By One Vike
It's no secret that I have been watching the growth of Sarah Palin and promoting her for a certain national office. Now that she has resigned as the Governor of Alaska, the left cannot continue their merciless onslaught of frivilous ethics charges that have ranged from claiming she illegally wore an Arctic Cat logo during an Iron Dog snowmobile race, to illegally doing post-election damage control by talking to reporters about the campaign in her state office. All of which have been cleared by the courts or thrown out by judges. With all that behind her, Sarah is now free to reap the same kind of financial benefits that politicians like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have in accepting invitations around the world. However, it seems that some liberal pundits are still attempting to besmirch her character by making up stories about the reasons groups may be inviting her. One such venue is the invitation she received to speak at the 16th annual investor's conference in September for the Hong Kong-based brokerage firm CSLA.
The left-leaningBusiness Insider columnist Vincent Fernando has dutifully noted and propagated the latest DNC talking point, that CLSA's invitation for Mrs. Palin to travel to Asia for a speaking engagement at the end of the month is nothing more than a practical joke.
"Her invitation as keynote speaker in Hong Kong is so ridiculous that its absurdity can't be accidental."
So now that they cannot file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against her as the Governor of Alaska they would like us to believe that an invitation to speak at the same venue as Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Al Gore and Desmond Tutu is a joke.
Consider if you will the idea that Bill Clinton was esteemed by the left for speaking before this group and now Sarah will be paid a six-figure fee for their privilege of listening to what she has to say. Plus as a bonus, she will receive an all-expenses-paid trip to Hong Kong, and the benefit of doing something the left claims she has not done. What is that you ask? Well she will be visiting an overseas venue for the all important foreign policy and finance credentials they all claim is needed to be taken serious as a foreign policy expert. Seems to me Sarah is scoring big in her post Governorship political life.
Now it will probably never occur to Howard Dean and his willing accomplishes in the MSM that Sarah Palin has again trumped their attempts to smear and ridicule her. Truth be told the joke Vincent Fernando wrote in his article will be on the left, because Sarah will laugh all the way to the bank with a six figure plus payment that will be used to unseat the first Muslim ever to get elected to the White House.
It has been pointed out by many politically savvy pontificators, that the most important aspect of any politician's success must start with his ability to control his message. Now that Washington Speakers Bureau has announced that Sarah has chosen them to represent her to the public, it is my belief that she has removed all doubt about her political aspirations. There can be only one conclusion, and that is Sarah, has her eyes in the White House.
If I'm wrong, I guess we will find out when her book, which has been reported to be 85% complete, is published. From all the reports I have read, Sarah had a very good summer, as opposed to Obama who has had his political head handed to him on a platter by the American public. What I see in Sarah Palin, is a very methodical politician that is not cowed by the left. Kind of reminds me of what Ronald Reagan was like between 1976 and 1980.
By this time, I have heard all sorts of smears against her.
The sad thing is that I voted for Obama/Biden last November because of the same crazy smears.
But, the more I know about Sarah Palin, the more I've learned she's a real person, a humble one, and a very practical and ethical leader.
Too bad that the Liberals in Alaska and the MSM have gone CRAZY AND WACKO against her.
I thank her for teaching America a golden lesson: NEVER TRUST YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. ALWAYS CHECK WHAT BILLS THEY ARE WRITING.
Her "death panel" metaphor and her analysis of the Health Care Reform is the MOST SENSIBLE ONE for me and my family.
I don't know her personal plans, but I think now that she deserves to be placed in the White House.
She's the one that I think we need at the moment. COMMON SENSE AND REAL LOVE FOR THE PEOPLE.
Not the fake conservative Bush.
Definitely, not the lying communist Obama.
Good luck to us all.
"the first Muslim ever to get elected to the White House. "
You are either a liar or an idiot.
"Her "death panel" metaphor and her analysis of the Health Care Reform is the MOST SENSIBLE ONE for me and my family."
