Letter to the Editor Jan. 13, 2010

Published: January 13, 2010

Article Tools
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
Sign Up newsletter

Change we can do without

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within." (Cicero)

EDITOR: What will be the cost of medical care "reform"?

This is what ObamaCare looks like to me:

Oppression - The plan calls for seizure of 1/6 of America's economy (according to Charles Krauthammer) via massive taxation, regulation, and "bribes, deals and loopholes" (Governor Schwarzenegger, 1.6.10) along with punishment of the non-compliant.

Bankruptcy - Draining $1.72 trillion from the private sector, where jobs and wealth are created, will implode our nation's economic stability. Citizens will become financial slaves under a burden of debt. (See Cloward-Piven Strategy)

Abortion - Moral citizens will be mandated to finance domestic terrorism against the unborn.

Marxism - Ignoring the opposition of the majority of Americans presents the perfect conditions for revolution, countered by enforcement of martial law.

Amerika - "It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington." (Barack Obama)

These are changes we can do without.

Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx's most famous student, once said, "When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." The Obama Plan is that rope.

Wayne G. Anthony

Gillett

Ads by Yahoo!






Type in the characters you see in the picture below. If you have trouble reading the characters in the picture, click it to see a new one.



12Next »

23 posted comments

Dan Gordon, I disagree with your view. I consider myself a progressive on social matters such as women's rights (abortion), marriage rights, need for universal health care, immigration reform, and the employee free choice act. But I fully recognize that many have views that oppose mine. That is their right and I tolerate and respect their views. I enjoy debate on any of those issues and could change my mind on most of them if I were to hear a more sensible argument presenting an opposing viewpoint. I think that progressives are in general more open to viewpoints that don't parallel their own. I believe the radical right is much more rigid and less able to tolerate ideas that oppose their own beliefs. As SueA. says, it is this rigidity that will eventually cause the party to self-destruct.
Report
pro gressive,  01/19/10 11:16
SueA, I'm not sure I agree that the radical conservative wing of the party will dominate. Sarah Palin continues to embarrass herself each time she opens her mouth, showing herself to be unfit for any public office. Rush Limbaugh gets more ridiculous by the day. I think conservatives are getting tired of being classified as stupid because of the statements of those who supposedly speak for the far right. I consider myself a conservative and I know I resent their input.
Report
Mr. Right,  01/18/10 1:35
You need to watch what you say as the righteous Left has no tolerance for an opposing view. Free speech isn't tolerated by the Progressive Left unless it supports its social agenda.
Report
Dan Gordon,  01/18/10 12:39
Sue: It always brings me a chuckle when you misrepresent facts to suit your ideological needs. The only people against dissent are liberal democrats who will tolerate no discussion on any issue. either agree or be attacked.

How do you explain the losses of governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, both states that went for his Obamaship in the election? How do you explain democrats frantically campaigning in MA. because a Republican might win? A Republican in MA? Heavens to Hyannis Port! Looks like they are doing pretty good to me. It is a real stretch to extrapolate the number of people running or not running as to the rise fall of any party. A course in statistics would help you out.

And democrats are so scared that their health care fiasco won't pass they are they are engaged in their traditional behind the door deal making to get it passed. "Boss" Dailey of Chicago would be proud. So much for transparency in government. Let's just give 300 million to Louisana, special exemptions to Nebraska, and a "Cadillac" exemption to the Unions, all at the expense of the rest of us taxpayers, to get the bill passed. If the bill was truly worthy it would not need these sweetheart deals. Too bad Casey and Specter couldn't get any for PA if that is the way business is done. We don't need no stinkin' ethics!

You will, or course, ignore my comments and revert to your pet phobia, Bush Bashing, but the facts remain the same regardless of how you try to spin them. We will see whose version of reality is correct in this years elections.

