I know I Probably SHOULDN’T...

...BUT, I Live for Moments like THIS!

First, I would humbly ask all who like me (yes, BOTH of you) to please indulge me this particular vice of mine. Secondly, this post was delayed a couple of days, due to a good friend and former professor requesting that I re-consider “humiliating” another blogger “merely for disagreeing with me.”

I did that (carefully considered this action) and I’ve decided to go forward with it because (1) I am not doing this to “humiliate” or embarrass anyone, and I’m not taking this extraordinary step merely because another person “merely disagreed with me,” (2) I DO NOT believe, as my friend offered, that this other person may be a juvenile or perhaps even “someone with some clinical emotional issues,” the blogger in question has been online since at least 2000, so I surmise they are at least in their late 20s and even IF he did suffer from some emotional issues, I don’t believe that requires that such views not be confronted and finally (3) during the time I was re-considering this action, that blogger chose, instead of deleting my comments to edit them instead...that seemed to invite and even necessitate this response.

I love to exchanging views and opinions and so I routinely do so both here, also in a vigorous email exchange with various people and in numerous other venues around the worldwide web.

One of my favorite things is going around to various sites and challenging views that I see as naïve, wrong-headed, misguided...or even evil. I do that fairly often and I'm always very open to hearing why certain people believe the things they claim to, whether I agree or not.

As background to all this, on the day after the worst jihadist terror on American soil since 9-11-01, a “Kos Kid” (my less than affectionate nickname for the army of misfits that Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga has gathered over at the D-Kos) who goes by the name of BlueWind (BlueWind at Blue and White Blog:

http://blueandwhite96.blogspot.com/) blogged about a BBC report about a Muslim couple sentenced to death by stoning in Somalia...not a single word, let alone entry about the Fort Hood terror attack.

That wasn’t a mere oversight or affront, in my view, that was pure and unadulterated America-hatred demonstrated by a reflexive disdain for the U.S. Military.

BlueWind’s (BW) entry went like this;

From the BBC link above:

"Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth"

and then the article continues:

"Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka.

"He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving," an eyewitness told the BBC.

That is an example of how horrendous and criminal theocratic beliefs can be. The criminals who killed this man probably believe they were acting in "gods will".

But where it gets even more scary and chilling, is this part:

"An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby."

This is pure horror. An innocent woman is waiting to be killed after she delivers her baby, in the hands of a bizarre group of criminal theocrats. What is the civilized world doing to stop this? I hope that the United Nations and groups for civil liberties will do something to save this woman.

I also hope that the Obama administration and governments of other civilized parts of the world will try to interfere to stop the completion of that horrendous crime.

http://blueandwhite96.blogspot.com/2009/11/pure-horror.html

His previous blog entry was two days earlier on Wednesday when he commented about Tuesday, November 3^rd’s Election Day results...nothing on Thursday or Friday about the terror attack at Fort Hood.

So, I responded like THIS;

“There’s an irony in your naïve ignorance BW.

“You deride these people for following their own moral dictates, their own strictly codified “morality,” such as it is, while you do the VERY SAME thing they do - “you assert that YOUR OWN “morality” (such as IT is) as “the only right one” ”.

“The fact is, ALL conventional moralities are arbitrary, capricious and ultimately, fictitious. The very concepts of “right and wrong” are religious concepts. With the West’s view rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Muslim world’s rooted in Islam’s Sharia (moral) laws.

“In ALL cases, however, as the great Robert Anton Wilson (RAW) so presciently said, “Reality is what you can get away with.”

“Since I’m not possessed of the lyrical gifts of RAW, I put it simply, “All morality is optional, as all morality is based on an arbitrary and capricious set of standards that serve those on top most of all.” And THAT works....for ALL of us!

“The Muslim world defends its moral strictures and its strict proscriptions against sexual indiscretions as serving to protect WOMEN.

“Their view is that an adulterer (male or female) puts their spouse/partner at risk for a myriad of STDs and other illnesses. Winking and nodding at such behaviors can be said to “weaken the familial bonds.”

“Whether we in the West accept that, or not, they ultimately, they have a right to interpret their morality as THEY see fit, just as you and I do ours.

“But you are really not all that different, at least not any less dogmatic and wrong-headed than they are, as you seem to believe inane things like, “violence never solves anything.”

