By Ric Joyner

She made an incredible comment of ignorance. Question what if your generals say that pulling troops out would be a disaster? “We do not know what will happen when we pull out”.

WE DO KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Our fallen heroes sacrifice will be for nothing! Hillary, do you remember Vietnam when the Democrats DEFUNDED the war and the communists won and experts say that over 5,000,000 people were massacred? Iraqi’s have died during the war, but many thousands more will die after the fundamentalists get a hold of the country and it will be a new terrorist base!  We will tell the world community that when the going gets tough the US gets going….with our tail between our legs.

She is playing to the liberal left which wants no wars at all even to defend ourselves.

This morning on NPR Chelsea Clinton was asked by a reporter how she felt about her fathers affair. Her response should serve as a lesson for all media folks. She responded that she felt his actions were her families personal business.

I for one can’t imagine why any thinking person would run for political office when the only thing that is certain is the destruction of family the media thrives upon.

I can’t seem to decide which I find more offensive the scandal sheets at every grocery check out stand or the negative practices of the American press. Perhaps the folks of the American Press missed the bible lessons about what happened to the only perfect man in history.

No matter how negative my feelings are toward Hillary Clinton or any other politician. The press is far more offensive to me.

Once again I retire the soap box to the deepest corner of the closet. Jim

——————————————-

F Jim Parks, RHU, CLTC

F Jim Parks Agency

ricjoyner’s del.icio.us Bookmarks: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 to Wednesday, April 09, 2008

political blog

tags: Obama_Barack_Hillary_Clinton_Politics

Auto parsed by del.icio.us bookmark plugin

By By JOY ARPIN, M.D., Naples and Edinburgh, Scotland

Saturday, March 29, 2008

My husband’s life was saved by the cardiac team at NCH’s Downtown Naples Hospital.

Within two to three minutes of his walking into the emergency room, he had an EKG which diagnosed a massive heart attack. Treatment was initiated and within 30 minutes of his arrival he was in the cardiac angiography suite where an emergency angioplasty and stent insertion was done.

His previously asymptomatic extensive coronary artery occlusions required a quadruple-bypass procedure three days later when his condition stabilized.

The efficiency and competence of the NCH team is remarkable. And anyone who had arrived at the ER with similar symptoms would have been treated as expeditiously! This is the best health care in the world and the cardiac care at NCH is amongst the very best at any hospital in the United States.

Our summer home is in the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service’s failings are a constant topic in the news media. There are incredibly long wait lists to have an MRI or other investigative procedure, for referral to see a specialist for cancer or coronary care, or to have elective procedures (joint replacement, for example).

The care is rationed and anyone who can afford to doesn’t use it.

The government is always setting new “target times” for access to a specialist or for surgery. They talk in terms of months, not days.

There is a thriving private health-care sector and many of the affluent come to the U.S. for care. Even middle-class people elect to go to clinics in India for joint-replacement surgery rather than wait the 18 months or so in the NHS for treatment.

We very much enjoy our summers in the U.K., but I have no doubt that had my husband suffered the same event as occurred last week, he would not have had access to the remarkably high quality and rapid care that saved his life here in Naples.

While our experience is anecdotal, the statistics and data confirming the failings of government-run health-care systems in the U.K., Canada and elsewhere are readily available.

Our medical-insurance system may not be perfect, but to use the British or Canadian systems as models to improve ours is ridiculous.

I hope the public and the politicians look at the facts before we dismantle what we now enjoy.

“Change’’ is not always improvement.

Dr. Arpin is a retired surgeon.

By Ric Joyner

In contrast to Dr. King’s “I have a dream speech” Barack made the speech that may end his run for president.

The final determination of whether his speech had a positive or negative impact shall be  based on opinion, and will depend on who you are voting.

Let’s talk facts. Reverend Wright said these key items of hate speech from his pulpit.

1. The US attacked our own country on 9-11

2. The US injected aids into the black population

3. That Jesus was a black person and put down by rich white folks

Barack also said he would not disown Reverend Wright just as he wouldn’t his grandmother who occasionally said racist things. Thus, the conclusion is that Barack stands by his “man”. Standing by your man may cause the loss of your presidency. It will remain to be seen.

Good character aspect for Barack, but it is not enough because he is essentially saying that the black experience is different and that whites will never understand. For the candidate who wishes to unite the country he isn’t doing a good job. First, he hasn’t done anything to cross the isle in congress and work with republicans and he hasn’t done anything on race either. If a white preacher said racist and hateful comments, he would be run out of town on a rail by liberals, and the liberals would trash the white preacher unmercifully. But it is one of their own, and thus more difficult to sweep under the rug. Is it even possible for a liberal to be racist? If you use your common sense…it apparently is!