Report
PatrickHenry,  01/18/10 9:58
When a doctrine is so narrow that it allows for no disagreement or dissent it is dangerous. The Radical Conservative Wing of the G.O.P. focus is that narrow. If left to their own, they will soon dominate the party. Then the G.O.P. will self-destruct. It would serve them well, to regain a more moderate agenda.
14 Republicans are leaving congress in 2010, versus 6 Democrats.
More than 2 to 1. I think this speaks much about the G.O.P.'s future.
Report
SueA,  01/17/10 9:23
Yes John, I am very very scared of the radical conservative wing of the party. I prefer RWAB to RINO - it stands for Republican with a brain, the quality missing in most radical conservatives. You don't need to look far to find them, as they now seem to be trying to be speaking for the entire party, when in fact they speak for a tiny minority. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin - all in it for the money and to see how much fear and hatred they can spew. They don't speak for me or have anything in common with mainstream Republicans. Your "true conservative base" is filled with people who don't know how to think. They're like sheep, but not as intelligent. What are democrates? Boxes used to ship demos?
Report
waiting for a glimmer of intelligence,  01/16/10 9:42
It seems that waiting and Sue A. are or were RINO republicans. Are both scared that the true conservative base will come out and defeat these quasi-democrates? Because before Reagan that is what they were RINOS!!!
Report
John Lukach,  01/16/10 8:26
SueA. A dismal 18 percent of Americans will now identify themselves as Republicans. I have been following the maneuvering by potential candidates for the Repub. 2012 presidential nomination and it is hard to believe some of the names being thrown about. Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Giuliani - heaven help us all, but there are some bright young rising stars also being mentioned so I will not yet give up hope. Until main-stream Republicans reject the virally conservative right, I don't see much hope for the party to rebuild itself.
Report
waiting,  01/15/10 10:12
Waiting for a leader is so right. I left the Republican party upon the nomination of Ronald Reagan. He was at best a B-Movie actor, and he did serious harm to our nation. However, he did deliver his speeches with great style. The legacy of Clinton will live long past Monica Lewinsky. His current service to the world, and his foundation will insure that. George W. Bush can not be restored to honor. There is just too much destruction in his wake.
Those who try to restore his legacy do not come forth with clean hands themselves. So, they are hardly credible. G.W. is to date the worst President in our nation's history. Everywhere you look damage.
President Obama has been in office, not quite one year. Major legislation and reform has already taken place. Expansion of the hate crime bill, pulling the economy back from the very brink of total collapse. Demanding accountability from those who got bail outs.
Now, affordable health care is almost a reality. After 70 years of attempts, we may see that bill signed in a few weeks. Not perfect, but good. Drawing down Iraq, with not one American death in December. New strategy for Afghanistan.
George Bush did have terrorist attacks, they just want to rewrite history. Still, how does he outrun Katrina, Torture, the outing of a CIA operative, the active degradation of the clean air and clean water acts, the loss standing on the world stage, blurring the lines on separation of church and state, it goes on and on. Hard to believe he and his cronies could do so much harm in 8 years. I will give him kudos for his work on providing funding for AIDS research and treatment.
One time Bill Clinton went before Congress, and the wrong speech was on the teleprompter. Some reports say he spoke for 10 to 15 minutes, off the cuff,on topic, and no one realized it. He knew his business. George W. Bush was often off topic and incoherent,even with the correct message before him.
I am amazed that he has defenders.
A strong two party system is important to our process. Once the party of Lincoln, but no more. I hope you find your leader.
Many have said they didn't leave the G.O.P. it left them.
Report
Sue A,  01/14/10 10:54
SueA., When Clinton was president the Republicans set out to ruin his legacy through personal attacks. They invested many times more money in the Whitewater investigation than was spent on the 9/11 commission, all to prove nothing. Then he handed them his legacy on a silver platter with the Monica business. After Reagan's terms, a massive effort was undertaken to convince the publiuc that he was a great president, although he was only a grade B actor who knew how to act like a great president. The Reagan legacy project lives on. Just recently, a number of Republican notables have undertaken a project to burnish the Bush image. Ex press secretary Dana Perino, Liz Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani have all recently stated that no terrorist attacks occured on Bush's 'watch', seemingly having forgotten 9/11. Since Obama's image is hard to attack, they are focused on blocking any and all of his initiatives. They have gutted the health care bill and are actively trying to block or weaken every other project on his list. I remain a Republican, but it's been a long time since I have taken any pride in saying so. I remain...
Report
waiting for a leader,  01/14/10 3:35
I refer to Bill Clinton tried to get things done despite the Republicans. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes not. What I admire, is despite all the drama, he still left the USA with a balance budget, a surplus, no wars, and respect globally. What I dislike about G.W. and his cronies, is they gutted tne surplus, ran up unprecedented debt, gave tax breaks to the richest 1%, and decimated the middle class, engaged us in two, questionable, wars,
approved torture, brought us to the brink of economic collapse by September 2008.
There is little to laud George W. Bush about. He did good in Africa. He gave lip service to education. He has a nice family.
I was just noting that both journalists have respectible credentials, and that neither side, should be implying that either is ignorant.
Yes, if I was asked to grade Bill Clinton it would be a A-.
George Bush would be luck to get a D, most people would say F isn't low enough.
I don't ask you to agree. I don't expect you to.
Report
Sue A,  01/14/10 12:45
SueA. Mr. Krauthammer is a commentator for Fox News, so that must make him fair and balanced, right? As a long time faithful watcher of Fox News who finally couldn't take it any longer, I no longer have any regard for their program or their commentators. I don't believe my political views have changed, but I do require honesty from my news program. Fox News no longer meets that requirement.
Report
get a clue,  01/14/10 11:01
I know of Mr Krauthammers Pullitzer. He still can be a bit overbearing. I know of Mr. Krugman's Nobel Prize Award. Of course this is the same Nobel Prize Committee that awards Obama a Peace Prize for what he might do and the fact he makes make people feel good with what he says, not what he has accomplished (still waiting on that).