“Worse yet, you naively seem to think most in the West share that view.

“I can assure you, they most certainly do NOT.

“As you probably already suspect, I don’t share that view at all.

“I KNOW that violence solves a myriad of problems.

“Our own moral conflict and Fort Hood; “winning hearts and minds” (convincing those who hate us – jihadist Muslims) that we’re nice people...vs. “crushing an enemy ideology” as we did with Nazism, communism and Japanese Imperialism.

“I favor the latter, folks like yourself the former.

“The former (YOUR way... trying to “win hearts and minds” ALWAYS results ion failures like the one at Fort Hood and 9/11), the path I favor, tends to lead to what happened to our enemies in WW II.

“See the difference?

“Much as I disdain your pseudo-morality, I accept your right to choose that (for YOURself)...not to foist it on others, of course, and NOT to even proselytize it to others. I accept that in the same vain that accept these Somali’s right to their own morality and moral dictates, as well as the Saudis, who recently sentenced a man to 50 lashes for merely “boasting about his sexual exploits in public,” and even more recently sentenced a pedophile to beheading, followed by his remains being crucified and put on display thereafter.

“That harsh, swift and merciless morality is simply, “their way,” just as your soft-jelly centered “let’s all just get along” morality is “your way.” Neither of you can be anything different than what you are.” (JMK)

<

<

“I would not expect any less idiotic comments from you JMK. You are doing fine in your classic tradition of total idiocy.” (BW)

<

<

I didn't just give you an opinion BW, I gave you a set of fundamental truths; the first is that morality ALL morality is rooted in religion....our Western concepts of "right" and "wrong" are rooted in the Biblical principles n which they are found.

There is NOTHING that anchors those concepts other than......religious traditions.

The second is that such traditions differ widely across cultures and yes, between INDIVIDUALS, as well.

No one should hold an opinion on human affairs, politics, economics, etc. without first understanding such a basic truth. Which is why I've said, nearly since I've known you, YOU should not be putting forth your views, they are too naive, too thoughtless, too devoid of reason and divorced from how the world operates to have any value.

That's not a criticism, it's an objective assessment. The fact that you have never been able to defend any of your views, indicates you haven't even really thought about them, let alone thought them through.

Suffice to say, the Muslim world's "morality," codified in its Sharia Laws IS the established "morality" for about 20% of this planet.

Just as we would not want Sharia Law foisted on the West, we have NO RIGHT to foist our own (and especially YOUR OWN...you hold to a pacifist morality that is a tiny minority within the Western tradition) moral dictates upon them.

Your "control freak" tendencies (your desire to control others who "have too much," don't act as you like," etc.) SHOULD BE incompatible with your professed affinity for freedom, but then again, you don't really understand that "freedom" is only SELF-OWNERSHIP, nothing more....so maybe that's part of the problem. (JMK)

<

<

"Self-ownership" is freedom? Do you really think you just made an intelligent point? You think you just had a unique idea? How does it feel being an idiot? Just curious.” (BW)

<

<

Again the main point isn't what you don't understand (that's virtually everything), but that you're sense of "We should STOP them from following their moral code," is the SAME view that THEY hold! You see, they want to "kill the infidel" precisely because we don't subscribe to their moral code.

That, in a nutshell, is what makes YOU and THEM the same.

In your case, your own "morality," such as it is, seems to be dependent on your whim at the moment.

After all, you didn't cry out that we should've stopped Saddam Hussein's regime when he was routinely putting people through plastic shredders, or filling mass graves with upwards of half a million bodies. No, then it was, "Iraq's a sovereign country and we have no right to...."

And I agree that we had no right to stop practices we feel are barbaric, merely because we feel they are.

We DO have a right to protect our own interests, geo-political and economic, wherever those interests are, which is what we did later on, of course.

Almost typically, in the wake of the worst act of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11/01 (Fort Hood) your sympathies go half a world away to two people who knowingly and willingly violated the moral precepts and laws (Sharia Law is the law of that country) in Somalia....NOT to the American service-people and their families impacted by this latest bout of Islamic terror. Perfectly "liberal," of you. (JMK)

<

<

JMK,

Keep up the idiotic comments. You may eventually brake the world record of idiocy (currently shared by your idol George W. Bush and by the woman of your dreams, Sarah Palin). (BW)

<

<

Yikes!