This will not go away for Barack and his national polls have dropped 17% nationwide in a week!

By Ric Joyner

Hold on to your wallet….

The "Tax and Spend" democrats will never learn that you cannot tax people into prosperity. The Senate just passed the ability to end the Bush Tax Cuts and voted not to control spending! This will mean an added cost to working families and is horrible drain on the economy.

George Bush gave us tax cuts that got the economy moving again from the ravages of Bill Clinton’s tax increases, but didn’t reign in spending. The Senate Dems voted to kill the Bush tax cuts, and opposed spending cuts! So the definition of Tax and Spend Liberal still defines the  democratic party! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337769,00.html

The incredible arrogance of this thinking is swallowed hook line and sinker by the "working Dems" as championing "tax the rich". The problem is they can’t define the rich when challenged! They also don’t realize that the rich pay most of the taxes in the country and provide jobs.

The "rich" are never really defined by the liberal Dems. But here is an article that lays out exactly the way people are taxed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_56/ai_n13673328

When I ask my relatives, who are die hard Dems, who believe in taxing the rich (even though it may be a widow in retirement) to let me know when they will see those tax cuts in their paycheck and helping the poor? They don’t have an answer except, you are a Bush fan and Bush is a liar…. They are not interested in conservative issues of not taxing and not spending. The Bush hating is all they have on their minds.

BTW when those tax bills come where do they go? Who do they pay? Certainly not the local merchant or the local poor.

Got another memorial we can build in DC?

Where is everyone’s common sense?

by Ric Joyner

Hillary took all the big prizes!  Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island. WOW!

She may be running against McCain. Obama out spends Hillary 3-1 and she still wins!

The substance issue is a key and Obama is losing.

Now this gets interesting. We will go down to Pennsylvania Primary to find out who wins, but this makes for interesting politics.

The Super Delegates are now going to have to reconsider abandoning Hillary for Obama because now she is in the race with the popular vote and delegates. They are in a dead heat which may come down to the Democratic Convention before this over!

He seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand saying he wants to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico and attacking Hillary on her previous support of NAFTA.

An AP story broke today regarding a meeting with Canadian officials that basically told the Canadians not to worry about the rehetoric in the campaign that

"According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” (NY Times 3-3-08)

Uh oh, looks to me that he lost his common sense, and is now saying whatever he can to get elected. Exactly what he has accuse Hillary of doing…saying whatever to whomever to get elected. Is this the change he is speaking about? Change back to the old ways of selling cars? Give folks what they want? Sad…

If he doesn’t have credibility with our trading partners and those he is wooing to vote for him will the democrats prior to Super Tuesday 2 now change their minds on Barack? The polls seem to suggest they will.

Ric Joyner

The questions are being asked. What does he mean “Change”? What has he done? His record of uniting the country is hollow, because his time in the Senate demonstrated no record to work with Republicans on any key issues.

Why is the steam escaping his momentum? He is thin on experience and the media is starting to question his experience. The nagging question in voters minds is he sounds great, talks a good game, but is it just talk without substance? The problem that the media, and the Obamaphites have is the harder you dig for substance the less you they are finding?

He has demonstrated serious misunderstandings about the war, and who we are fighting in IRAQ. His comments in the debate last week regarding pulling out of IRAQ, and that he would go back if Al Qaeda came back, left many checking their ears in disbelief. Al Qaeda, plus other Islamic radicals, came specifically to fight Americans in IRAQ. The question now if Obama is elected, and keeps his promise to pull out of IRAQ, he will pull out to keep his promise, and then go back, at what massive cost in life and dollars? It defies common sense.

His lack of substance is starting to catch up to him and now so is the media and Hillary is starting to sharpen her message.

I will maintain my prediction that Hillary loses Texas, and wins Ohio with a wider margin in Ohio. The caveat is that Hillary may indeed win Texas because Republicans were asked last week by Rush Limbaugh to upset the democratic primary by voting for Hillary, and keep her in the election. Many will do just that.

Here is the full article by Fox News web site: Barak 

My comment left on Fox News:

Ric Joyner

My analysis is that Obama is grasping at messages to throw around. This is good for McCain. I doubt the left wing of the Democratic Party will allow Obama this trial balloon to last very long. My prediction is that this balloon will fuzz and sputter out for these specific reasons.

First, he is a liberal left-winger. That is the antithesis of having any form or right-wingers in his cabinet. 

Second, as mentioned previously, I doubt his own party will countenance any republicans, especially if they EVER voted with President Bush in Obama’s cabinet.