There is nothing "sensible" about the "death panel" hysteria.
Sarah is going to do to the liberals in both party's, what Ronald Reagan did.
While we all have been doing our part with the many Tea Party's around the country, we have struggled to get the Leadership of the Republican party behind us. Even the Republicans that have been behind us the MSM has been ignoring.
Well Sarah did something that was Reagan-esque. She did an end around the Media by using her Facebook blog to do something no other Republican, including all those in high office could do. By using the phrase, “Death Panels”, she has not just destroyed the health care bill, but she also castrated the New York Times by making them obsolete. Sarah has given the American people, especially every mother in this country an irrefutable argument about the dangers of Obamacare that they can relate to and understand.
Those of you who will attack her intelligence and her political moves will be the ones who come off lame. It is quite telling the way the MSM has attempted to make Sarah look more like Reagan than her own party has. Well Reagan may have been a B actor, but he became an Oscar winning President that few have been able to follow. We could have in Sarah, the very thing we have been waiting for since Ronnie left office, and only time will reveal the truth.
There is nothing "sensible" about the "death panel" hysteria.
Then tell me why they removed the wording that pointed to it?
Obviously the politicians who inserted the language that Sarah referred to, knows that Sarah exposed their nakedness. Maybe you should ask them why they removed something that was not a fact.
I've had my problems with how Palin has handled her messaging up to now. However, if she is putting her schedule in the hands of trained professionals, then more power to her.
She will need a year to repair the damage the D's did to her reputation. She can do that by going about the country, making speeches and talking sense. There's only so many times the left can scream "Caribou Barbie" in the face of good sense.
Poor OneVike. I am afraid that Mr. Fernando may be right. You can go check out the investor quarterlies that CLSA puts out online. They are cheeky. Amoral you could even say. The global warming issue takes on both sides of the question, cheekily, because after all, their only concern is how to make money on the deal, whichever way it goes.
And Dude, this paragraph, right here:
"Now it will probably never occur to Howard Dean and his willing accomplishes in the MSM that Sarah Palin has again trumped their attempts to smear and ridicule her. Truth be told the joke Vincent Fernando wrote in his article will be on the left, because Sarah will laugh all the way to the bank with a six figure plus payment that will be used to unseat the first Muslim ever to get elected to the White House."
If you are not going to proof, then delete. You embarrass yourself.
P.S. Her bear button looks like it's getting ready to poop. She should definitely wear it to the conference.
"There is nothing "sensible" about the "death panel" hysteria."
Oh but there is. Sarah used a tactic long favored by Democrats and taught by the very progressive Saul Alinsky to make her point. She came up with a descriptive term that summed up the effect that one portion of the house legislation will have on certain segments of the population. I think it is quite sensible to use our opponents own tactics against them...particularly when it can be used about something true.
The government has put language in the bill that will determine who uwill be eligible for certain trreatments and who will not and what treatments will be available and which will not. Government can further change those evaluations at will down the road.
This ability to make the rules that govern healthcare also make it an unequal competitor as the so called "alternate option".
Either I or one of my compatriots will be positng about the reasoning behind this appalling portion of the bill.
Libby: "their only concern is how to make money on the deal..."
Phffft...like Al gore is only into this out of the goodness of his heart! Wanna buy a bridge? Not only has he positioned himself to make huge bucks while covering his own excessively "polluting" a*s but in the early years was motivated primarily by his political ambitions. when that failed to materialize he saught, and gained, international "stardom"...and all of it based on a bunch of trumpted up emotional hysteria in terms of the high danger level. A lot of folk have been suckered. Now the scheme that made Al famous is adding to the very real economic stress threatening countries that signed on to the rediculous UN protocols.
"The government has put language in the bill that will determine who uwill be eligible for certain trreatments and who will not and what treatments will be available and which will not."
And you have some bizarre notion that your insurance carrier does not? It's Twilight Zone time again!