I guess you don't realize that it's always "the idiots" who can't defend what they believe in (hint: in this case, that would be YOU).

I've shown that morality is (1) fluid and continually open to change, (2) ALWAYS rooted in religious traditions and (3) relative, that is to say, differing widely across cultures and often between individuals as well.

Moreover, and this is the MOST ironic thing of all, YOUR assertion that We should go in there and stop these people from following their own moral dictates and their own moral code (Sharia law) is really functionally NO DIFFERENT than that which makes radicalized Islam so dangerous - their refusal to accept others following their own moral dictates.

In the end, BOTH YOU and the radical Islamists want to force your own morality on a group of unwilling others.

That's undeniable, given your initial statement "I also hope that the Obama administration and governments of other civilized parts of the world will try to interfere to stop the completion of that horrendous crime."

YOU want to enforce your own morality on these Sharia adherents, just as THEY want to enforce theirs on YOU and everyone else in the West.

I understand why you haven't made a single argument to defend your viewpoint....it's because you CAN'T. (JMK)

<

<

JMK,

I have been tolerating your incoherent rants, but I am getting tired of them. Next time I may ban you altogether. (BW)

<

<

Look, THIS is all I’ve wanted from the start, that you simply cede this argument and acknowledge that I’m right on this. Yes, you’d pretty much done that from the beginning by not defending what you claim to believe, but this is a much more clearer surrender.

I didn’t offer you an opinion here, BW, I explained some very basic facts, (1) that all morality is rooted in religious traditions, (2) that morality is fluid and differs widely across cultures, as well as between individuals within the same culture and (3) that people have a right to follow the moral precepts of their own innate culture.

On the day after the 2^nd worst jihadist terror attack on U.S. soil, your heart goes out, not to America’s service-people gunned down by a jihadist in Fort Hood, but half a world away to two Muslims, who THEMSELVES adhere to the Muslim moral code, ensconced in Sharia Law, who are being punished, albeit in a most draconian way, to Western eyes, for violating their own culture’s moral precepts.

The irony in all this is that YOU then assert the SAME thing the jihadists do – that “All others should live by YOUR moral code.” The Islamists want the entire world ruled by Sharia and folks like you demand that the entire world live by your own version of Western morality.

You "think" of yourself as a caring person," but you're really a self-centered, mean-spirited control freak at heart. You don’t care about these victims of Sharia Law any more than you do the 13 dead soldiers at Fort Hood, you’re primary concern here is what it is in EVERY issue, you rationalizing your control over others...and that’s disgusting.

The only odd thing about all this is that you don’t even get that irony. (JMK)

A day later, BW deleted all of my comments from his blog.

I took that as his surrender, at least his willingness to accept that he couldn’t defend what he claimed to believe (same thing).

In an email to my former teacher, I mentioned this and talked about blogging about this relatively minor “triumph” – getting a Leftist to openly admit, openly DEMONSTRATE that they don’t believe in dialogue or the free exchange of ideas and opinions, that they actually believe in stifling dissent and silencing all who disagree with them.

That friend suggested for a whole host of reasons (mostly concern for the other party) that I not do that and I DID very seriously consider that...UNTIL....BW subsequently edited my comments, which, in my view, as I said, both invited and necessitated some response.

Here are the edits BW left up;

Edited By Siteowner
JMK

Edited By Siteowner
JMK

Edited By Siteowner
JMK

Edited By Siteowner
JMK

I understand why you haven't made a single argument to defend your viewpoint....it's because you CAN'T. (JMK)

Edited By Siteowner
JMK |

You "think" of yourself as a caring person," but you're really a self-centered, mean-spirited control freak at heart. (JMK)


Edited By Siteowner
JMK

JMK,
I have been tolerating your incoherent rants, but I am getting tired of them. Next time I may ban you altogether. (BW)

All I've wanted from the start was for you to throw in the towel and cede the discussion, which amounts to tacitly accepting that you acknowledge I'm right. You'd pretty much done that by failing to defend what you claim to believe, but I wanted more than

Edited By Siteowner
JMK

So, there it is!

I was able to get a far-Left “Kos Kid” to DEMONSTRATE his outright revulsion for the free exchange of ideas and opinions.

One of my friend’s rationales for not posting this was that BW’s views were “not Liberal ones at all,” but that’s untrue!

