Steamd

As stated in part one and part two, this is an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter (again, sounds confusing but what do you do). In part three of her series, she starts right off with some colorful comments about the state of Medicare and how that relates to the current health care reform debate:

(9) If you like Medicare, you’ll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare’s benefits to everyone.

Hey — I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff’s investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a “Ponzi scheme.” These always seem to run fabulously well — until the money runs out.

Ah, right! A “Ponzi scheme”! So, what you’re saying is that the government takes people’s money but doesn’t use the money to actually give people health care benefits? Wait a minute! Isn’t that what health insurance companies do too?  I’m so confused.

Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.

This is funny because private insurers largely refuse to cover things like hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, and chiropractic care. Marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery? Where the hell did those come from? Last I checked, Medicare doesn’t really cover any of this stuff either so…err…what’s your point?

Moreover, Medicare payments aren’t enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That’s why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.

No, you end up with a $10 aspirin not because the hospital doesn’t get paid enough by Medicare but because they don’t get paid at all by the ones without insurance or have claims denied by the patient’s insurance company. It’s easy to blame Medicare for why hospital bills are so damn expensive but that’s simply not the truth. There are a myriad of other factors as to why medical bills are so expensive. The American medical system stays afloat mainly due to the large profits health insurance and pharmaceutical companies receive. The ones who suffer the most are the doctors and hospitals who have to put up with denied claims, failure to pay, a shortage of qualified nurses, a confusing mess of contracts from the insurance companies, and a slew of other things that make the business of practicing medicine downright difficult.

National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.

Considering the insane profits insurance and pharmaceutical companies are getting, is that such a bad thing? I don’t know about you but I really don’t like the idea of Mr. CEO of Aetna being able to pay for another yacht just because my dad got a heart bypass. Doesn’t make sense and neither does your statement.

Obviously, therefore, it’s preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you’re designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?

It doesn’t work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An “all-penthouse” building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.

That would be a great analogy indeed if it really worked that way. The thing is that what is being proposed isn’t merely an extension of Medicare to the entire population but rather a segment of the population. In other words, no one is looking to give a penthouse to everyone, just access to an apartment to those who are stuck in the rain with no where to live.

One thing you did get right is that it would make sense only to someone who has never run a business, which is what the current health care industry is…a business. Problem is that that business is profiting severely off the sick and injured of others. So what you could have said was that it would make sense to someone who actually has a conscience but would be confusing as hell to someone who only understands business terminology like growth and profitability. The more we continue to look at our health as nothing more than just a business the more we continue to overlook the very problem. While I agree that doctors and hospitals should be paid for what they are worth, I do not agree with how the rest of the industry is ran. Lots of gross mismanagement and greed at play.

10) National health care won’t cover illegal aliens — as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.

Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn’t “designed” to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the “Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009,” was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)

First of all, none of the bills were written by Obama. He has laid out his own proposals of what he’d like to see in the bills but it’s up to Congress to shape the bills to reflect his plan. Here’s what Obama actually said in his recent address to Congress:

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants.  This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Which, as we all know, was followed by a rather loud “You lie!” from Senator Wilson. I think the keyword here is insure, meaning that no illegal immigrant will be eligible to obtain any government sponsored health care insurance plans, period. In other words, if a bill hits Obama’s desk that would allow an illegal immigrant to gain access to health insurance he isn’t going to sign it.

But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can’t even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?

Right now, any illegal immigrant can walk into a public hospital and receive care if they are injured or sick. That’s not likely to change any time soon either. The reason is that to deny anyone health care in this country regardless of whether they are a legal citizen or not presents a moral dilemma: Would you want to live in a country that turns away treatment to someone even if it could mean saving their life?

Not only that but I think Ann is confusing access to health care with access to health insurance. These are two separate disparate things. Anyone can get access to health care when they are sick or hurt. But whether they can afford it is a different matter. That’s where health insurance comes into play. When it comes to the debate over whether illegal immigrants can receive health benefits, we’re talking about access to health insurance here, not access to health care.

And by the way — as with the abortion exclusion — the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.

Umm, probably because it’s not really required in the bill. I mean, if you have to be a citizen of the United States to get health insurance anyways then why would you need to state that you have to show proof of residency status to receive care in the bill?

Beyond that, can you imagine all the problems that would occur in an emergency room if you had to verify every incoming patient and require proof of residency status? A guy shows up after a heart attack and requires immediate medical attention. But, wait! We can’t let him in yet till he proves he’s a legal resident! It’s a moral question: Do you force the issue and run the risk of him dying? Or do you provide him the medical attention he needs and deal with that issue later?

(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled “public option” (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an “option” to pay for or not.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. “Abortion” becomes “choice,” “communist” becomes “progressive,” “communist dictatorship” becomes “people’s democratic republic” and “Nikita Khrushchev” becomes “Barack Obama.”