And where does Al come into this? We were talking about the CLSA's probable motives for inviting an ignoramus to host an international conference of investors in Asian markets. The CLSA's global warming issue was offered as an example of their, uh, less than staid, sober and serious approach to the presentation of their investment research ... which might support the notion that they don't really expect Sarah to have anything serious to say. Think ... Vanna White.
I'll tell you why they did it. To pacify a lot of morons who can't be bothered to go read the thing themselves! Who let demagogues whip them into a frenzy over stuff that doesn't even exist!
What is so horrific about consulting with your doctor about how you want it to end? Unless you are some totally craven imbecile who will not face the fact that you will die, who kick and scream and spend hideous sums of money you don't even have trying to avoid the inevitable.
This is all just infuriating!
And you have some bizarre notion that your insurance carrier does not?
My insurance company does not have the power of government behind it. My insurance carrier does not have a clause in the policy that will "phase out" other insurance and payment choices which would inevitably render those government "restrictions" finite and final! Wake up you naive trusting fool!
"...at the same venue as Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Al Gore and Desmond Tutu"
And your Vanna White equivalent for these?
"And where does Al come into this?"
Actually you brought it up: "The global warming issue takes on both sides of the question, cheekily, because after all, their only concern is how to make money on the deal..."
This self inflicted detour makes your next remark even more hillarious: "Who let demagogues whip them into a frenzy over stuff that doesn't even exist!"
Yep...that'd be Al Gore!
What is so horrific about consulting with your doctor about how you want it to end?
I hope to have a complete answer to this in a future article. The short answer is I don't want those decisions managed and controllled by government.
Why not take a ride on that little bike of yours...you'll feeel much better. Wouldn't want you to keel over from an infuriated overload...somebody might take you for an old person who isn't worth saving!
What is so horrific about consulting with your doctor about how you want it to end?
I bet you really liked the movie "SOYLENT GREEN", didn't you? I can see you now, laying in bed being consoled that you will be gone soon so just sit back and listen to the beautiful soothing music as you look at the movie that will show a nice ocean scene. Just close your eyes and we will take care of the rest.
Some how that whole scenario sounds like the way we put convicted murders to death. Only people like you think they should live forever while we will convince the useless old and cripples in society that are not locked up to be put to death.
You truly disgust me Libby.
"My insurance carrier does not have a clause in the policy that will "phase out" other insurance and payment choices which would inevitably render those government "restrictions" finite and final!"
No, they have terms and conditions allowing them to boot you off, finally and completely, just as soon as you start to cost them too much money. And do you really have the option to go to another private carrier? Huh? Huh? Come on? Tell us you do, ... so we can chortle somemore derision.
"I hope to have a complete answer to this in a future article. The short answer is I don't want those decisions managed and controllled by government."
Why not? Our government (theoretically) makes such decisions for the common good. Your insurance carrier makes such decisions for it's bottom line.
I know where my interests lie.
No, they have terms and conditions allowing them to boot you off, fly finally and completely, just as soon as you start to cost them too much money. And do you really have the option to go to another private carrier? Huh? Huh? Come on? Tell us you do, ... so we can chortle somemore derision.
My insurance carrier provides a contract every year for me to read through and renew. I have had the same insurance for me and my employees for nearly twenty years. I have the option every year to choose another plan and before I sign I know what is in it and what is not when. It is a policy...a specific agreement...not a guarantee. NO POLICY can guarantee absolute coverage all of the time...including the proposal now under consideration by the government. nYou are deluding yourself if you think it does.
Also keep in mind that many of the things you find so distasteful about health insurance providers are mandated by government (state or federal). They don't tell you that because it's easier to pass legislation with you blaming corporate America.
"Our government (theoretically) makes such decisions for the common good. Your insurance carrier makes such decisions for it's bottom line."
Private insurance companies are honest about wanting to make a living by providing a specific product at a specific price.