Sure, they aren’t traditional Liberal views, but they ARE very much in step with the bulk of those you'll find at the Daily Kos and the membership of organizations like MoveOn and MediaMatters. BW’s views are indeed VERY TYPICAL of today’s “far-Left.”

Bottom-line, I didn’t go out of my way to use BW as a weapon against illiberal Liberalism, he made HIMSELF one. I don't believe I've been at all unfair about this at all, though I'm open to any and all arguments to the contrary.

Moreover, I have no concerns about being challenged by BW or others of his ilk. I DO believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions and of course, I CAN and WILL always defend what I believe in and confront that which I do not.

Come on! If BW didn’t confront me and defend his views on HIS site, he’s going to come here and find a voice to confront me on mine?

Hardly likely.

The FAILURE of Government is Becoming More Apparent...

Liberals are misguided for a whole host of reasons, from their penchant for emotion over logic, to their being driven primarily by envy – fearing some “other guy” out there “has too much.” All of that leads Liberals to revile the private sector and its “vile profit motive,” and to embrace government as the “best possible solution to most problems."

Liberalism’s favorite mantra, “People before profits,” in effect turns Reaganism on its head. While Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government isn’t the solution, government IS the problem,” contemporary Liberalism says in effect, “Profit is the problem and government is the cure.”

Unfortunately for Liberals, Reagan’s legacy pretty much proves that wrong. In January, 1981 Ronald Reagan inherited the real "worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression," with rising unemployment and high inflation rates wreaking havoc. When he took office, the Misery Index (the combined inflation and unemployment rates) stood at 21 (20.8) with an inflation rate of 13.6% and an unemployment rate of 7.2%, at the end of Reagan's first year the Misery Index was dropped to 18 (17.97) with an inflation rate of 10.3% and an unemployment rate of 7.6 AND the Supply Side policies that administration brought in continued to drop the Misery Index and improve the economy over the next five years until the Misery Index reached single digits for the first time in 14 years! By 1986, the Misery Index hadn't seen single digits since 1972.

Compare that to the current administration which inherited a Misery Index of 9.61, the highest since 1993 (9.87). The unemployment rate when Barack Obama took office was 7.6%, the highest it had been since September of 1992.

Of course it now stands at 10.2%, the highest its been since April of 1983!

We’re moving in the WRONG direction!

While Reagan’s Supply Side policies improved the economy that first year, the Keynesian policies of the Obama administration have only worsened this one.

Worse yet, the failure of government is looking more and more systemic!

California just ran out of money and added a 10% income tax surcharge to its already punishing tax burden.

Now New York’s Governor David Paterson say that New York State will be bankrupt before Christmas!

If government is “the cure,” it’s certainly looking like a lethal one!

"We're going to run out of cash in four and a half weeks. We are going to run out of money. Unless we do something about it, (it will) threaten generations," Paterson said.

And that statement has triggered a showdown between the Governor and the NY State Legislature.

The governor says $3.2 billion in cuts must be enacted immediately. The cuts he’s proposed range from $500 million in agency spending to over $1 billion in already committed in aid to school districts and hospitals.

"I will mortgage my political career, but I will not mortgage the fate of the State of New York," Paterson said.

The governor has ordered lawmakers into special session Tuesday to close the budget gap. Right now there’s no agreement and he could twist some legislative arms by keeping them here until an agreement is reached. Of course, New York’s ultra-Liberal legislature’s immediate agenda includes bills to legalize gay marriage, toughen drunk-driving laws and reform the state's public authorities.

Hello?!

Anybody HOME???

Terrorism and Liberalism...Yet Another Connection....

In the wake of the disclosure that the Fort Hood jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan, attended a Virginia mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers, emails have been confirmed of Major Nidal Hasan reaching out to al Qaida operatives overseas in the days preceding his Fort Hood terror attack.

Again, two things about this highlight the gross incompetence of this administration, the first is the way this administration clearly made sure that political correctness hampered the way the feds dealt with Major Hasan, compared to say, ho, Dave Koresh or randy Weaver, for instance.

The second is the way its mandated that the Military focus primarily on an imagined “anti-Muslim backlash.” In fact, that has been the focus so much so, that many Military members have reported being fearful of coming forward to report legitimately suspicious behavior BECAUSE of the suspicious acting person being Muslim!

How insane is THAT?!

