US Offers Proof of N. Korea's Torpedo Attack on S. Korea's Navy

For those of you who may not know, the North Korean Navy torpedoed a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, back in March of this year. The attack killed 46 sailors and sank the Cheonan. North Korea, following their standard procedure, has denied everything while warning of dire consequences should anyone try to respond to their aggression.

It seems that Hillary Clinton (when was the last time we've heard her name in the news?) is pushing China to accept the fact that North Korea did indeed attack the South Korean vessel.

From the Financial Times article by Christian Oliver via Drudge Report:

"Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, on Wednesday said the US would offer additional briefings and information to China to convince it that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors in March.

"Beijing’s response to the sinking has been guarded and this makes it less likely South Korea will be able to marshal support for tougher sanctions at the United Nations Security Council.

"Mrs Clinton said a 400-page technical report on the sinking by an international team, including experts from the US, led to the 'inescapable' conclusion North Korea was to blame and that action had to be taken. Should the Chinese need more information, she said the US would offer it."

[...]

"She also said the US could take additional measures against Pyongyang but she did not specify what they might be."

Of course everyone knows, including Pyongyang, that Clinton's "additional measures" is a hollow threat. What would be interesting is if China were be moved by the US. China could bring very real pressure on North Korea. If North Korea were to ever lose China's favor, then Pyongyang would collapse within a month or less.

Is China being swayed to bring a little pressure to bear? My bet is no, but there are mixed messages coming out of China. While Bloomberg reports that "China May Shield North Korea" the same article notes: "China has a big stake in stability in Northeast Asia. Japan and South Korea are China’s third- and fourth-biggest trading partners after the European Union and the U.S., with combined two-way trade reaching $485.1 billion in 2009, Chinese customs figures show."

[...]

"China’s two-way trade with North Korea, at $2.7 billion last year, is less than 1 percent of that total, even though the two countries share a 1,415-kilometer (880-mile) border and an alliance going back to China’s 1950 entry into the Korean War."

As America and the EU flounder and look financially weak, China may be forced to look at South Korea and Japan more favorably. Personally, I believe the saber-rattling and brinkmanship that North Korea routinely practices is finally beginning to wear even on the conservatives within the Chinese Communist Party-- especially as China continues to feel the global economic crunch. The US has largely practiced a policy of appeasement and bribery with North Korea and tolerated their brazen aggression for years. South Korea and Japan... not so much. As the US slowly loses financial sway on China, South Korea and Japan may well rise up and have greater political influence on China in the near future.

Obama Quiz: Which One Is the Stiff Action Figure?

You make the call!

More Willful Obama Ignorance: Who Killed Daniel Pearl and Why?

Check out this post by Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit. (h/t Fuzzy at Fuzzy Logic)

While signing the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009, Obama gave this prepared statement:

"All around the world there are enormously courageous journalists and bloggers who, at great risk to themselves, are trying to shine a light on the critical issues that the people of their country face; who are the frontlines against tyranny and oppression. And obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists around the world. What this act does is it sends a strong message from the United States government and from the State Department that we are paying attention to how other governments are operating when it comes to the press. It has the State Department each year chronicling how press freedom is operating as one component of our human rights assessment, but it also looks at countries that are — governments that are specifically condoning or facilitating this kind of press repression, singles them out and subjects them to the gaze of world opinion in ways that I think are extraordinarily important. [emphasis mine]"

What? "Captured the world's imagination"?! Was this some kind of inspiring and uplifting Olympic performance? This is Obama's choice of words?

There's so much wrong with this, not so much the basically toothless Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, but with Obama's statement that I don't know where to begin. Fortunately, Hoft does. Go check out his response, but here are some of Hoft's key points:

"Daniel Pearl was not beheaded because he was a journalist.

"Daniel Pearl was beheaded by Islamic extremists because he was an American and a Jew."

[...]

"After the Islamic radicals murdered Daniel Pearl they released a video of his beheading. This text was included:

"'My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California USA. I come from, uh, on my father’s side the family is Zionist. My father’s Jewish, my mother’s Jewish, I’m Jewish. My family follows Judaism. We’ve made numerous family visits to Israel. Back in the town of Bnei Brak there is a street named after my great grandfather Chaim Pearl who is one of the founders of the town.'