Yeah, but then again, some names just don’t change. “Bitch” is still “bitch” last I checked. Look, Obama has never dropped his demand for a “public option”. Just the opposite. And he has made it clear that in his own proposals that the “public option” would only be available to those who can not afford health insurance. As he stated in his address, “The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”

It doesn’t matter if liberals start calling national health care a “chocolate chip puppy” or “ice cream sunset” — if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.

First of all, the “public option” is not something that will result in the government calling the shots. Ironically, when it comes to death panels and rationing of health care, that’s exactly what health insurance companies are doing right now. They don’t want to give policies to those who are old and sick. They’d rather give policies to those who are young and healthy. To them, that’s just good business because it means less claims paid out and more profits. So as far as death panels and rationing of care those two things already exist due to the fact that it is tied into the profitability of insurance companies.

I think it’s highly irresponsible to claim that our government would go out of its way to kill off old people and make taxpayers pay for every abortion and the health of illegal aliens in this country. I would presume that most of the folks in Washington are people who know the difference between right and wrong; people with morals and values. Conservatives like Ann keep telling us that this is a “Christian nation”. If that’s the case, then why all the talk about the government doing evil things? I mean, our government is operated by people, right?

Granted, someone has to pay for the care illegal aliens receive at public hospitals. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that denies anyone health care just because they’re not supposed to be here. Unfortunately, most of the cost for providing health care to illegal immigrants is already taken out of taxes like property taxes and the like.

As for abortion, I’m sorry but there are legitimate reasons for why certain abortions should be covered. If a private insurance company is willing to cover the cost of an abortion under certain circumstance then there should be no reason why a “public option” insurance plan shouldn’t do the same. Now, whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, that’s a different conversation.

Bottom line is that we’re already in a mess as it is and, quite frankly, it’s a mess that wasn’t 100% caused by government control. While one could argue that certain government restrictions have caused the industry to falter, the majority of the problems within the health care industry were cause by the very thing that most “conservatives” keep harping about: free enterprise.

For the past 20+ years or so companies within the health care industry have had free reign to shape the industry as they see fit. As such, costs kept going up as publicly traded companies demanded more growth and profitability. And when it comes to health insurance companies, profitability is far more important than whether your grandpa should be able to get that new heart valve put in. Same applies to pharmaceutical companies. They’re more concerned with getting as big of a return on their investment on a new drug before the patent runs out than whether you can afford to shell out $500 a month for it.

According to Ann, it would seem that either way we’re screwed. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If it’s not the government telling us what to do then corporate America will most certainly pick up the slack.

Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter (sounds confusing doesn’t it!), Annie regurgitates additional talking points about health care in part two of her series. It’s worth mentioning that in part one, I took some time to setup exactly how the health care industry has impacted me. If you haven’t read it, be sure and read it before moving on. It’ll help in understanding where my point of view comes from.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it.

Got proof? No, you don’t. Instead you rattle on with a bunch of conclusions based on a few unsubstantiated facts that have little to do with the actual debate:

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, “The Death Panel”) deny medical treatment wasn’t a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs … without ever denying a single medical treatment!

That would be true if the government was responsible for deciding who gets treatment and who doesn’t. But it’s not. What uninsured Americans will receive isn’t a government health care program but rather a government sponsored health care insurance plan. In other words, uninsured Americans will be dealing with health insurance companies, not the government. So it won’t be the government denying medical treatment, it’ll be the health insurance companies which, ironically, isn’t at all different than what is going on now. Insurance companies deny medical treatments every single day.

Under national health care, you’ll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn’t entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that’s how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

Again, if it’s through an insurance company how can you call it rationing? If you want to get technical, insurance companies are rationing health care as we speak. The government can’t tell insurance companies which claims are covered and aren’t covered. The only thing the government can do is put forth some regulations that keep the insurance companies honest, which is exactly what is at debate here. Besides, how is it any different if an insurance company rations your health care than the government doing it?

The only way that the government could potentially ration health care is if we were on a single-payer system, which we aren’t and won’t be for a long, long time. Hell, I’m willing to bet that the United States won’t ever transition to a single-payer system in even my lifetime.

What Coulter presumes is illustrating here is a fictitious scenario that doesn’t even exist right now and isn’t even up for debate. Besides, her joke about Dr. Conrad Murray, the doctor who is suspected of possibly giving Michael Jackson the drugs that killed him, is such that I can’t really take anything she has to say seriously about this.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada — presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau — imposed price controls on oil.

There is very little or no difference at all between the health care industry and the oil industry. They are two very different industries with completely different rules on how they are operated. Making this kind of comparison does little to support a valid point other than “Carter bad. Reagan good.”

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

Incorrect. Insurance companies make decisions for millions of Americans as it is. You call that allowing others to make their own rationing decisions? Even if we were to lift the restriction that disallows insurance companies from providing service on an interstate level, that still will not stop them from denying claims for pre-existing conditions and other reasons. There is no freedom when you have a corporation who will deny you service in an effort to maintain profitability.

