Now, even Helen Thomas is complaining of the way barry and his minions are scripting the mainstream media. You think the media is catching on…FINALLY!?

Here is a video from http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/

To Red Pills home page. The image used in this post was obtained from HERE and is basically unaltered. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2009, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

All you have to do is open your eyes, do a little research and you will come to the conclusion that socialized medicine, in all it’s various forms, does not work. That is, it is not ‘free’ nor inexpensive, it is not good medicine, it is not timely medicine, it does not help the economy, it is not self directed medicine, and it is not medicine, when it screws up, that you have any recourse. It flat does not work. Any idiot can see that. The only sane individuals wanting socialized medicine would be those trying to get something for near nothing, those who are unable to critically assimilate information about socialized health care and come up with the correct conclusion, or those who simply want power and money and are able to obtain their medical care in other ways. For politicians like barry and the progressives (socialists) it is the desire for power and money. They are definitely not looking out for the public’s best interests. That is what makes these individuals so hideously corrupt and inhumane. No well of contempt for these parasites and despots can be dug too deep.

Still in doubt? Take a look at the Massachusetts model of socialized medicine. It occurs here in the US and data is readily available. So regardless of what the flip/flopping Mitt Romney says, it is a failure! From wnd.com dated 07/01/2009 by Phyllis Schlafly entitled “Massachusetts: A model not to copy“:

The Obama-Kennedy health plan is modeled after the Massachusetts plan, which, when adopted, many applauded as innovative and destined for success. In fact, the Massachusetts plan has been a massive failure and is a model for what not to do.

It has increased costs. It has wasted taxpayer dollars. It has limited patients’ choice. It has hurt small business. It has failed to achieve its goal of universal coverage. Most objectionable, it has created shortages and waiting lists.

Promoters predicted that the Massachusetts plan would lower health-care costs, but – so far – costs are moving in the opposite direction. State government spending on health-care programs in Massachusetts has increased by 42 percent since the plan was adopted in 2006 and currently is 33 percent above the national average.

Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.

How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto”

The Massachusetts plan incorporates a system of middle-class subsidies called Commonwealth Care to help pay for insurance for families with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four) and also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.

The Massachusetts Connector, a new bureaucracy that was supposed to increase patient choice, has become an overbearing regulatory arm of government that has decreased competition by prescribing benefits insurance must offer. The Connector is evidently unpopular with patients, since only 18,000 people have used the Connector to buy insurance during the past three years.

The Connector has imposed regulations that add to the cost of insurance and limit consumer choice, such as requiring prescription-drug coverage and preventive-care services, restricting high-deductible policies and putting limits on annual or per-sickness policies. Complying with the Connector’s rules means changing from your current insurance that you like.

The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a “global budget,” which is a euphemism for rationing.

Even though Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any other state, the Boston Globe reports that waiting periods to see physicians have grown. The average wait is now 63 days to see a family doctor, 50 days to see a specialist and the second trimester of pregnancy to see an obstetrician-gynecologist.

If you want to see the busiest, most popular physicians, the wait can be up to a year. The longer waits are the result of thousands of newly insured residents coming into the health-care system.

Massachusetts has reduced the number of uninsured, but there are no reliable figures on how many are still uninsured since some statistics are based on telephone surveys that don’t reach significant groups of people who lack landline telephones (such as young people and illegal aliens). Cato estimates that 200,000 are still uninsured.

If the number of uninsured had been measurably reduced, that should be reflected in the use of hospitals’ emergency care facilities for uncompensated care. But hospitals don’t confirm this effect.

Small business is hurting, too. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks Massachusetts last of all the 50 states for business-friendly health-care policies.

A June 21 front-page article in the New York Times reported that one cancer unit in a Philadelphia Veterans Administration hospital bungled 92 of 116 prostate cancer treatments over six years (requiring these patients to undergo a second operation) before the errors were discovered. The real problem is that the government cannot run health care safely (or cheaper).

Canada is another model of what not to do. It’s fortunate that Canada is so close to the United States, because Canadians rely on American medicine for serious surgery.

De facto rationing in Canada is practiced by waiting lists rather than by using its realistic name. The Globe and Mail in Toronto reports that the physician shortage is so acute that some towns hold lotteries to win a ticket granting access to the local doctor and that Ontario sent 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery between 2006 and 2008.

Although President Obama told the American Medical Association that single-payer (government-controlled) health care works “pretty well” in some other countries, no government has ever been able to run a health-care system as well as private enterprise. Less regulation of health care, not more government control, is the way to healthier Americans and lower costs.

To Red Pills home page. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2009, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

Like there are not enough reasons for not supporting Sonia Sotomayor in her quest for the Supreme Court but there arises yet another. Remember back when Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court and he was shot down? Yeah, at least in part because he was ‘conservative’. Well, one of those instrumental in that flame war was none other than Sonia Sotomayor. Just another reason to realize that she would be bad news as a Supreme. What do you say? Shouldn’t one ‘good’ turn deserving another? Oppose Sotomayor!