"Obviously, the terrorists were not as concerned about Pearl’s writing as much as his Jewish blood line. But, when you are incapable of understanding who we are fighting and when you are unwilling to utter the words 'Islamic radicalism' then you tend to make these kind of mistakes."

Well put Hoft. Thank you.

Check out Jennifer Rubin's take on Obama's remarks as well, also referenced by Hoft.

Media Matters, Health Rationing, and Support for Infanticide

Check out this article by Ben Domenech at BigGovernment.com.

While defending Donald Berwick from criticism, Media Matters cited Dr. Peter Singer-- a proponent of infanticide. Brilliant guys. Just brilliant...

Dr. Singer wrote this charming sentiment in 1993:

"To take the lives of [self conscious people], without their consent, is to thwart their desires for the future. Killing a snail or a day-old infant does not thwart any desires of this kind, because snails and newborn infants are incapable of such desires."

Kinda cute, huh? I mean equating newborns to snails and all... Oh, and Dr. Singer also had co-written a book published in 1988 called Should the Baby Live? Catchy title, right?

Domenech has other painful Singer quotes. Check out the article.

And let's conclude with Domenech's own observation:

"Just to be clear: Media Matters for America has no problem quoting, in defense of rationing health care, a person who has bluntly advocated the right to kill newborn babies."

I see no problem here. Do you?

UPDATE: For the sake of clarity this background on Dr. Singer via the about the author blurb for Should the Baby Live?

"Peter Singer is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre of Human Bioethics at Monash University in Australia. In addition to his many books on ethics, he has written many articles for The New York Times and The New York Review of Books."

Singer's not a medical doctor. I just want to be clear on that. However, it is to my horror (although not surprise) that he is a professor of philosophy specializing in ethics.

Thai Red Shirts Surrender

This is a story I should've been posting about but, as I said in my last post, I've been frivilously distracted for the past couple of weeks.

From the Damien McElroy and Ian MacKinnon article in the Telegraph:

"Four leaders of the demonstrators who have occupied areas of the capital for weeks were shown on television in police custody.

"Jatuporn Prompan, one of the leaders in custody, had only minutes earlier offered to surrender. 'I apologise to you all but I don't want any more losses. I am devastated too. We will surrender,' he said from a stage in the protest camp.

"The move came after armoured personnel carriers stormed the tyre and bamboo barricades. Many of the protesters fled further within the encampment as the army advanced.

"At least four protesers were killed in the violence, with witnesses describing how one man was shot in the head by troops before being carried away.

"There were also reports that two foreign journalists had been wounded in the fighting, and that one Italian journalist may have died.

[...]

"The demonstrators began the protest in mid-March, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, dissolution of Parliament and immediate elections.

"They created an encampment in Bangkok's posh downtown Rajprasong district in April, surrounding themselves by a barricade of tires and bamboo spears.

"'This is the last push. Looks like the government really wants to end it this time,' said Senator Lertrat Rattanawanit, who had tried to mediate between the two sides. 'They have laid out the steps, giving out deadlines for people to move out and all that. It's a pity that using force is inevitable.'

[...]

"Since 1946, when King Bhumibol Adulyadej took the Thai throne as an 18-year-old, Thailand has seen nine coups and more than 20 prime ministers. Only two of 17 constitutions since absolute monarchy ended in 1932 have mandated parliaments that are entirely elected. The king, who is revered across the nation, has been in hospital since Sept. 19 and hasn't spoken publicly about the current demonstrations.

"Mr Abhisit himself has never won a national election: He was picked by legislators in December 2008 after a court dissolved the pro-Thaksin ruling party for election fraud. The decision coincided with the seizure of Bangkok's airports by protesters wearing yellow shirts who oppose Mr Thaksin."

Sorry For the Lack of Posts Recently

As some of you may know, I went through a minor surgery recently. Although the surgery was minor the results of it have been quite major. For the past several weeks I've been running about frivolously indulging myself with various activities (like exercising and eating non-mush food without pain) that I was previously too unhealthy to do. These happy times have been at the cost of posting on my blog.