I think what Annie is trying to say is that Democrats are claiming that a public option in and of itself will lower health care costs. That would be incorrect. Providing some sort of a public option that allows Americans to gain access to affordable health care insurance isn’t the only thing that will aid in lowering costs. You also have to lift some of the restrictions that don’t allow insurance companies to compete. That much is true. But you also have to put in place a different set of restrictions that keep insurance companies honest, the biggest one being a denial of health coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Not only that but there are definitive ways for which health care costs can be reduced by implementing some simple common sense guidelines for which doctors and hospitals can prescribe to.

(8) National health care won’t cover abortions.

No need to quote Annie here because, quite frankly, her little diatribe about this makes little sense.  Here’s what Obama had to say about this:

…Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

As it stands, there are loads of restrictions on abortion. In fact, in most states its actually quite difficult to walk into a clinic and get an abortion without going through a long, arduous process to ensure that a patient looking to get an abortion is making the right choice. Beyond that, if the patient is covered under a health care plan through an insurance company then it wouldn’t be the government providing funding for an abortion. Even then, I would bet that an insurance company wouldn’t cover an abortion except for very strict cases when the mother’s and/or child’s life is in question.

More to come in part three…

Before I go off into a rant, let me first describe to you my current health care situation. I’ve touched on this in the past so I won’t repeat myself too much.

I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis around March of this year. Anyone who knows about this disease will know that it’s an anti-immune disease with no real cure. The only thing you can do is take maintenance drugs that help keep flare-ups from happening. The problem is that the most popular drugs used to treat ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and other similar ailments can be quite expensive. There is a cheaper option but the side effects aren’t all that great.

I started off taking Asacol and purchased a three month supply while I still had insurance. Even then the cost after deductible was still quite high. I think I spent darn near $200 for the three month supply and that was even with a bulk discount. Recently, I started to run out of Asacol and started to shop around for more. What I found out shocked me. Without insurance, a one month supply (that’s 180 pills; 6 pills per day for 30 days) would cost me around $300. Simply put, I can’t afford that. $300 per month may be chump change to some folks but, to me, that’s a lot of money. I simply do not understand why any drug would cost this much. My only alternative was to either seek out a new insurance policy or buy a cheaper alternative drug.

So, off I went to look for another insurance policy. Unfortunately, due to my pre-existing condition, no insurance company in the state of Texas will cover me for my ulcerative colitis for at least a year. So much for that. Aside from that, the rates for insurance plans weren’t all that great. While the cheapest PPO plan was just over $100, the deductible left a lot to be desired: $10,000. Good plan if all you care about is coverage for cases when you get terminally ill or hurt but that’s about it. For me, a deductible around $2,500 would be ok, which brings the plan to around $162. That’s still pretty good but, even then, only provides 80% coverage plus deductible. Thing is that if I can’t get coverage for my ulcerative colitis then what’s the point? I’m pretty much paying $100 a month into something that is only good if the shit really hits the fan. Even then, there’s still no guarantee that the insurance company will cover me for every claim. I know this because I’ve been through it. I’ve had plenty of claims denied for various bullshit reasons.

I ended up deciding to buy a cheaper alternative to Asacol in the form of sulfasalazine. Even without insurance, I got a 3 month supply for around $30. While it does treat the disease as well as Asacol, it’s still not as good. The side effects leave a lot to be desired. First, it causes infertility, which means my wife and I definitely can’t have kids while I’m on the stuff. Second, I have found that it can cause some light numbness in my toes. That part has my wife kind of freaked out right now. There are some other mild side effects but those are my top two right now.

So I’m in a weird position where I have a disease that no insurance company will cover for a year and I can’t afford the outrageously expensive drugs for. For all the pundits out there, tell me, what should I do? Am I supposed to just grin and bear it like a good little American? Or do I hope for change in the system that will allow me some relief from the shitty business practices that health insurance companies hammer average citizens with every single day? I’d much rather go with the later option.

Sigh! That’s a lot off my shoulders! Now on with my rant…

A lot about health care has been said by those on the far-right and when I hear it my head just wants to explode. Much of it is just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. Ironically, that exactly what the far-right says, that’s its all just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. To show you what I mean, I’ll be writing a multi-part series of posts based on Ann Coulter’s recent series called Liberal Lies About National Health Care.

In the first part of Ann’s series, Ann starts right off with commentary on her first point:

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

Umm…duh?

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Ironically, President Obama touched on this very thing in his recent speech to Congress:

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition.  Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.  In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company.  Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.

I would presume that this means he’s well aware of the government restrictions that disallow insurance companies from providing interstate coverage. But, quite frankly, that is but a small percentage of the overall bigger problem with insurance companies. More on that later.

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

While I will admit that many Democrats, including Obama, were for a single-payer system at one time, that is simply not the case now. Why? Well, I’ll let Obama explain it:

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone.  On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches.  But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.  Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.  And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

Nope. Nothing about making it a total government takeover of the health care system. Besides, doing so in a down economy would be extremely stupid, if not futile.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Again, I’ll let Obama explain this one:

…if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices.  If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage.  If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage.  We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.  Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.  As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage.  This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance.  It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance.  And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

Gee, Ann, that doesn’t sound at all like government-provided health care. Sounds more like a health care fair where the government gets a little kickback fee for bringing the insurance companies new customers. As for your cable plan analogy, I akin this to being like the digital box that replaces the old antenna ears. While it may not be cable television, it’s still better than nothing.

