Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘Rush Limbaugh’

Cut Diseases, Cancer, Health Care Costs — Without Spending A Dime

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/03/03

Many disease rates could be dramatically cut without spending a dime. Some cancer rates could be mildly cut without spending a dime. And should that happen, health care costs would automatically be cut — without spending a dime. And how would that be accomplished? It’s rather simple, really. And it involves doing something the radical Leftists absolutely despise. You just have to do two things:

  • Call a slut a slut.
  • Call a whore a whore.

If you (and the culture as a whole) do these two things, the rates of AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis, chlamydia, herpes, vaginal infections would automatically fall, some precipitously. And health care costs would also fall, as would the cost for health insurance, since health insurance premiums are based on *gasp* health care costs! Imagine that, expenses based on costs! Something the radical Left absolutely fails to understand (among almost everything else the radical Left is incapable of understanding, since they eschew logic and embrace emotionalism). And it won’t cost you a dime to do that. It also won’t cost the Government a dime for that cost reduction, as the Government would stay out of it entirely.

And since rectal cancer, cervical cancer and sexual activity have correlations, those two cancer rates would also drop. Further, since “the Pill” has inherent breast cancer risks, the rate of breast cancer would also drop. Again, without costing one thin dime to make those cancer rates drop. All it takes to make some forms of cancer less prevalent is:

  • Call a slut a slut.
  • Call a whore a whore.

MadisonConservative wrote an article in Hot Air’s Green Room (where Patterico’s Pontification’s Karl posts) entitled Social conservatism and small government: are they incompatible?. The title incorporates a “you understood” false premise and a “you understood” false dichotomy fallacy: Social Conservatism must be for Big Government. The article itself is full of false premises and false dichotomies.

Let’s explain just a little about how Social Conservatism works and how it shrinks Government, within the parameters of this topic, shall we? If we do like we did from the 1950s and prior, and make sluts and whores pariahs, what would that do for society’s ills? And what would that do to the size of Government?

As a society, we don’t need Government defining a slut or a whore. We only need society calling out slutty behavior and whoring behavior for what it is, and vocally making people who engage in those behaviors into pariahs. No Government involvement is necessary. And what would that do? What would society as a whole returning to a far more Socially Conservative mindset do? It would cause people to decide they don’t want to be called sluts and whores, thereby causing those people to be less willing to engage in slutty or whoring behaviors. And that would cause fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies, fewer diseases, fewer cancer cases. And that would cause fewer Government dollars being spent on health care for the sluts and whores, fewer Government dollars being spent on health care for the children of sluts and whores, fewer Government dollars being spent on food for the children of sluts and whores, fewer Government dollars being spent on housing for sluts and whores and for the children of sluts and whores, fewer Welfare recipients, fewer Medicaid recipients, and more actual income tax payers, resulting in a major shift in cost-revenue spectra.

But the PC police absolutely refuse to allow the public to call a spade a spade. As I’ve said before, if you have to put a word in front of “correct”, you are, by definition, changing something which is factually incorrect into something that is, well, societally acceptable but still incorrect.

I have a great deal more I could say but as of the most recent above paragraph, I have already used over 600 words, and I’m far more lazy than necessary, I need to cut this short. Else, I could very easily have a 60,000-word article that few would read in its entirety. But what led to this article? Rush Limbaugh calling a slut who wants to become a whore a slut, and the unhinged radical Leftist utterly hypocritical backlash that caused.

For more information, read:
Solving the Contraception ‘Crisis’ by Laura Curtis

There is no contraception crisis. Contraception is already easily and inexpensively accessible in the United States. But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend there is. Obama’s solution to this pseudo-problem is to try to force all employers, including religious employers, to have insurance policies which provide for birth control methods to be provided at no direct cost to the patient. This is a serious erosion of our right to free exercise of religion.

Contraception mandates and religious freedom acts: the right and wrong of Rick Santorum by MadisonConservative

When the Obama Administration announced new rules requiring all employers, including religious organizations, to provide health insurance plans that included contraception coverage, I really wondered if he had just given up and was now intentionally trying to piss people off. I knew nobody on the right would be happy with it, and predicted that quite a few on the left would wonder what he was thinking. It was a foregone conclusion, however, that Rick Santorum would leap onto this like a starving jaguar with a t-bone. Now, I’ve made my qualms with Rick Santorum well known on this site, but this is one case where I strongly agreed with him, and not solely based on the principle of religious freedom.