Your government lies. Pretending to be benevolent, it's underlying agenda is power and control over a big percentage (17%?) of the GDP. The won't flow from a big money well in the floor of Congress; it will be spent on a visa card and the charged bill will show up in the form of "U-OWE-US" invoices stuffed into the back packs of little kids now attending grammar school...and future generations queing into the great beyond! Such a trustworthy bunch...yea right!
"I'll tell you why they did it. To pacify a lot of morons who can't be bothered to go read the thing themselves! Who let demagogues whip them into a frenzy over stuff that doesn't even exist!"
Yep. That's pretty much what I said a few weeks ago.
That "language" only existed in the eyes of people who were absolutely determined to misconstrue and exaggerate it. That the writers of the bill felt it necessary to appease those people--that they were in such large numbers--just makes me weep for America.
The REPUBLICAN that inserted this language is a fellow named Johnny Isaacsom--a leading Pro-Life Senator from Georgia.
Funny, isn't it?
With any luck, Sarah will meet up with a Great American.
Quentin: "The REPUBLICAN that inserted this language is a fellow named Johnny Isaacsom--a leading Pro-Life Senator from Georgia."
What is your source for this information?
No Tina, I'm not going to tell you where I got this very common knowledge.
I don't want you to go off on a tangent. I know you will spend your time trying to attack my source rather than respond to the substance of it. This is your style and it is keeping you--and your readers--ignorant. the teacher in me will no longer allow that, ma'am.
If you don't wish to respond to it, that's fine, too. But you can't argue with the truth. (Is that why you asked? So you could obfuscate?)
If you don't want to believe the truth, fine--that makes you stupid, not ignorant.
OTOH, one might think with all the research you are doing on this subject--you do get your facts before you post don't you? Oh wait!!! You NEVER do! You just make stuff up out of whole cloth.
Quentin you are a very poor teacher when you let your animosity toward me get in the way of letting our readers find out whether what you have claimed is true. To spite me you withold a source that would make me look foolish and let our readers know they can trust you over me...and you think I'm stupid?
You also assume I would care that it was a Republican who wrote the language. I don't give a rip if it was a Republican but I am a bit suspicious and surprised at the claim. I would think Nancy Pelosi would be bragging about it if it were true...she has expressed interest in making this a "bipartisan" effort and hasn't had much luck. This would offer the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that it is and that information might make a difference to some of our readers.
I also disagree that I go off on a "tangent," attacking your source instead of refuting on substance. I do respond on substance and I back up the information I offer with a link for our readers to check so they can decide for themselves what is "the truth". It's true that the last instance afforded me the opportunity to use your own source to refute your claim since you failed to read all the way through the article or, worse yet for an educator, witheld the information thinking no one would bother to notice.
The REPUBLICAN that inserted this language is a fellow named Johnny Isaacsom--a leading Pro-Life Senator from Georgia.
Funny, isn't it?
Yes, and GW was a Republican who was pro-life and a Christian that did a lot of very stupid things when I look back. I still think he was better than either Gore or Kerry, but he did some pretty weird things when it comes to legislation. Just because a person stands for something we agree with does not mean they will never do something very stupid.
Here is an example of what such language as Senator Isakson had added to the bill would do.
Brandy Stroeder was one of nearly 400,000 state residents insured by the health plan which provides state-funded health coverage for low-income Oregonians. The reason the program covers so many people is that state officials decided to prioritize health care, with the bulk of coverage paying for the most urgent and cost-effective treatments, leaving little or none for expensive, risky procedures that benefit few people.
The experimental lung-liver transplant procedure that Stroeder needed to live past her teens wasn't even on the list of health plan priorities, though doctors agreed that the procedure had a reasonable chance of success. Health plan officials refused to pay the $250,000 cost of her transplant in 1999, a decision that left many Oregonians, including a majority of the editors for many of Oregon's leading newspapers of Oregon, wishing the plan had more capacity for flexibility, and compassion. (By the way, these were not conservative news organizations.)
So does anyone really think that the types of panels set up through this health care legislation Obama is pushing will NOT result in decisions like this being made and kids like Brandy dieing as the result of those decisions?
