems, in their rabid race to once again expose their rampant BDS, have forgotten to fact check their little poster boy, Graeme Frost, the 12-year old injured in a car wreck and helped back to health by CHIP in his home state of Maryland (Baltimore, to be exact). Graeme gave the weekly Democratic Radio Address in response to Bush’s veto.

One of Graeme’s quotes:

“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program. [Emphasis mine]

His entire address can be read here.

Reading his speech makes me want to throw up. There is NO question he and his sister were severely injured in a car wreck. That’s absolutely tragic; there is no dispute about that in any way.

What CAN be disputed is the facts regarding the family’s actual need for CHIP.

The family is not qualified, in general, because it doesn’t meet Federal Poverty Guidelines found here. According to the FPG, a family of six cannot make more than $27, 610. The Frost’s reported income is in the $45,000 range. Dad Halsey owns his own woodworking and design company (“Frostworks”); mom Bonnie works for a medical publishing firm. Prior to working for the medical publishing firm, Bonnie worked for Frostworks as bookkeeper and operations manager. She went to work for the medical publishing firm this year, 2007.

The medical publishing firm doesn’t provide health insurance for its employees. Apparently, Dad, while owning a woodworking and design company, refused to purchase/provide healthcare for himself, his wife and his employees. So, because of Dad’s REFUSAL to provide healthcare, taxpayers like you and I have to pay for his and his family’s healthcare.

Their financial situation is further detailed in other posts; I’ll link them at the bottom, but will round up the facts here in one spot.

The Frosts live in a 3,040 square foot home in an area where a similar end unit (although only 2,060 square feet) sold for $485,000 in March, 2007. They don’t live in the slums, people. The children attend a private school where the tuition runs $20,000 PER CHILD, per year. They own commercial real estate and they recently remodeled their home with expensive upgrades.

Uh huh. Ok.

So, they can afford to remodel their home, live in a home valued in the half million dollar range, send two of their four children to an exclusive private school to the tune of $40,000, own commercial real estate (in which another company may or may not rent space from them)–but they can’t afford healthcare AND THEY ONLY REPORT $45,000 in income.

The math doesn’t add up, for starters. They don’t meet Federal Poverty Guidelines. They CAN AFFORD healthcare but CHOOSE NOT TO purchase it, preferring taxpayers foot the bill for them.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the poster family for SCHIP. This is who Dems use to “prove their point” for the underprivileged who have NO HOPE of affording their own healthcare.

I don’t think so. SCHIP is meant for those who cannot afford any kind of healthcare and are not provided care through their jobs. NOT over-privileged families who can afford it and choose not to provide it to their own families, relying on the government and our tax dollars instead.

President Bush’s speech regarding this issue can be found here.

Text of the SCHIP Bill can be found here.

********************
And here is another article in which the White House sets the record straight regarding Pelosi’s Misrepresentation of SCHIP:

Setting the Record Straight: Speaker Pelosi Misleads on SCHIP
Congress’ Bill Would Expand SCHIP Beyond Poor Children It’s Intended
To Help; Move Children From Private To Government Insurance

“The policies of the government ought to be help poor children and to focus on poor children. … Poor kids first.”
– President George W. Bush, 10/3/07

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrongly stated Congress’ bill is “just enrolling all of the children who are eligible” and not “expanding an eligibility” for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

  • There are hundreds of thousands of children eligible for SCHIP under current law who are not signed up for the program. SCHIP was created to cover children in families with annual incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  • Congress’ bill explicitly rejects a requirement that 95 percent of eligible children from families with incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level must be enrolled in SCHIP before children in higher-income families can be covered.
  • Congress’ bill would also allow SCHIP to cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year – 400 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Speaker Pelosi inaccurately claimed Congress’ bill is “about private medicine.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

  • Under Congress’ plan, one out of every three additional children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private insurance. Of the approximately 6 million enrollees Congress’ legislation would attract by 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 2 million would drop private insurance to enroll.
  • The policies of the government ought to be helping people get private insurance, not Federal coverage. That’s why the President believes strongly in Association Health Plans to help small business owners better afford insurance for their workers and believes we ought to change the Federal tax code to help individuals better afford insurance in the marketplace.

Speaker Pelosi falsely accused the President of “miss[ing] an opportunity to say to the children of America, your health and well-being are important to us.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

  • Today, President Bush reiterated his strong support for SCHIP. THE PRESIDENT: “I strongly support the program. I like the idea of helping those who are poor be able to get health coverage for their children. I supported it as governor, and I support it as President of the United States.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Lancaster Chamber Of Commerce And Industry, Lancaster, PA, 10/3/07)

This year, the Administration will spend about $35.5 billion to provide health insurance for poor children through Medicaid. THE PRESIDENT: “In other words, when they say, ‘Well, poor children aren’t being covered in America,’ if that’s what you’re hearing on your TV screens, I’m telling you there’s $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Lancaster Chamber Of Commerce And Industry, Lancaster, PA, 10/3/07)

********************
People, get your heads in the game on this issue. This is plain and simple the first step towards socialized medicine. Aren’t we taxed enough? Why should we provide healthcare to those that can afford it themselves? Why are they even receiving benefits when they don’t even qualify under the FPG?

“Morally unacceptable” is how the Dems are representing the president for vetoing SCHIP as they presented it (once again, as they waited until the last minute to present it to the president and even with their foreknowledge he would veto it in the form they presented).

However, it’s “morally acceptable” in THEIR eyes to cheat those who truly NEED the bill by parading a family who is far too wealthy to be receiving this care.

Who truly is risking the healthcare needed by the poor?

It’s not the president and it’s not those who voted against this travesty–once again, it’s the Dems, playing a partisan game for politics, parading the wealthy in the guise of the poor, refusing to check facts and attempting to force their socialization on us, the taxpayer.

Others writing about this:
Wake Up America
Don Surber
Brutally Honest
The Corner
Wizbang
The Shotgun Blog
Blue Crab Boulevard
Protein Wisdom

Catch the wave!