Third, the democrats want to soundly reverse/defeat conservatism because liberalism is popular once again. Liberalism is being popularized in the culture to mean helping the down and out, the “little guy”, the poor, and the disenfranchised. Contrary, Republicans are viewed for big corporations, wealth, greed, and selfishness. None of the labels work for either, and that is why McCain is a better choice to go after the middle, and common sense must rule!

Summary…ideology will win out and Republicans will NOT be invited to the party…in this case a cabinet.

Posted on www.bluntpolitics.com

Investors Business Daily

IBD:2008 Feb 15

BENJAMIN ZYCHER

   Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal for reform of the health care system makes a promise: “If you are happy with your current health care coverage, keep your existing coverage.”
   That coverage usually is provided by private insurance companies, which retain a prominent role also in Sen. Barack Obama’s reform plan.
   Ostensibly, the Democratic candidates recognize the importance of private insurance options, and the proposals add a Medicare-like government insurance option to provide enhanced competition driven by supposedly lower administrative costs.
   The larger reality is very different: The government option would crush competition and render meaningless the Democratic promise to preserve choice.
   That is because the proposals would lead inexorably to a singlepayer (government) system of health insurance in which private coverage would become extinct.
   The proposals would implement a requirement (“individual mandate”) that some or all individuals obtain insurance coverage, and that most employers offer coverage or pay a tax (“pay or play”).
   Small employers and lower-income individuals would get a tax subsidy. Coverage would be guaranteed for all (“guaranteed issue”) and premiums would be set largely without regard to health status (“community rating”).
   Each plan, whether issued by private insurers or the government, would have to offer benefits as comprehensive as those offered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
   Why would private options evaporate under such a system?
   Consider first small businesses, which arrange coverage for many fewer policyholders than is the case for large companies.
   Small groups thus cannot spread their risks as widely, and for other reasons as well are more costly to serve. As a result, their plans tend to offer benefit packages worth around 30% less than those offered by large groups.
   Because Democratic plans would require small groups to offer benefit packages similar to those in the FEHBP program, the insurance costs of small businesses that continue to offer coverage to their employees could be expected to rise by at least 30%. Few small businesses would make that choice.
   First, the subsidies directed to small employers are unlikely to reduce their cost of providing FEHBP-equivalent private coverage below the pay-or-play tax, which almost certainly would be determined by the cost of the government option supposedly enjoying lower administrative costs.
   Accordingly, most small businesses would elect to pay the tax and set their employees loose on the insurance market. To compensate employees for their lost coverage, businesses would likely give them salary increases equal to the insurance premiums the businesses had been paying for private coverage.
   That salary increase wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of private coverage as comprehensive as that of the FEHBP, as required by the proposals. And so the employees would be induced to choose the supposedly more-efficient government option.
   If, however, the subsidies for small employers were large enough to induce them to offer the more comprehensive coverage, then the cost estimates for the Democratic proposals would turn out to be too low.
   Moreover, costs will increase substantially as expanded subsidies for one group induce others to demand bigger slices of an expanding federal health-insurance pie.
   After all, FEHBP benefits are 15% or so richer than those of Medicare; why should Medicare beneficiaries accept packages worth less than those offered everyone else?
   For large groups, the benefits of existing plans are about the same as those in the FEHBP. Accordingly, employers’ decisions on whether to assume the cost of private insurance or to incur the pay-or-play tax would hinge on a simple cost comparison.
   Again, given the claim that the government option offers substantial administrative savings, it would be politically difficult for Congress to impose a pay-or-play tax that exceeds the purported cost of the government coverage.
   Moreover, a Democratic Congress favoring government-provided insurance would be tempted to hide its actual costs. As such, just as with small employers, it makes economic sense for large businesses to shift employees onto the government plan.
   And so the Democratic promise that those who prefer private coverage will be able to keep it, and that the health-insurance market would continue to enjoy the broader economic advantages offered by a private system, borders on the naive or the cynical.
   Why does this outcome matter?
   Because governments have interest groups, not patients, and thus face powerful political pressures to squeeze both providers and patients in response to the budget demands of others.
   The inevitable result is waiting lists, denial of coverage, under-investment in medical technologies and the long-run degradation of health care quality observed under all single-payer systems.
   The more “universal” the coverage, the greater the budget pressures, and so the more powerful the forces yielding reduced healthcare quality.
   That’s why single-payer “universal” coverage is the enemy of health care, and it’s the inevitable outcome of the Democratic proposals.

Zycher

is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 

Does anyone think the government can do a better job with health care? If you do where is your common sense? Remember Katrina? Ric Joyner