I'll get back to it soon. That said, I'm starting the writing of a new book very soon (probably in early June). This time I'll be be backing up my work daily on CDs, a jump drive, and printing up a hard copy every week. I am not losing six months worth of work again. Once I start writing, I'll try to post here once a week, but I tend to cut myself off from the world while I'm writing, so I make no promises about that.

Anyway, I'll be back here almost daily starting next week.

In the meantime, there's a list of great blogs on the left there. Check them out.

Thanks,
Yukio Ngaby

White-Water Rafting with Wife is Part of Fed. Business Trip

From Jake Tapper at ABCNews.com: (h/t Jacobson [once again] at Legal Insurrection)

"Though his agency was charged with coordinating the federal response to the major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Department of the Interior chief of staff Tom Strickland was in the Grand Canyon with his wife last week participating in activities that included white-water rafting, ABC News has learned.

"Other leaders of the Interior Department were focused on the Gulf, joined by other agencies and literally thousands of other employees. But Strickland’s participation in a trip that administration officials insisted was 'work-focused' raised eyebrows among other Obama administration officials and even within even his own department, sources told ABC News.

"Strickland, who also serves as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, was in the Grand Canyon with his wife Beth for a total of three days, including one day of rafting. Beth Strickland paid her own way, Obama administration officials said."

Kinda bad timing there, wasn't it?

The problem is that this sort of junk is business as usual for the feds. People should be upset about this (oil spill or not), but it's likely that all people will do is shake their heads and chalk it up to more government waste.

Hope: 32 Black Americans Running for Congress Under GOP and Tea Party

Check out this interesting article in The New York Times (h/t Jacobson at Legal Insurrection). The article by Jennifer Steinhauer is titled "Black Hopefuls Pick This Year in G.O.P. Races."

From the article:

"Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

[...]

"But now black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.

[...]

"State and national party officials say that this year’s cast of black Republicans is far more experienced than the more fringy players of yore, and include elected officials, former military personnel and candidates who have run before.

"Mr. Parker is the mayor of Paradise Valley, Ariz. Ryan Frazier is a councilman in Aurora, Colo., one of four at-large members who represent the whole city. And Tim Scott is the only black Republican elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives since Reconstruction.

"'These are not just people pulled out of the hole,' said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a black conservative group. That is 'the nice thing about being on this side of history,' he said."

The article makes sure to give Obama a great deal of credit for this development suggesting that his election to president can be used as proof to Republicans that a black man can be elected. And since Obama is considered to be doing such a great job in the constituencies that these men and women wish to represent, that should give them a great boost in their campaigns... right? The fact that the majority of these black candidates did not crawl out of a hole, as Mr. Timothy F. Johnson points out, and came largely from elected positions seems overlooked by Steinhauer.

Still, it is heartening to see this. Black Americans are one of the most tightly regulated groups of any major American demographic (racial or otherwise), constricted by racial peer pressures, self-destructive demands for "authenticity," and the devaluation of individuality for the sake of "community."

While Jacobson correctly notes this as a blow against the Democrats' "race card" strategy, I think the real importance of this is that more and American Blacks are publicly breaking from the black establishment. Even though prominent men such as Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas have been raked over the coals by liberal whites (with suspicious glee) and the black community for years, we're now seeing a surging of conservative Black Americans running for office. Could this be the beginning of a large-scale rejection of peer-pressure conformity? Could this be a rejection of the failed policies hailed under a false clarion call for community?

One can hope.

Health Care "Reform" in the Midst of Epic Fall

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece (h/t Jill at Pundit & Pundette) regarding the health care price control bill being currently debated.

From the op-ed:

"When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will 'lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government.' So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?

"In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are 'unreasonable.' The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn't be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill.

"Some 27 states currently have some form of rate review in the individual and small-business markets, but they generally don't leverage it in a political way because insolvent insurers are expensive for states and bankruptcies limit consumer choices. One exception is Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick is now using this regulatory power to create de facto price controls and assail the state's insurers as cover for the explosive costs resulting from the ObamaCare prototype the Bay State passed in 2006.

"National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they'll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.

"ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these 'benefits,' but they aren't free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.

"In Massachusetts, Mr. Patrick says his price-control sally will be followed by reviewing what doctors and hospitals charge—or in other words for price controls on the medical services that make up most health spending. ObamaCare will gradually move in the same direction."

Price control for medical services? Hmm. This isn't the preventative care fantasy savings that Obama was touting earlier this year. But it get better.

From the same op-ed:

"The official who will preside over this fiscal trainwreck is Donald Berwick, the Harvard professor and chief of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement who the White House has nominated to run Medicare. Dr. Berwick explained in an interview last year that the British National Health Service has 'developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.' He added that 'The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.'

"In fact, the real choice with medical care, as with any good or service, is between rationing via politics and bureaucratic lines or via a competitive market and prices. As Democrats are showing by trying to pass a new insurance bill, they want all U.S. health care to function like price-controlled Medicare. Dr. Berwick's job as the country's largest purchaser of health care will be to find ways to offset the higher insurance and medical costs that ObamaCare's subsidies and mandates will cause, which will inevitably mean political rationing of care."

The good Dr. Berwick seems a little blind to the massive problems Britain's NHS now faces. I've written about the horror show that Britain's NHS has caused in previous posts (found here and here). Their sterling performance at rationing-- er... regulating Britain's health system has included the government's refusal to cover life-saving and prolonging drugs to kidney cancer patients due to cost, the infamous "hospital of death," allowing a man to go blind in one eye until they would cover his disease ("the local Primary Care Trust has told him it will only considering funding in his case once he has gone blind in one eye and developed wet AMD in the other"), the refusal to pay for painkilling injections forcing people "to live in agony," the banning of life prolonging drugs for breast cancder due to cost, and the NHS counseling women to abort their Down's Syndrome babies because they would be a burden on the system ("death panels" anyone?). No, that last one was not made up.

From Britain's The Independent newspaper:

"Yesterday the BBC News website ran a selection of comments on this issue by members of the public. One in particular, by Heather of Livingston, Scotland, is worth reproducing in full here: 'I was told that my daughter had Down's when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and every doctor, gynaecologist I saw tried to convince me a termination was the best option. I was still offered this at 26 weeks! One reason given to me by a cold-hearted consultant was that "these babies put a strain on the NHS". My daughter was stillborn and when pregnant again, I refused all tests apart from a scan. It's not society who are looking for the "perfect baby", it's the medical profession.'"

Lots to admire there, Dr. Berwick... If only we could have this quality of care in the U.S.

But that doesn't stop Dr. Berwick from waxing poetic about Britain's NHS. No sir. Robert M. Goldberg has an interesting piece at American Spectator (h/t Pat at And So it Goes in Shreveport) in which he writes:

"Berwick not only has a role model picked out for a role that sounds a lot like what he would be doing at CMS, he has a soulmate: For the past 15 years he has consulted for -- or, in his words, been 'starry-eyed' over -- Britain's National Health Service. In 2008, at a 60th anniversary celebration of the creation NHS, he told a UK crowd, 'I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.'

"Berwick complained the American health system runs in the 'darkness of private enterprise,' unlike Britain's 'politically accountable system.' The NHS is 'universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care -- a health system that is, at its core, like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just'; America's health system is 'toxic,' 'fragmented,' because of its dependence on consumer choice. He told his UK audience: 'I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.'"

Sounds like a real winner there, huh?

I love that last line. It's up to "leaders" to administer our health care... because they know what's best for us.

Of course what can we all expect from an administration who employs Robert Reich as an economic adviser? As I have posted earlier (back in October), Robert Reich made this wonder comment at UC Berkley: "We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die [emphasis mine]."

Cute, right? And no, these comments were not taken out of context.

Here's the unedited text of the speech from which that snippet was taken:

"I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

"'Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.'

"Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die.'

"Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you.'"

Reich has run about, tripped over his tongue and said by way of explanation that this was a mock exercise about what "truths" political candidates can't say. Reich's own words: "The whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can't state what everyone knows to be the truth because they'll be taken apart by the Right or the Left."