Mr. Krugman's socialist point of view no doubt resonates well with nanny state leftist Europeans. That does not make his credibility any better. Advocating continued massive government spending, debt increase and draconian control of private industry is not the way to a sound financial future. The model for that type of policy was the Soviet Union and such policies brought about its ultimate collapse. I do not wish for my country to emulate them.

The fact, Sue, is that House was under Democratic leadership from 1955 to 1995. They also held control of the Senate for 32 of those 40 years. In that time we saw liberal spending policies sanctioned by those bodies transform the United States from the biggest lender to the biggest borrower nation and our national debt explode into the trillions.

Mr. Krugman supports such policies and because of that, I find his credibility low. This is not an emotional, venom sprewing demouncement. It is my opinion based on the analysis of government spending policies since the Eisenhower administration.

You often speak so fondly of President Clinton and his fiscal policies, but from 1995 on those policies were driven by the political reality that fiscal conservatives of the Republican policy in control of the House and their Democratic allies controlled the purse strings. Clinton, being an excellent politician, went along with them and rarely pushed for the liberal spending measures and proposal's that marked his administration from 1993 to 1995.

Presidents propose budgets, the House and Senate make budgets. If you laud Clinton, you must praise the Republican House. If you denounce Bush fiscal policies of the last two years of his administration, you must denounce the House Democrats who let them happen. You cannot have it both ways to suit ideological purposes.

Report
PatrickHenry,  01/14/10 10:48
William Rehnquist, Supreme Court Justice, wrote on the issue of majority rule, and it has stood the test of time. No all issues are decided by the majority, some issues must be decided by what is right. Legally, morally, and ethically right. He wrote:
" a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional rights"
For many of us, in fact, from the most recent polls the "majority" of us consider access to safe, affordable health care to be a basic right of all citizens. Even if that were not the case, the majority can not deprive the minority of it.
That is the United States Supreme Court decision. Not from Marx, Lenin, etc.
Yeah, its in there.....
Report
SueA,  01/14/10 10:22
It seems to be that while lambasting Mr. Anthony most commentators on here also are just as set in their views on the other side. From any of the polls I have recently read, a decided majority of Americans are not in favor of reform, or at least the of the plan in congress at this time. To Laugher, your post is considered your opinion, which may or may not be considered based on reality...or facts.
Report
Setaf,  01/14/10 9:26
Amen, Mr. Anthony.
Report
Greg,  01/14/10 8:09
It is likely Wayne means well but his conclusions are terribly tainted by his blind and narrow political views.
Report
Robert,  01/14/10 7:06
Paul Krugman is a 2008 Nobel Prize winner in economics.
He tends toward a liberal viewpoing.
Charles Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize winner in economic journalism. His views are more conservative.
They are both intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable on this subject. It is their worldview, and political stance, that differs.
There is no reason to denounce either man, or to imply one is not as worthy as the other.
Credibility is not lacking in either person. So, lets not disparage the individual just because our viewpoint is different.
It pays to do your homework, and know your topic, before engaging in debate of this kind.
Report
SueA,  01/13/10 4:45
Get-A-Clue: a commentator with less credibility: Paul Krugman of the New York Times
Report
PatrickHenry,  01/13/10 3:17
Wayne,
Excellent article and right on the mark!
Report
Jim Andrews,  01/13/10 11:33
12Next »