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

In his speech, Obama mentioned a story about a man who died due to lack of treatment:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.  They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

For which Coulter replies:

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that a health care insurance company’s ability to make a profit and please their stockholders is more important that doing the moral, right thing? Am I getting this right? Seems to me that they could find a much better business model that doesn’t require screwing over people’s health to protect the bottom line.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

What does government regulation have to do with an insurance company’s ability to accept or deny a claim? Nothing. The government doesn’t make those decisions, the insurance companies do. And when it comes to the acceptance or denial of those claim, no, the customer has no choice. While you can appeal any denial of a claim, good luck getting it appealed with any expediency. Insurance companies are practically worse that the very government that you bitch about, Ann!

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in theTimes.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

Umm…Ann…I can’t get full coverage from any insurance company right now. Thus, I can’t simply tell an insurance company that “I’m taking my business elsewhere”. Pre-existing condition limitations are the very “basic consumer protections” Obama was talking about and I welcome it. Telling customers that they aren’t covered due to a pre-existing condition is a shitty business practice plain and simple. So much for your hamburger analogy.

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

Bullshit. Blue Cross Blue Shield is available in just about every state, including Texas, and insures more than 100,000,000 collectively. They aren’t exactly a microscopic size company. So why would they not cover pre-existing conditions? Because just about every health insurance company follows this practice. Not because of government regulations, though I will admit that it might play but a fraction of the reason. No, I think the real reason is that it cuts down on the number of claims paid out in a huge way thus boosting the bottom line and satisfying an ever greedy stock market.

Show me a health insurance company that is in danger of being in the red. Most publicly traded insurance companies are highly profitable and, quite frankly, will deny coverage to anyone if they can get away with it if it means maintaining Wall Street expectations.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Are “liberals” really all that evil for wanting to inject fairness and more competition into the system? Or is the “status quo” still the better way? Ask yourself a question: With all that has been happening in the financial markets, would you allow a company to invest and barter your health as stock on Wall Street?

Got this in my inbox the other day:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin,
presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he
doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171,
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present
except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag
with the right hand over the heart.

‘As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking
sides,’ Obama said. ‘There are a lot of people in the world to whom the
American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a
war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should
be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song
‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might
salute it.’

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!!
I, for once, am speechless. He has absolutely NO pride in this country!!!!!
This is outrageous!!!! He doesn’t deserve to be dogcatcher!!!

(Oh, sorry dogcatchers, I mean you no disrespect.)

LET’S SEND THIS CLOWN DOWN THE ROAD KICKING ROCKS, AND HOPEFULLY HE WILL HIDE UNDER ONE OF THOSE ROCKS!

Outrageous? Absolutely outrageous because the problem with this is that Barack Obama never said that. The quote is actually from a satire written from a columnist. The only clown here is the guy who originally wrote this email.

Have a Coke and a smile!

Today, my mother forwarded me an email she received from a friend entitled Obama mocking the Bible. Included was a link to a YouTube video and the following words:

DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!

It’s clear that this person is ignorant, not just because he/she can’t spell but because his/her viewpoints are way out in left-field. And as Obama pointed out it’s as if people like this take pride in their ignorance.

Here’s the video in question:

The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. In no way did Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Anyone who has heard or read this speech would know that he was talking about the problems associated with religion and politics, the importance of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the importance religion has in many people’s lives including his own.  Below is a excerpt of his speech that includes the part shown in the video:

Excerpt from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge. 

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now, ask yourself: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can you name just one?

Last time I had jury duty, the judge who presided over the court gave us a little booklet that included a copy of the Constitution as well as a print out of an article from USA Today entitled “God and the Constitution“. A survey of about 1,000 people was taken in which they asked “What specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?”  Here are the results of that poll:

What shocked me was that 55% believed that the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation”. Even more disturbing is the assumption of special status of just one religion, that the Constitution protects only Christianity. Here’s some other startling results of the poll:

• 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.
• 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.
• 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

And exactly what does the First Amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition. These are rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

And you mean to tell me that we’re strictly a Christian country? Not according to our Constitution.

Here’s something else you probably don’t know: Before Barack Obama became a state Senator in Illinois, he was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and the University of Chicago Law School. Do you think maybe he knows a little something about our Constitution and how our government work? I can guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more than you and I do.

Keep in mind, I’m not just defending Barack Obama. I’ll defend any outright lies and misquoted statements made about John McCain as well. Context is important, folks. I want the facts, not a whole lot of propaganda and lies that don’t amount to anything. Before you allow anyone to simply tell you what to think (like the gentleman in this video), learn the facts and draw a conclusion of your own. Although an opinion does not have to be based on fact, it certainly helps.