Apparently Reich takes for granted that it is a "truth" that the government will reduce your lifespan, reduce innovation in the medical field, and let the elderly suffer and die for the sake of government budgeting.

So as Berwick romances and professes his "love" for the NHS, and as Reich declares that America will be forced to cut back on medical innovation to the point of reducing lifespans and let the elderly suffer and die, Americans are getting the first real look at the ObamaCare and their administrators (i.e. "leaders" in Berwick's terminology)-- and they're not liking what they see.

UPDATE: And here's something else coming to light-- "A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress."

Read more about it here.

Hope and Change!

Chicago Lawmakers Call on Military to Quell Chicago's Violence

The AP, via The Washington Post is reporting that two Democratic Representatives are calling upon the governor to deploy troops to act as law enforcers in an American city during non-crisis times. Brilliant.

From the AP:

"Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.

"Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops.

"The request comes amid a recent surge in violent crime, including a night last week that saw seven people killed and 18 wounded, mostly by gunfire.

"Fritchey says Chicago has had 113 homicide victims this year. He says the police department has done a commendable job, but its resources are stretched thin.

"Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis says he appreciates the lawmakers' frustration and willingness to help, but doubts the National Guard is the best answer."

So Chicago was in the running for the Olympics, huh?

I can't decide if this is political grandstanding by Fritchey and Ford, or just idiocy.

Maybe both?

Obama Claims his Administration's Success Depends on (Certain) Minority Voters

Ah yes, the great healer of America's racial divides has begun to drive all Americans apart once more. Separate and destroy... divide and conquer. It's all in a day's work for race obsessed political strategists.

According to the Washington Post article by Philip Rucker (h/t Steve Bartin @ Newsalert-- also video of Obama address at Newsalert post) our Divider-in-Chief had this to say about mid-term elections:

"In the video message to his supporters, Obama said his administration's success depends on the outcome of this fall's elections and warned that if Republicans regain control of Congress, they could 'undo all that we have accomplished.'

"'This year, the stakes are higher than ever,' he said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by Democratic officials. 'It will be up to each of you to make sure that young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.'"

Real cute there. The mean, old, white males of the Republicans are out to repeal a tremendously unpopular bill forcing Americans to buy medical insurance (a law that conforms to the economic definition of Fascism) and bring back economic sanity to government, and it's up to to "young people, African Americans, Latinos and women" to save the day. Sarah Palin, Thomas Sowell, and Cubans need not apply I suppose... Besides they're not really a woman, a Black American, and Latinos anyway, right?

What's so interesting to me is the way that Obama so casually divides up America in a public address. I mean, divisiveness has been a point of pride for modern Black American leftists since the '60s and before (any search on the speeches and writings of Ron Karenga [the torturer of women and inventor of Kwanzaa], Reverand Wright [Obama's spiritual mentor until people began to listen to Wright's sermons], Van Jones, Frances Cress Welsing [author of The Isis Papers],etc. will reveal the separatist mentality of this part of the Left), but having a president so wedded to racial division that he openly calls for it to further/save his political agenda is a bit of a novelty for my generation.

Obama's vision of America seems to consist of young people, African Americans, Latinos and women battling old white men (clinging to guns and religion, no doubt) for the furtherance of Leftist ideals. Some Hope and Change, huh?

Personal Update: I'll Be Back in a Week

Hi all. Just dropping in a brief note to say that I'm still alive and haven't forgotten this blog. It's been two weeks since my surgery and I'm feeling pretty decent. I'm still a little weak, and my mind's still a bit dull and distracted. My coordination is still a little off (I'm making a lot of type-os as I write this), but I'm improving steadily.

I cannot tell you how nice it's been to just sit around, sip ginger ale, snack on popsicles and just forget about politics for a while. Well, at least for the last week when the pain subsided.

Reality has this way of intruding no matter where you hide however. I have a number of personal and career issues to get back into a semblance of order before I can settle back into blogging. A week should be enough time, so I'm setting April 21st as my return date.

I'll talk to you all then. Thanks again to all the wishes for a speedy recovery. They're much appreciated.