But none of that should be all that surprising, considering how linked jihadist terrorism and American Liberalism really are.

As an example, I’ll call Exhibit A, a Seattle man, named Christopher John Monfort (pictured above), believed to be the man who pulled up next to a Seattle Police cruiser last Saturday (10-31-2009) and opened fire, killing one officer, Timothy Brenton and wounding another, Britt Sweeney.

Since that shooting, Seattle Police had been looking for the Datsun 210 coupe, which had driven by Officer Brenton’s and Officer Sweeney's patrol car at 9:46 p.m. Saturday while they were on a traffic stop. An image of the vehicle was captured by the cruiser's dash camera.

Twenty minutes later, while the officers were parked at 29th Avenue and East Yesler Way, a car drove alongside and unleashed a fusillade of rifle fire into the patrol car.

Brenton was killed instantly and Sweeney, who sensed danger and ducked, was grazed.

What makes Mr. Monfort a little more interesting is his left-wing lunacy and his penchant for misanthropic, anti-American violence a la Bill Ayers.

According to a Seattle Times report, early “Friday (11-06-09), Seattle and Tukwila police went to an apartment complex in the 13700 block of 56th Avenue South after receiving a tip about a car matching the description of the early 1980s Datsun 210 coupe seen near the site where Brenton was slain, said a source close to the investigation.

“Police found a Datsun, draped with a car cover. They waited until a man approached the vehicle, said Tukwila police spokesman Mike Murphy.

“King County sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart said three detectives confronted the man in the complex's parking lot and asked to speak with him. The man ran away, bolting up an exterior staircase where he turned, pulled out a handgun and pointed it at the officers.

"For some reason, it didn't go off," said Urquhart.

“The man then turned and ran again, with the detectives in close pursuit.

"They caught up to him after a relatively short distance, whereupon this individual turned again, presented the gun and was shot by the detectives," Urquhart said.

“Police have since detained two other men, one at a bus stop near the apartment complex and another in Federal Way. The men may have ties to the wounded man and the apartment, a source said.”

It was also noted that Monfort had recently been laid off from his job as a security guard.

Yeah!...THAT’S the reason, not his sociopathic hatred for America and America’s criminal justice system...

But WAIT! Again, as they say, there’s even MORE! That same Seattle Times report notes that “Law-enforcement sources said Monfort also is suspected of the Oct. 22 bombing and arson of a Seattle maintenance yard, where three police cars and an RV used as a mobile precinct were damaged.

“Before Monfort was identified, police found distinct evidence that leads them to believe the same person was involved in that crime and the Brenton shooting, sources said.

“A note threatening to kill police officers was left at the bombing site, according to sources. One source described the note as containing a general threat against police officers.”

Last year, Monfort belonged to the McNair Scholars Program, part of the university's office of Minority Affairs and Diversity. The program aims to steep undergraduate students in sophisticated research, preparing them for graduate work.

Monfort provided this title for his project with the McNair program: “The Power of Citizenship Your Government Doesn't Want You to Know About: How to Change the Inequity of the Criminal Justice System Immediately, Through Active Citizen Nullification of Laws, As a Juror.”

"In an abstract of his project, Monfort said he planned to “illuminate and further” the scholarship of Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University. Butler is a proponent of jury nullification, a controversial principle whereby jurors feel free to disregard a judge's instructions and acquit a defendant no matter the strength of the evidence.

"Paul Butler has said, “It is the moral responsibility of black jurors to emancipate some guilty black outlaws,” Butler wrote in a 1995 Yale Law Journal article, adding: “My goal is the subversion of American criminal justice, at least as it now exists.”

So, there it is, this cop killer, Christopher John Monfort, was a hate-filled, left-wing radical out on a personal jihad against American law enforcement.

Terrorism and Liberalism – yet ANOTHER connection.

I’m going to chronicle as many such instances I can over the coming months, because this connection is all too real and all too threatening to the heart and soul of this nation.

Fry Him!...

If for no other than THIS idiotic reasoning;

Scott Roeder 51, of Kansas City, Mo. (pictured above), even now, defiant and remorseless, the man accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider (Dr. George Tiller) confessed to the slaying Monday, telling The Associated Press that he killed the doctor to protect unborn children.