In the case of politics, it greatly helps to have an educated opinion. Learn the facts about who the candidates really are. Rather than letting some left-wing or right-wing whackos tell you who they are, learn the facts for yourself. And I’m not just talking about Barack Obama and John McCain.  I’m talking about all candidates. When it comes time to vote, you won’t be voting just for the President. You’ll also be voting for other seats. Who are the candidates for state Senator and the House? What about your state government officials? Find out. That’s what being part of the process is all about.

Today, my wife sent me a link to a bumper sticker that said “All Your Fears Are Lies“. This made me think about a recent e-mail I received regarding a man in Canada who had problems receiving proper health care:

A Short Course On Brain Surgery Worth Watching…

A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems. Everyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 NEEDS to see this. Regardless of the person for whom they would vote. Please forward this to everyone you can think of as soon as you can.

The problem with e-mails like this is that it makes the bumper sticker seem a whole lot more true. People do indeed fear what is essentially a lie. There’s no doubt in my mind that the system of healthcare in Canada can cause many problems for many Canadians. I don’t think anyone can deny that. The part of this video I disagree with is the last part where the narrator says this:

“Isn’t it ironic that while the Canadian government’s monopoly on health care is slowly crumbling in the face of widespread suffering, liberal Democrats in the U.S. are pushing to adopt a system much like the one that has failed so miserably in Canada.”

Which Democrats want to create a true socialized heath care system like Canada? Obama? Nope. He doesn’t want to create a total socialized heath care system. He just wants to insure that everyone in America has access to affordable health insurance. Read the attached documents and tell me exactly what parts of it are not true and what parts make it a socialized system. Seriously, read each of these thoroughly and completely. These are taken straight off of Obama’s web site:

Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America

Background Question and Answers on Health Care Plan

Now compare the very well thought out, highly detailed verbiage in these documents to McCain’s web site. Notice a difference? Not to knock on McCain but personally it looks like McCain is really good at identifying all the problems but not providing any real solutions…just band-aids.

The problem with health insurance in this country is that it’s not accessible and unaffordable to many Americans that are without health care insurance. Unless you work at a job that either provides full coverage or really cheap health insurance then you’re pretty much screwed if you can’t afford it on your own. I know this because I’ve personally been shopping for health insurance and, yes, it’s expensive!

Wal-Mart is a good example of a company that, although provides a health insurance plan, doesn’t follow through to insure that every employee can afford it. Here’s what it says straight off their own web site:

Every associate who works in the United States can become eligible for individual health coverage costing as little as $5 per month in some areas and as little as $8 per month nationwide. As soon as an associate becomes eligible for benefits, their children become eligible too.

Today, more than 92 percent of associates have health insurance–either through us or through other coverage. For our associates who choose coverage with Wal-Mart, we also offer more than 2,400 generic prescription drugs for $4. This includes prescription drugs to treat everything from diabetes to heart disease.

Wal-Mart associates will find more than 50 ways to customize their health coverage. They can select from a menu of deductibles, health care coverage options, and health credits and premiums.

We want associates and their families to have the peace of mind that their healthcare needs will be met, especially when they need it most. To ensure that peace of mind, Wal-Mart’s health coverage includes no lifetime maximums on most health care expenses.

92% insured? Really? So, by that measure, Wal-Mart went from only 50% insured to 92% insured in just 6 months. Check out this article on the New York Times website dated January 23, 2008:

Wal-Mart Says More Than Half Its Workers Have Its Health Insurance

This is a company that makes billions of dollars a year and 50% of their employees can’t even afford to buy the insurance provided to them. Granted, some of them probably have spouses that get insurance from their employer. But what about the ones that don’t? Where do they get health insurance? Right. Social services which consequently come right out of the taxes we pay. If even two-thirds of the estimated 1.4 million Wal-Mart employees have insurance that would still leave over 900,000 employees who are forced to used government provided programs for health care and other needs. Yeah, Wal-Mart sure is taking care of their employees alright.

This isn’t an Obama vs McCain, Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, Socialism vs Capitalism issue. This is an issue that affects peoples lives. And, like the video about Canada, it can be a matter of life and death for some people. It’s one thing to claim that providing affordable healthcare is socialism. It’s another when doing virtually nothing to address the problem is the alternative solution. Millions of people in America can’t afford health care. What do we say to them?

I personally believe that regardless of whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independant, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever that you can still look upon others who are on the opposite side of the fence and see eye to eye on the issues that effect our country. But its not till we can seriously talk about the issues and discuss the solutions till we can get to that point. It’s one thing to talk about the problems. It’s another to really address them and come up with worthwhile solutions. Not every solution is perfect…but if the politicians we are voting for can at least propose good, solid, well thought out solutions based on the facts then that is a step in the right direction. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m voting for who I believe to be the person who is trying to address the problems and come up with worthwhile solutions. Again, they may not be 100% perfect…but they’re solutions nonetheless.