Talk to you all soon,
Yukio Ngaby

Update: Checking In & Recovering

Just checking in. One week after surgery and found the procedure more physically draining than I expected, though not as painful as I feared-- still hurts though. My mind is a bit dull and having trouble focusing. My body's drained too. Things are going well. I've been keeping myself away from the TV and internet (keeping the stress down) and have found that to be surprisingly easy. I'm finding it frighteningly easy to ignore the world-- something for me to remember and think about later.

I'll still be out for another week at least-- could be longer. Check out my Blog List for links to great blogs.

Thanks for all your support and well wishes. You guys are the best.

Talk to you all soon,
Yukio Ngaby

Surgery Soon: Offline for a While

Well, I'm going in for my minor surgery early next week. I'm supposed to avoid stress (bad timing there), so I'm going to be offline for a while and avoiding the news and politics for that time as well. I be should be out for at least two - two 1/2 weeks, as I recover. It's nothing major, but it will be a rather unpleasant experience that should hopefully get me back to good health.

In the meantime, check out any of the links on the Blog List for great sites, and keep up the protests against this monstrous health care law. Don't let the media and the Left shame you into losing your voice. Keep it up! And remember we can beat their idiocy!

Talk to you in about two weeks or so,
Yukio Ngaby

Personal Income Drops Across America, but Rises in DC

Check out this Wall Street Journal article by Sara Murray (h/t Clifton B at Another Black Conservative).

From the article:

"Personal income in 42 states fell in 2009, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

"Nevada's 4.8% plunge was the steepest, as construction and tourism industries took a beating. Also hit hard: Wyoming, where incomes fell 3.9%.

"Incomes stayed flat in two states and rose in six and the District of Columbia."

Yup. Gee, I wonder how that happened?

Obama on Repealing the Health Care Monstrosity: "Go For It"

What tiny cut-off world is Obama living in? Seriously. Maybe he believes that the sycophants and human props he surrounds himself with are real.

This from the AP article by Darlene Superville:

"President Barack Obama dared Republicans to try to repeal his new health care law, telling them Thursday to 'Go for it' and see how well they do with voters in November.

"'Be my guest,' Obama said in the first of many planned appearances to sell the revamp before fall congressional elections. 'If they want to have that fight, we can have it. Because I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat.'

"With emotions raw around the nation over this week's Democrats-only vote to approve the nearly $1 trillion redesign of the health care system, Obama took the opposition to task for 'plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of overheated rhetoric.'"

Where to begin with this nonsense?

Well let's see... How about if we start with this CBS poll (chart above) in which 62% were in favor of the GOP fighting against the Health Bill. 62% in favor and 33% against. Of the overall 62% in favor 89% of Republicans approved (no surprise there), 41% of the Democrats, and 66% of independents approved of fighting the bill!

Go for it, indeed...

And I just can't let Obama's "plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of overheated rhetoric" remark go silently by. Is he kidding? Does he not remember the fear-mongering and apocalyptic predictions he himself used to pass the "stimulus" package? Does Obama believe that nobody else will remember?

Oh, and Obama doesn't believe we want our old insurance back. "I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat." Too true. We want to be forced to buy private insurance in a federally administered market where Washington bureaucrats will determine what should be covered and what the prices for such coverage will be. Yeah. That's right. That's what Americans want. Exactly. Good job.

Oh, and by the way, this is sort of thinking is called fascist economic theory. I am not carelessly throwing the "fascist" word around. This link here will give you a quickie rundown of the differences between socialist economics and fascist (as defined by Mussolini's reign) economics.

From the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (I've posted this a few days ago but I'm repeating it because it is important):

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. [emphasis mine]"

Does that sound familiar?

By the way, if the insurance industry isn't in the driver's seat, then who is? The American people? Nope, not even a little. Americans will be forced to buy insurance, under penalty of law, the coverage of which will be determined by a health benefits council of Washington appointees (not even elected positions mind you, but political appointees). That's not the American public being in the driver's seat. The American public isn't in control-- the feds are.

So what does that mean? Among other things, it means that the insurance companies will be lobbying Washington hard (political payoffs anyone?) to make what they want to be covered required by the federally mandated health plans. Our insurance will be determined by political wheelings and dealings between insurance companies and political appointees-- and the American people (whom this affects) will be left out of the loop. We will not, under penalty of law, be able to deviate from their decisions. It's that simple. Americans will lose their power to choose their own coverage. It will all be gone.