Roeder told reporters that he plans to argue at trial that he was justified in shooting the late-term abortion provider at the doctorr's Wichita church, "Because of the fact pre-born children's lives were in imminent danger this was the action I chose...I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the pre-born children and the necessity to defend them."

OK, the problem here is that THIS is about as much of a defense as a woman who kills her allegedly abusive husband or boyfriend while the guy is asleep.

That’s a guaranteed conviction because the killing is in no way linked to an imminent threat or danger.

In the woman’s case, she simply could have left the scene. Her actions were unjustified because there were other less draconian options available.

In Roeder’s case, he’s making a rationale that, at best would be justified within the confines of Dr. Tiller’s operating room, where a late-term abortion was about to be performed, it does NOT justify confronting the Doctor in Church! In fact, it wouldn't justify it in the first instance either, as late-term abortion is legal in Kansas.

What Dr. Tiller did, providing late term abortions, was almost certainly despicable and it’s also true that over 2/3s of Americans oppose late-term abortion, but in the state of Kansas it is NOT against the law.

It IS, however, very much against the law to gun down a physician in a Church, at his home, or anywhere else.

Scott Roeder is an embarrassment to the cause he claims to represent and in the end, he’s as much a murderer, as the doctor he claimed was a wanton killer.

Senate Calls Pelosi-Care "Mortally Wounded" and "DOA"...Translation, “Well Tinker Around the Edges, YOU’LL Still Pay Through the Nose”...

According to today’s New York Post, “President Obama's victory dance yesterday for the House-passed health-care bill came as Senate foes -- mainly Republicans with one key Democrat moderate -- pronounced the measure mortally wounded, if not outright DOA.” (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obamacare_legislation_in_trouble_n12JvzOZLO36ngE5VaFVmI)

Senator Lieberman (I-CN), whose vote Democrats need to overcome a GOP filibusters, told Fox News Sunday, that if a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote."

Lieberman expressed concern over the mounting Deficit and about how new government spending the health-care legislation would only make that situation even more dire.

On this wave of excess spending, Senator Lieberman has said, "I don't want to do that to our children and grandchildren."

At nearly the same time, Sunday (11-8-2009) Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), was on CBS's Face the Nation, where he declared that, "The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate."

"It was bill written by liberals for liberals, and people like Joe Lieberman are not going to get anywhere near the House bill . . . It is a nonstarter in the Senate."

He said he firmly believes "the public option will destroy private health care."

The overhaul would lead to the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion health-care system -- which accounts for one-sixth of the US economy -- since the 1965 creation of the Medicare government health-insurance program for the elderly.

While I appreciate this bit of political theater and the obligatory bravado from the “opposition,” I expect nothing less than a very flawed “compromise" that serves the interests of Insurance Companies and has the 85% of Americans already covered, along with small business owners saddled with additional, and in many cases crippling added costs...and THAT’S not even counting the HUGE tax wallop that’s virtually assured of coming along with this ridiculous boondoggle.

See full articel: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obamacare_legislation_in_trouble_n12JvzOZLO36ngE5VaFVmI

In the meantime, here's a start on what this monstrosity exactly entails;

Betsy McCaughey, the former Lt. Governor of New York state explained some of the passages in a Wall Street Journal article this past weekend (Saturday, November 7, 2009).

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services." (This means rationing by government fiat. The government will punish doctors who offer more expensive, better care)

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities." (Nice backdoor move to embrace even MORE racial quotas!)

See Betsy McCoughy's full WSJ article at:http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380-lMyQjAxMDA5MDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html#printMode

The NEXT Nidal???....

Homegrown and radicalized jihadist terror lurks right here at home in the good’ol USA!

Yes, the Fort Hood attack, the worst act of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11/01, certainly proves that...but wait!... as they say, there’s even MORE!

From a truly disgusting and frightening article in today’s (Sunday, November 8, 2009) New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/america_hater_in_qns_hails_hood_HvD7Z20qSwe9dp4obu8L7L), “The soldiers at Fort Hood had it coming, says a radical Muslim in Queens who travels to mosques around the city spreading anti-American hate and has sent a "Get Well Soon" message to the major behind the Texas massacre.”

The homegrown radical jihadist is a Queens, NY man named Yousef al-Khattab (pictured above), on whose blog “Revolution Muslim” (http://revolutionmuslim.com/) "An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack. Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you."