My job as a web developer is much harder when ideas aren’t flowing. Each and every project has to start somewhere. Even if the ideas aren’t perfect you have to start somewhere. A good start on coming up with ideas, even flawed ones, is much better than no start at all. Wouldn’t you agree?

So my mom receives this e-mail the other day with an outlandish claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim:

The Jihad Candidate
by Rich Carroll

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ and ‘Seven Days in May’ are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader’s imagination at best-seller level. ‘What if’ has always been the solid grist of fiction.

Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years. How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as ‘chaplains’? Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya’s history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of ‘racism’. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as ‘bigoted racism’; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American ‘free press’ who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation’s reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush’s ‘Skull and Bones’ club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven’t ‘newsmen’ pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate’s cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven’t they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this ‘out of nowhere’ Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his ‘close pastor friend and mentor’ met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn’t the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn’t our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on ‘those bad American soldiers’ while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as ‘ethnic cleansing’ instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. ‘The process of settlement’ of Muslims in America, Akram explained, ‘is a civilization jihad process.’ This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in ‘America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of ‘racist’ from the left-wing Democrat crowd.

Lies and deception behind a master plan – the ingredients for ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation’s White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations? Change for America? What change? To become another ‘nation of Islam’?

SOBERING THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
“When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I’m beginning to believe it.” (Clarence Darrow)

Pretty outlandish, isn’t it. So outlandish and such an outright lie that I felt that it bared a response to each and every person who received this e-mail in the chain. So here’s my response:

When I received this, I thought about simply just tossing it into my trash folder and calling it a day…which I probably should have done. But the problem I have with this is that so many people pass this stuff around and so may people actually believe it. As such, I’m doing the one thing that everyone should do when faced with something that is a lie: I’m telling you that it’s not true. There are multiple sources online, highly reputable sources that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama is not and never has been a Muslim.

This kind of writing is nothing more that the slinging of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The internet is a powerful thing and it’s so easy to fabricate things and convince people that it’s true. This sort of thing has been going on for ages even before the internet was around. The difference is that with just as many lies being thrown around there are even more sites that show the truth. They’re not hard to find. All it takes is a bit of searching.

So, is Barack Obama a Muslim? Let’s find out. I went to Google and typed in “barack obama muslim” as the keywords. Top two results are as follows:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

http://isbarackobamamuslim.com/

That pretty much covers it. There are enough reputable sources in just those two links enough to debunk this obvious myth.

So the next time you see or hear anything that might seem outlandish or possibly false, do a search and find out the facts. Don’t ever assume that what anyone tells you is 100% true and based on fact. Learn the facts yourself before you attempt to draw any conclusions or opinions on it.

Also, the next time you see an e-mail like this or someone telling you something you know not to be true, call them on it. Write back or respond and tell them it’s not true and show them the facts. When it comes to politics, this is the only way we can truly have an unfiltered discussion: without the lies, without the exaggerations, without the FUD, and without rhetoric. Say what you want, believe what you want…but always, always, always keep the facts straight.

Thank you.

Jeff Whitfield

I figured I’d get some kind of response from someone…and but a day later I did:

I would not go so far as to state as fact that Mr. Obama is or isn’t a Muslim. I will state as fact that he possesses Communistic and Socialistic ideals. That is not acceptable! In addition, Google, one of the most liberal institutions in America, is NOT my reference of choice. But thank you anyway for feeling that you were duty-bound to englighten the rest of us.

What? Google is “one of the most liberal institutions in America”? Wow. That in itself definitely required a response:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But those opinions need to be grounded in facts, not predicated on lies. Saying that Obama possesses communistic and socialistic ideals isn’t a fact…it’s yours and other people’s opinion. I’m not even going to attempt to try and sway you of that opinion because, frankly, that isn’t even my argument right now, nor am I attempting to “enlighten” anyone. This is just common sense I’m talking about here. Your perfectly entitled to your opinion and I will respect it. Just don’t try and pass off your opinion as a fact.

I’ve been a professional in the IT industry for almost 8 years now and a professional web developer for 4 years. I’ve had my thumb on the pulse of the internet industry for quite some time now. Knowing what’s going on in this industry is part of my job. That includes knowing a thing or two about the companies that make up this industry. So, when I hear someone saying that “Google [is] one of the most liberal institutions in America”, I’m sorry, I just have to respond.

There are many, many other companies that share similar philosophies to Google: Yahoo!, Apple, 37 Signals (www.37signals.com), Mozilla (of Firefox fame), Facebook, Flickr (owned by Yahoo!), YouTube (owned by Google), and many many others. To say that Google is liberal is to say that other companies that are remotely similar to Google are liberal as well. Problem is that Google is not a liberal company. Their philosophy and approach to the web is, in fact, highly conservative. How they treat their company might be one thing…but how they treat the internet is something entirely different.

Google’s mission statement is “Do no evil”. Google generates their revenue entirely off the sale of their search technology to other companies and online advertising on their site. I’m a big proponent on good software design. There’s a reason why Google has been successful…and it’s not because they are a liberal company, it’s because they create great products. Here’s some of the philosophies they follow with their products (http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html):

1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There’s always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without suit.
10. Great just isn’t good enough.