While I do believe that this case does, in fact, infringe on the rights of religious organizations whose employees and employers oppose contraception on religious grounds, I also oppose the notion purely from an employers’ rights standpoint. I see no reason why any employer should be forced to provide health insurance plans including contraception coverage…

Why Rick Santorum doesn’t owe us a “contraception speech” by J E Dyer

I decided to watch from the beginning (in spite of the awful audio quality). Out of context, Santorum’s remarks sound like he might have a plan to “fight contraception” the way Democrats always want to fight something: that is, outlaw it, impose fees and penalties on it, sue the bejeebers out of it in court, sic the IRS and all the other federal agencies and commissions on it, demonize it in the media, teach children in the public schools that it is associated with hate, racism, violence, and fascism, and make movies in which the left’s point of view about it is validated by George Clooney.

But in context, it turns out that Santorum has no plan to do anything with federal law other than ensure that ObamaCare is repealed and that federal money is not used for contraception or abortion. (Federal money is currently used to fund both.) …

Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty by Karl

Juicebox mafioso Matt Yglesias tweeted: “Newfound GOP enthusiasm for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws seems dangerously close to sharia.” [He was also one of countless Liberals absolutely celebrating Breitbart’s death.] There is an interesting point there, although Yglesias manages to get it almost completely backward.

He ought to know he went astray, based on his very next tweet directing readers to Justice Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, which ruled that while states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. Yglesias failed to mention the Smith decision prompted calls for a statutory restoration of prior case law, which was generally understood to require various exemptions for religious liberty. Smith was decided in 1990, so the enthusiasm for religious exemptions is not “newfound.”

Contraception mandate: MSM stuck in “narrative capture”? by J E Dyer

My first thought was, “Surely the Journal knows better than this. Why would they headline this story as if Obama had, in fact, backed off on the mandate? What are they, USA Today?”

The headline doesn’t reflect reality.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday, Obama has merely shifted the basis for the mandate. The insurance companies – I use that term loosely – will be required to provide “free” contraception services to the insured who work for Catholic employers. This means that the premiums paid by Catholic employers will fund contraception services. And the overall mandate to purchase the insurance will continue.

Poll on role of religion in Americans’ lives bad news for Obama by Howard Portnoy

This can’t be very good news for the president, who views religion as at best a bully pulpit for social change (as evidenced by his 20-year association with the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and at worst as a force with the potential to poison the minds of leaden-eyed, gun-toting “clingers.”

Yeah, I know, on Friday he made an impassioned mini-speech about religious liberty and said that “as a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.” He says lots of things that are politically expedient.

But the firestorm over Contraceptiongate, which raged out of control for a week before the administration attempted half-heartedly to dampen the flames, reveals how tin an ear our president has when it comes to the role of religion in the lives of Americans.

WH spokeswoman cites ‘98 percenters’ in defense of contraception rule by Howard Portnoy

But the most telling part of the interview comes in Cutter’s claim that “98% of Catholic women have taken it. The debate on this is over.”

Mediaite’s Nano di Fino observes that Cutter is likely misquoting a poll that states that 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control in some form.

Even if Cutter’s claim were accurate, her assertion would be tantamount to saying that the religious convictions of 772,000 Americans (2% of 38.6 million) are necessary casualties of ObamaCare. With some finessing that can certainly make a neat bumper sticker.

And here is where that 98 percent number the radical Leftists are touting comes from! I got news for you, radical Leftists like Perry Hood of the State of Delaware: The “rhythm” method is, indeed, a form of birth control Catholics use! So, your “98 percent of all women use birth control” meme is absolutely dead to me. Because you, lemming-like, copied various people who copied various people who misquoted a poll of people who would consider “rhythm” to be “a form of birth control” to derive your “98 percent” nonsense.

If You Don’t Like Slut As A Title For Sandra Fluke, How About Czar? by Smitty

In the annals of sluttiness, the Sandra Fluke story is some form of higher-order prostitution. Let’s call it politics. …

ObamaCare Was Never Other Than A Wrecking Ball by Smitty

One of the mistakes we frequently make with the Left is to give them the benefit of the doubt. To consider that they argue in good faith. ObamaCare was never intended to build anything useful. Which is why a diabolically evil person like Kathleen Sebelius can offer an economically nonsensical argument about paying for programs through cratering the tax base.

What Do You Call a Woman Who Is So ‘Sexually Active’ That She Needs More Contraception Than She Can Afford? UPDATE: Is Sandra Fluke a Fraud? by RS McCain

Apparently, the old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon word “slut” won’t do [I refuse to link to pollutico if I can help it, link in original]

In a predictable MMFA-led tactic, the Left has gone after Limbaugh’s advertisers. Limbaugh is amazed by the ridiculous uproar

This is your gov’ment on sex by William A Jacobson

It’s all coming together this week, the absurdity of the entitlement state where everything must be subsidized:

Something missing from Georgetown Law’s condemnation by William A Jacobson

Here’s what was missing:

We believe firmly in the rights protected by the First Amendment, and by appearing before a congressional panel Ms. Fluke was fulfilling “the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet the First Amendment contains other protections, and starts with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”

While we defend Ms. Fluke’s right to appear before Congress, we also defend the right of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States, to be free from laws of Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and we condemn Ms. Fluke for advocating the use of the police powers of the state to trample on religious freedom in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Sandra Fluke is not a “slut.” She’s a femme-agogue tool; DCCC, Emily’s list fund-raise off of Rush by Michelle Malkin

My two cents: Yes, we’re seeing the usual left-wing double standards when it comes to defending women against sexist putdowns. The language Rush used is completely unacceptable…except when it’s used against the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, myself, and every other prominent female conservative in public life, of course.