But then we're all just all a bunch of rubes, right? We hang about being bitter as we "cling to guns or religion" when we really should just be working for community and the common good-- like Annabel Park. What can we possibly know about our own health needs? What can we know about our own insurance requirements? What can we know about what we can afford?

Surprise Obama! We know enough that over 55% of Americans now want this bill to repealed outright (and I am sure that the percentage will increase as more people become aware of both the content and the implications of this 2600+ page monstrosity) and 62% want this bill fought. Obama's approval rating has dipped below 50% according to an Obama-friendly CNN poll (oh and by the way, the same poll gave a 58% disapproval rating for the health care bill). Congressional Democrats' approval numbers are in the tank-- Pelosi garnered an 11% favorable / 37% unfavorable, Reid received a 8% favorable / 23% unfavorable score in a poll of mostly independents and Democrats (Republicans accounted for only 26% of the unweighted respondents).

So, "Go for it," Obama chidingly declares? Really? Is he really so tone-deaf to the American public? Does Obama really believe that Americans want their liberty and choices taken away? Does Obama actually believe that we want our health coverage determined by lobbied Washington bureaucrats? Or is he just too caught up in beaming over Castro's recent endorsement?

CBS Poll Shows Two in Three Americans Want Republicans to Fight Obamacare

From CBSnews.com (h/t Jacobson at Legal Insurrection):

"A CBS News poll released Wednesday finds that nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill."

[...]

"The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges."

[...]

"Still, there was significant disapproval for the bill. Forty-six percent say they disapprove, including 32 percent who strongly disapprove. Those numbers have barely moved since before the bill was signed."

Wanna lay any bets on if the disapproval numbers increase in the next few weeks, especially as people learn what is in this Fascist law?

Americans want to fight this.

Health Care Law Increases Taxes on Restaurants and Other Small Businesses

From a FoxNews.com article by Claudia Cowan: (h/t Dave Powers at MichlleMalkin.com)

"One of the provisions in the new health care law requires small businesses to provide coverage for workers. Such an 'employer mandate' has been in place in San Francisco, Calif., for over a year. The mandate has earned mixed reviews at best.

"Under the law, businesses with 20 or more employees are required to provide medical coverage, either on their own or by paying into a city-run program. That's what most restaurants are doing -- albeit grudgingly.

"To cover the cost, owners are either having to raise their menu prices or tack on a so-called 'Healthy Surcharge' onto the tab. At some places, it's around 4 percent of the check. Others charge a flat fee of a dollar or two.

"Either way, customers are footing the bill for the health care of their waitstaff, busboys, and cooks, regardless of whether the workers work part time, live in San Francisco, or are in the U.S. legally."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom gives a different point of view: "Newsom argues it's saving restaurants and taxpayers money, by offering workers preventative care. Newsom argues that this in turn keeps them out out emergency rooms, and on the clock."

According to the mayor, "'We have a more robust work force, greater productivity and output because employees have health care.'"

Huh. I didn't know that most restaurants skate the economic edge due to a sickly employees. Go figure.

Mayor Newsom did give me the biggest laugh of the day though when he uttered this line: "Businesses get the benefit in the back end."

Yeah, we all got "benefits" and business in the back end from Congress last Sunday....

Obama's House of Cards-- I Mean House of 2000+ Page Bills-- Comes Tumbling Down

Obama signs the health care "reform" bill and twelve states UPDATE: 14 states (so far) have immediately filed suits to block this big government travesty.

And not coincidentally, we have these poll results from CNN (h/t Michelle Malkin):

"For the first time, a CNN poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama's job performance.

"According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday, 51 percent of respondents disapprove of Obama's job performance and 46 percent approve of it.

"Obama's approval rating has dropped steadily each month since December, when it was 54 percent. His highest approval rating in a CNN poll was 76 percent in February 2009 shortly after he took office.

"The new poll was conducted before the House on Sunday narrowly approved the Obama administration's signature domestic policy proposal: health care reform.