They’re also big proponents and contributors of open-source software and have one of the best development environments of just about any online software company. They promote innovation and creativity to the extreme, so much so that they have a company policy that encourages their developers to spend at least 25% of their time working on personal projects. Google is also about standards, something that web development and design is all about.

They also are firm believers in network neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) and don’t believe that any network or ISP has the right to treat your internet connection like it was cable TV.

Google tries not to be conservative or liberal. Google just tries to be Google regardless of what political stance any of the company leaders take. So based on this, how exactly is it that Google is “one of the most liberal institutions in America”? If it’s because they are “outside-of-the-box” thinkers and their management is different from the norm then maybe they are “liberal”. But their philosophy on how good web applications should be designed and how the internet should run is far from being a liberal point of view. With Google, it’s all about Google as a “product”, not what political slant they appear to take. Google is more of a philosophy…not a political movement.

But I digress. I use Google’s products and find them to be some of the best the internet has to offer. But just because I like them doesn’t mean you will. You might prefer Yahoo! or another site. And just like your opinion, you’re entitled to use whatever products you feel are the best solutions for you. Who was it that said that “variety is the spice of life”? There is no one perfect solution for everyone when it comes to the products and services available to us. But to get political with something like Google…man, that’s a stretch.

And, wouldn’t you know it…another crazy response:

I think you just proved my point of view. You are, indeed, trying to “enlighten” the rest of us lower animals on the food chain. However, you need to check your facts. If BHO gets elected, America will have some real problems similar to Jimmy Carter’s failed Presidency. But I guess this discussion is over…we will cancel out eachother’s votes in November. THAT’S AMERICA!

My first thought: “This bitch is crazy!” I didn’t say anything about my political preference for Obama. All I said was that the initial e-mail was bullshit and that Obama wasn’t a Muslim. Well…one last shot to get through to this person’s head:

Umm…what facts? I never said anywhere in my e-mails that I was voting for Obama or that I supported him. All I said was that Obama wasn’t a Muslim and that Google is not a liberal company. One is a fact (Obama not being a Muslim) and the other is a matter of opinion (Google not being a liberal company). No facts were stated other than Obama not being a Muslim. So, really, what facts?

And “lower animals on the food chain”? Sorry, but I honestly believe that no one is better than anyone else. I’m no better than you, you’re no better than me. This is a country of equals…though sometimes it doesn’t always feel like that.

You’re obviously passionate about this, but some friendly advice: If you’re going to argue your point, back it up with examples. You can’t say things like “Obama has communistic and socialist ideals” or “Obama is the next Jimmy Carter” without saying why. That’s not much of a debate. I’m not saying your wrong…I’m just saying that there are no facts to back it up. I could say a lot of things about both candidates…but I’m not going to because this isn’t about that. So, again, where are the facts?

One other person did get pretty sick of these e-mails though and felt it best to attack me:

Who are you and what makes you think that you can send me an e-mail? I do not know you so you don’t have the right to fill up my inbox with an opinion piece. If you were so confident about your opinion, then you wouldn’t need to do this. Mr. Whitfield, please delete my address from your distribution list and while you’re at it go and peel off one of your mindless, numb bumper stickers from your clunker.

So I do the right thing and attempt to correct a lie and this guy thinks that I’m the one who sent the damn thing in the first place. Right. Smart thinking. Maybe this guy should be bitching at the person who sent the “Jihad Candidate” e-mail. Gee, you think? After all, spreading lies is no way to have an opinion.

Oh, and he sent these responses as well:

A rant like this could only mean one thing…small penis.

Real intelligent. Hell, it isn’t even that creative.

I’ve never seen someone so insecure in their belief system as you are Mr. Web Designer, give it a rest. NO MORE paranoid rants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you and hopefully I won’t read a response.

Too late. Already sent a response to him.

Folks, this is the Lunatic Fringe at it’s finest, the gutters of the far right-wing Republican voting public. When they insist on lying or believing in the lies and you attempt to correct them they attack you. Back them into a corner and the best they can do is insult you and insist that you “get the facts”. Two things I can’t stand: ignorance and stupidity. The people who responded to my e-mails are both ignorant and stupid. I took the time to write a well thought out response to each e-mail and the best they can do is attack me and pass off their opinions as if they were fact.

Look, I don’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, whether you support Barack Obama or John McCain, but if you’re going to even have an opinion on something and/or debate with someone on politics, Google, or any other topic for that matter, make sure that it’s an educated opinion and that it’s not predicated on lies. That’s not fair to you or anyone else. You don’t have to be the most intelligent person to get an educated opinion. All it takes is the ability to listen and a bit of common sense.

I mentioned in my last post about a message from the Australian PM. Here’s yet another piece of propaganda bullshit that arrived in my inbox:

Subject: What a Guy…….We need a guy like that!