From washingtontimes.com dated 06/02/2009 by Tom LoBianco entitled “Sotomayor advised critics of Bork; Legal fund tied to Supreme Court nominee“:

A legal advocacy group advised by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in the 1980s actively opposed conservative Robert H. Bork’s nomination to the high court calling him a “threat” to the “civil rights of the Latino community.” {And the racist Sotomayor is a threat to the civil rights of non-Latino communities!}

The Senate went on to reject President Reagan’s nominee in 1987.

The revelation is included in 350 pages of documents the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) delivered to the senators late Tuesday evening.

Judge Sotomayor worked for PRLDEF in various capacities from 1980 until she became a federal judge in 1992, spending most of her time as a board member.

The documents, which the group’s lawyers have said include relevant information about Judge Sotomayor’s time there, also show the fund did legal work for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN. During the 2008 presidential election, ACORN came under fire after allegations of voter registration fraud.

Now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the group also has supported legalized abortion and called the death penalty racist in previously released documents.

“A cursory look at the limited material now in our possession raises several red flags, including a link between PRLDEF and ACORN, as well as information indicating Judge Sotomayor’s deeper-than-previously thought involvement in developing the legal positions of the organization,” said Stephen Boyd, spokesman for the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions.

Judge Sotomayor’s supporters have said PRLDEF, which litigates on behalf of the Hispanic community, is no more extreme than other mainstream civil rights groups.

“The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund is a respected civil rights organization, modeled on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, that promotes equal opportunity,” said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.

Mr. LaBolt also said it was a stretch to say Judge Sotomayor crafted PRLDEF policy.

“Documents that Judge Sotomayor did not write, review or approve - many of them more than two decades old - are irrelevant to her nomination,” Mr. LaBolt said.

Questions about how potential justices would rule on hot-button social issues are often tough for the candidates and the lawmakers vetting their nominations. Supreme Court candidates - and other judicial nominees - do not typically answer directly whether they oppose abortion or support gun control because judges are bound by the Constitution, existing and previous court decisions.

Still, much of the confirmation process is focused on interpreting the candidate’s previous statements and work.

Judge Sotomayor’s work for the Hispanic advocacy group has recently become a target for Republican lawmakers preparing for her confirmation hearings set to begin July 13. If confirmed, she would become the first Hispanic woman to sit on the bench, replacing Justice David H. Souter, who retired from the bench Monday.

Back in 1987, Judge Bork’s nomination to the court was so beaten back by Democratic senators, including then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, that being rejected for confirmation to the high court came to be referred to as being “borked.”

The depth of Judge Sotomayor’s work with the PRLDEF remains largely unclear. The PRLDEF frequently joins in lawsuits and files amicus briefs in the Supreme Court.

To Red Pills home page. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2009, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

Hmmmmmm?

Generally Ann is too frequently in bed with the Republican party to be objective, but this piece is Ann Coulter at her best. From humanevents.com dated 07/01/2009 entitled “So Much For Wise Latinas”:

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out the results of a firefighters’ test — which had been expressly designed to be race-neutral — because only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.

Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race discrimination.

Obama’s Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion — the judicial equivalent of “talk to the hand.” She upheld the city’s race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a “disparate impact” on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.

This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city — and by Sotomayor’s opinion — as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks who were not promoted.

That’s a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.

According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong — whatever “wrong” means in any given context of professions, populations, applicants, workers, etc. — is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against disfavored racial groups, such as white men.

Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under Sotomayor’s ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making hiring and promotion decisions.

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There’s no question but that abortion clinics have a “disparate impact” on black babies.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor’s endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor’s holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the dissent clearly stated that “an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone.”

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

The one advantage Sotomayor’s talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice Ginsburg’s prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from having to explain why quotas aren’t quotas.

That was left to Ginsburg.

Liberals {THEY ARE NOT LIBERALS, THEY ARE STATISTS!} desperately want race quotas — as long as quotas never come to their offices.

But they can’t say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is paying attention, they announce: So we’re all agreed — we will have racial quotas.

Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg said: “Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least.” Liberals prefer a more objective test, such as race.

Isn’t excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she is? It’s curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well on tests find them so irrelevant to other people’s jobs.

In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.

Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed that courts have found that a fire officer’s job “involves complex behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities — none of which is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test.”

So does a lawyer’s job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no “interpersonal skills” get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests, from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.

I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying the “disparate impact” of legal exams: She never hired a single black law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)

But liberals think other people’s jobs are a joke, so the testing must also be a joke. That is — other than their preferred test: “Is the applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?”

There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so there is no test that can’t be derided by the race-mongers. Which is exactly the point. Get rid of all tests — except for lawyers who graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other people’s jobs without limit.

As crazy as this is, even Ginsburg and the other dissenters made a big point of pretending there was some flaw in this particular test. None adopted Sotomayor’s position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination.

This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

To Red Pills home page. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2009, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.