"The measure, which Obama plans to sign on Tuesday, represents the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted more than four decades ago.

"In fact, health care was the policy area that drew the second highest negative rating, with 58 percent registering disapproval. The highest negative rating was 62 percent for his handling of the federal deficit."

Do you remember when Michelle Obama uttered this nonsense back during the campaign?

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

She was more correct then she could have ever known. Standing against Obama is uniting many Americans in ways we haven't seen since 9/11.

The bill was passed, Obama signed it, and now we all stand together against it and its fascist mandates. And I do not use the word "fascist" lightly. This law conforms to economic Fascism as defined here.

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. [emphasis mine]"

Yep. Obama doesn't just hold his chin up during speeches like Mussolini, he's also using the Il Duce party's economic theories. Hope and change, huh?

Pep Talk

Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has a great pep talk posted. It's probably something that many of us need right now.

Go check it out yourself, but here's a small taste:

"November 4, 2008, was the culmination of multiple generations of journalistic and educational malpractice and liberal guilt, malfeasance by Republicans who lost their way while in power, and a mass delusion on par with the tulipomania of 17th century Holland.

"On November 5, 2008, did any one of you think that over 16 months later Obama would barely be able to pass a truncated version of his dream of single payer, and that dozens of Democrats would join Republicans in opposition?

[...]

"In August and September, did you think we would make it to the end of the year, and then in early January 2010, did any of you (other than me) think Scott Brown could win and we could prevent a Democratic super-majority?

"Your hard work has paid off, even if the end result was not what we wanted. But trust me, without you it would have been much, much worse.

"For over a year Obama has not been able to push through other destructive aspects of his agenda, and the clock is running out before the mid-term elections.

"The hard work must continue through the November elections because Democrats know they have just a few more months."


And now I'll add my two cents worth...

Shake off the shock and anger and remember this issue is not over. It's not resolved. There is much to do, much more to come. Legal and Constitutional challenges to the madates of this health care monstrosity and the manner of its passage do have merit and they cannot be ignored by the courts.

And remember that this is an unsustainable law. The money is simply nor there, nor can the money ever be in the federal coffers without a wholesale raiding of taxpayers' savings (possibly their retirement funds). What must happen is a dismantling of the bill, either now or in 4 - 6 years when the bills really come due.

This isn't a matter of ideology, but of economic reality. There simply is no other choice. The fools in Congress who have followed the Obama pied piper to their doom may not realize this. The inexperienced yet arrogant Commander-in-Chief, may not realize this. But the majority of the American people understand this.

The American people understand that in the cosmos of macroeconomics these enormous entitlement programs cannot continue indefinitely. Funding for entitlements of this size forces a country to either expand, to be supported by an outside patron state, or to collapse. There are no other choices. So will America invade Mexico for her its raw materials, Canada maybe? No. Will we syphon off the fabled oil of Iraq? Unlikely. Will China continue to buy up American dollars and debt even as they wrestle with their own teetering economy and push for an international super-currency? No.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with the cold, hard fact that we must continue to fight this every way possible. To do otherwise is to capitulate to the looming disaster brought upon by Washington's paternal arrogance.

I believe that the American people are stronger and more resilient than Congress and Obama assume. I believe that we cannot simply be reshaped and retooled by idiotic an unpopular legislation (and even if we could, we would still face economic chaos soon). I believe that we will not allow ourselves to be boxed into a fascist state (and this bill fits the economic definition of fascism as even people on the Left have pointed out) or to be sentenced to a doomed socialist "utopia."

We're stronger than that. We don't just drink the Kool Aid. We don't "just get with the program" and "come on in for the big win." We remain resolute to our principles and our individual beliefs-- a fact that the current Congress and Obama seem to be so ignorant of. They believe they now finally have momentum, but they are wrong.

The American people do not simply and timidly give up. The majority of Americans disapprove of this bill. Even more will despise it when the ramifications of the bill come to be realized. More political and legal battles will be fought over this. Even after this current setback, this squeaking through of a bill that many assumed would be arbitrarily passed before the 2009 summer recess, we must, and will, continue. And we will persevere.