Remember, Obama does not deny that there will be panels that will decide who gets what kind of medical help. Just to keep costs in line Obama already admitted he thinks that someone who is in their 90s should be given painkillers instead of a procedure the government cannot afford. His words not mine.
Oh yea, you want proof of my facts? Go find them yourself, because you know how to use the web. The facts are there, but you would probably just attack there messengers anyway.
Me: Point A ... What is so horrific about consulting with your doctor about how you want it to end?
OneVike: Point B ... I bet you really liked the movie "SOYLENT GREEN", didn't you? ... You truly disgust me Libby.
Well you seriously worry me, because a mind that can get from Point A to Point B just isn't rational. I don't know what we're gonna do.
OK, I am about to ask what is quite possibly a stupid question. I'll admit that right off the bat here, I'm not an expert on the complexities of the health insurance system. I'm not even a novice. Bear with me.
So, let's say the government decides not to pay for a certain treatment.
That means that the person who would have had the government pay for them no longer has that advantage. So...
Wouldn't that mean the patient would then just have to find the money to pay for the operation himself?
Isn't that exactly what most of you want? For us to pay for our own healthcare?
So...I'm not seeing the problem here.
And Libby, don't play dumb. We all know you are secretly eating people. Probably babies, too!
Here, have a bite of my Super-Secret Liberal Aborted Fetus Sandwich! Delicious, innit? ;)
Obviously you two, K & Libby, never watched "SOYLENT GREEN", or you could not understand the pseudo intellectual discussions going on behind the main scenes. Or better yet you could not get past what was on the screen to understand the true "Message Behind the Movie". If you had, you would then understand the significance of my comment about "Soylent Green".
When you consider the aspects of the movie and what society has become, you should have come away with the realization that while Soylent Green may have been the food substance, in the reality of peoples lives, Soylent Green was what are as people, and ultimately, how will we as people shape our future, or if you will our destiny. In the movie they literally ate eachother up, kind of like the Republican party constantly eating their own, in a figurative way. GOT IT!
My point is that individuals like you on the left, and even some on the right, wish to support policies that will consume the very spirit of the people that have made this country the greatest society the world has ever seen. You do it by supporting things that will ultimately make us no better than what past totalitarian societies were, and some still are today.
Remember, China, Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. etc. have all ended up where they are by claiming to care for people, and their desire to offer that which a few in society do not have. In the end we do not have only 10% to 20% that are without, we have 90% that are without. However, those with the most and the best are always those who run said societies. Thus we the people end up being the Soylent Green that these so called benevolent leaders just continue to feed the system with by our sweat and tears, all the while claiming to be feeding the people.
I keep warning those of you who think we can reach a point in society where everyone will have the necessity's they need to survive. It takes a very BIG government to give everyone everything they need. What you fail to realize is that once the government gets that big, it will then have the power to take everything you have away, and history shows us that such governments have always eventually gone there.
In the future I will remember to keep my comments in the second grade level for your ability to truly follow a conversation. You wonder why I seldom interact with you about your comments. It is because you take something and never really understand what the gist of a persons point is. Instead you grab a a phrase and scream racism, homophobia, Nazis, vampires, hatemongers. You really do sound like the Roman citizens who were terrified by the stories the Roman government was spreading about the Christians being cannibals. So when they were confronted by Christians they had they claws out ready to attack with out stopping to even get to properly know them.
Good question K...and good follow through in your reasoning.
Yes they would have to pay for it...IF IT'S ALLOWED. I don't know that it wouldn't be allowed under this plan this year. What I do know is that once we turn the control of our health care over to the bureaucrats and legislators in DC it could turn into something quite sinister in the future...especially since this plan is designed in such a way that private insurers are at a disadvantage and employers will likely opt out and tell their employees to go on the gov plan. I also know that some procedures and choices are just made unavailable in other countries with national healtcare. You can't pay for something that you can't get.