THE AUSSIES HAVE ALWAYS STOOD BY US IN THICK AND THIN….WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH THEY GET GOING…WHAT A GREAT LEADER…HOPE WE FIND A GUY LIKE HIM …..

This is the kind of president we need!!!

AMERICA Needs A Leader Like This!?

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote: ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.’

‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!’

‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask, is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

As “cool” as this may sound and though we’d all like to cheer this guy on and say “way to go”, the problem with it is this: John Howard never said any of that:

The only part that’s true is the statement that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law may not want to live in Australia. What you see in this e-mail is actualla re-working of an editorial written in the days after September 11, 2001, by Barry Loudermilk:

This is right on up there with the falsified Barack Obama quote I got recently. And all it took was a simple search on Google to find the facts.

This is just trash politics through and through. Spreading lies isn’t a good way to convince people, especially when you misquote or lie about what someone else said…it’s just stupid.

Earlier this morning, the following message lands in my inbox:

Don’t understand the big deal over deporting illegal aliens. It certainly was no problem for the past presidents HOOVER AND EISENHOWER.

Back during the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican nationals! The program was called “Operation Wetback” so that American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs. It took 2 years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegals back then, they can sure do it today!! If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Reminder. Don’t forget to pay your taxes, 50 million illegal aliens are depending on you!

Ok, there are some problems with this way of thinking. Re-implementing a program like “Operation Wetback” wouldn’t work today for a number of reasons. First, “Wetback” is a derogatory term and using it would cause all kinds of chaos. Not a wise choice in terms. Second, although we’d all like to simply kick them back over the border and say “Not my problem” it doesn’t solve the bigger problem. Let’s look at the second reason a bit more.

Everyone talks about how illegal aliens are hurting our economy but no one thinks about why it is that they are over here in the first place. The reason? The Mexican economy is so bad that illegal aliens from Mexico come over here to make more money. The level of poverty and corruption is pretty damn bad. I can not blame anyone who tries to make a better life for themselves and their family. Can you?

To say to these people, “Get out! You’re not welcome here!” That’s an elitist attitude. What makes you or I any better than someone simply trying to make due? That ignores the very problem that is causing immigration problems to run rampant and it’s irresponsible. Why don’t you hear about problems with illegal Canadians? Cause, unlike Mexico, Canada actually has a pretty good economy. There is no motivation for Canadians to come into the United States illegally.

Look, this country was founded and created by rejecting the Old World and creating a New World. Problem now is that we’re no longer the New World. An even newer world is being created. We’re talking about globalization here. Another problem is that more than 80 percent of our economy is domestic. We react in horror to any Americans who speak a second language – God forbid, Spanish – as if the big problem is that we have too many people speaking foreign languages. Hell, as it stands we don’t really have a whole lot of foreign travel by Americans. As such, we have a whole bunch of people who don’t realize that things have changed in the world.

U.S. businesses get it though. They’re outsourcing like crazy in an effort to remain competitive in a world economy. American universities get it too. They’re bringing in students from all parts of the world. Research is being done everywhere as well. The people who really don’t get is is the people you’ve elected in Washington, D.C. We would rather rely on intelligence reports (which God knows are 100% accurate) to tell us what we need to know rather than simply talking with the countries we know little about. That kind of foreign policy does little to promote openness in a world economy.

What we have to do is talk to the Mexican government and see what we can do to help boost their economy. If you help them make their economy more strong and give Mexicans the opportunity at obtaining good jobs then you’ll see a great reduction in illegal immigration. But what you can’t do is say “Mexico is not our problem”. Every country that borders us is our problem. The relationship we have with Canada and Mexico is extremely important. The better we’re able to help each other build our economies the stronger we’ll be in the world economy.

As far as the immigrants that are here, I don’t see how we can realistically deport all of them. What we’re doing now is not pro-active and is not a healthy attitude for America. Perhaps we can look at encouraging those who are illegal to become legal. Help them understand what it is to be an American. Encourage them to learn English. If we don’t then they’ll continue to hide in the shadows.

Best way I can think of to give you a taste of what I’m talking about is to have you watch an episode of 30 Days that deals with immigration. Morgan Spurlock created the series and many of the episodes are pretty darn interesting. The one on immigration though was a real eye opener. In it, Morgan took a guy who was a Minuteman and has him spend a month with a Los Angeles Mexican family in a one-bedroom apartment. He ends up going to Mexico to see where this family originated from. What he sees shocks him.

If you can rent it and watch it, do it. Blockbuster should have it available to rent. It’s from Season 2, episode 2 I think. It’s also coming up as a rerun on FX as well. If you have a DVR, do a search and set it to record.

This is a hot button topic that unfortunately does not have a simple solution. The problem is much bigger and much different than you think. And in order to solve this we have to get past the kind of rhetoric and B.S. that is inherent in the kind of correspondence that was in that e-mail about the Australian PM. We have to look at the facts and not pre-judge. Otherwise we run the risk of making rash decisions on the basis of a gut-reaction rather than making educated decisions based on facts.