According to John Doyle and Janon Fisher of the NY Post, “In the twisted logic of al-Khattab, who was born Jewish in New Jersey and converted to Islam in 2004, the 13 slain and 38 wounded Army victims gunned down by the radical one-man sleeper cell were "terrorists" who deserved to die.

Amazingly enough, just as the federal authorities were “aware of” Major Nidal’s increasingly radicalized rantings, the FBI is also well aware of al-Khattab's dangerous online hate-mongering, but claim they are unable to do much about it as he just skirts the line between protected speech and inciting violence.

REALLY?

Is espousing, encouraging and CONGRATULATING acts of unspeakable terror “protected?” You mean that Major Nidal and Mr. al-Khattab can’t be brought in for some psychiatric “observation?”

I believe people have been taken off American streets for ranting and acting aggressively, most of them wind up at places like Bellevue for some psychiatric observation. These kinds of vicious rants don’t warrant something similar?

The NY Post article quotes Barry Covert, a First Amendment lawyer from Buffalo, who says, "It's terrible. It's reprehensible. For the mosques it's a p.r. nightmare. He's probably putting members of the mosque in danger from attacks from non-Muslims, but he's not breaking the law."

According to the report, Mr. Covert said, “that unless al-Khattab incites people to immediate acts of violence, the Constitution protects him.”

To their credit, the NY Post reports that a number of Imams in Manhattan have been appalled by al-Khattab’s message and have tried to get the police to stop him from spreading his radical hate.

According to the NY Post, "We spoke to law enforcement about them, because we are disgusted with their behavior," said Shamsi Ali, an imam at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, a mosque at 96th Street and Third Avenue.

He said that at a recent Muslim parade, al-Khattab and his followers were preaching violence, but despite complaints from the congregation, the NYPD could only watch.

"They say that as long as there is not a physical threat, there's nothing that they can do." said Ali. "They say it's a free-speech issue."

Last month (October 18, 2009 online at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bike_cab_jihad_jerk_is_hate_pedaler_LlEQZryG5TFodacQYTT4oJ) the NY Post wrote another article on Yousef al-Khattab, which started, “This jihadist wannabe is a "terror" on the road.

“Yousef al-Khattab is a Jewish-born, Jersey-raised convert to Islam who schleps tourists on his pedicab by day and propagandizes for the terrorists he idolizes by night.

"I give a real tour of the city -- 47th Street, this is where they launder drug money for Colombia, this is the Garment District, from here they run the slave shops of the world," the attention-loving al-Khattab, 41, said.”

That report went to note that according to Police sources, “He's on the radar of both the FBI and the NYPD, but he's not considered a real threat.”

Gregg Zukowski, president of the NYC Pedicab Association, said he was unaware of al-Khattab's jihadi side until contacted by a reporter.

"He's out there and working hard," Zukowski said. "[His beliefs] don't impact on his business."

This is the kind of thing that highlights the perils of an open society. Those who cherish that openness must also support a heightened vigilance in order to keep it that way.

NY Post full article: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/america_hater_in_qns_hails_hood_HvD7Z20qSwe9dp4obu8L7L

Yousef al-Khattab’s blog "Revolution Muslim": http://revolutionmuslim.com/

Pelosi-Care PASSES...THANKS to the GOP!!!...

The House Healthcare Bill (Pelosi-Care) passed last night 220- 215...and you can (without much of a stretch) blame the GOP for playing a big part in its passage.

I blame DUMB and DISINGENUOUS Republicans in voting to pass the Stupak Amendment with 176 Republican votes!

That gave the entire Democratic Party (not just the Blue Dogs) cover, and it signaled, "We're really not all that much against this monstrosity, it's just about politics as usual," from the GOP.

The GOP's OBVIOUS "best strategy" in all this, was to vote “PRESENT” on Stupak and let the Democrats fight among themselves....if the Blue Dogs caved, they'd lose BIG next election, surrendering all those vulnerable seats and if the Liberals caved, they'd face furor from the far-Left.

There was absolutely NO DOWNSIDE to voting "present," and a LOT of upside!

Again, this is another one of those things I CAN'T accept as a "mistake," it's actually too dumb to be an accident.

Maybe they really DO have to purge the so-called "Moderates" from the GOP.

Although, an even scarier thought is that the Rockefeller-wing might not have been the driving force behind that....