I’ll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.

There are quite a few more sources and quotes that are useful in showing a Social Conservative position, lambasted by radical Leftists like the entire Democrat Party leadership, “SocLib/FisCon” types, and others, is actually far more fiscally conservative and far safer for the general public than is the “free sex, just everyone has to pay for you to be the ride, whether they ride you or not” position of any and all Liberals.

Posted in Character, Christianity, Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, funny business, Health Care, Liberal, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Religion, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Taxes Cannot Erase Deficit

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/08/06

The government cannot tax away the deficit spending. It’s an impossibility.

From (note the express written permission at the bottom):

There Aren’t Enough “Rich” to Tax

August 05, 2011


RUSH: We’re into statistics today and the unemployment statistics are just fascinating in the way that we’re being spun. It’s as bad as the way we were spun on this debt deal, and the more you look at this debt deal, what a disaster that is.

I’m gonna explain why as the program unfolds. This is from the UK Daily Mail. You’re not gonna see this in the American media. Speaking of the American media, remember all of those years, the Bush years, the media apparatchiks on TV were trying to talk down the economy and trying to talk down the market. They did everything they could to talk down the economy. Why, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. Shazam, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. You remember.

For four years running at 4.7% unemployment, at 5% unemployment, at 5.6% unemployment, they were proclaiming we were either on the verge of a recession or were in one. They were out trying to find the worst sob stories. Now they’re doing everything they can to talk it up. Do they really think we’re such fools that we don’t see this? When unemployment started spiraling upward, what did we get from ’em? We got stories on how wonderful that is. Families are finding one another again, friends have social time, the stress and strain of working is no longer a part of anybody’s day. It really is a new perspective on life. All the wonderful aspects of not having a job, all the great things you could do if you didn’t have any work you had to do. “Funemployment,” they called it. And now they’re doing everything they can, they’re just incapable of telling us the truth, totally incapable.

The question here is who will tank first? Right now it looks like we’re in a race to see whether the country or Obama will tank first. It looks like it’s running neck and neck here. And the trick here is to make Obama tank first. Now, this UK Daily Mail story that you will not see in the US media. “Soak the rich, eh? They do not have the money. A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich –” and the rich are defined this way: 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more. What do you think those 8,274 people earned combined in 2009? Snerdley, take a wild guess. All of you out there, take a wild guess in your mind. I’m not asking you to call and I’m gonna tell you what the number is here in just a second. But just think about this, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more.

Now, you got Buffett in there and Gates at their $40 to 50 billion, but that’s their net worth. What do they earn? It’s a different number. But you take all of those people, just give me a number, what do you think, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more, what was the combined total income earned of all those 8,274 people in 2009? One trillion, $250 billion. That’s what you say, Brian? Snerdley says a trillion. The answer is $240 billion. Brian, you were $10 billion off. That’s it. That’s right. That’s it. The 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

“Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.” In fact, this $240 billion, I mean that’s pretty close to the actual real number of budget cuts in the debt deal when you strip everything away. Now, about 25% of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So actually that $240 billion would run the government for 18 days.

“Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009. Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.” Now, you might be asking, how did that happen? Well, the Bush tax cuts, folks. Obama’s tax increases hadn’t started, and Obama’s not immaculated yet. “They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.” So 8,274 people who earn $10 million per year or more, earn a total of $240 billion in 2009. Another 227,000 people earned a million dollars or more in 2009. But it doesn’t come anywhere close to covering the deficit of $1.5 trillion.

“Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.
In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.” The point of this is next time you hear Obama or a Democrat say we’ve got to raise taxes on the rich, it’s not about getting revenue to run the government because they don’t have the money. Now, I’ve been doing this show for 23 years, and I have been employing this data, whatever the accurate data was for the year I was disclosing it, it hasn’t changed in terms of percentages. Confiscate every dollar earned by people who make $10 million a year or more and you run the country for barely over two weeks. That has not changed since I first heard of this statistic 23, 25 years ago. It hasn’t changed. As it is, these people are already paying 70% of the total income tax burden! So there’s no economic growth hidden away here in a tax increase on these people.

How does taking money out of the private sector grow it? And that’s what tax increases do. How in the world does taking money out of the private sector cause it to grow? Mathematically impossible, folks. From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers.”

Individual tax collections equaled 15.4% of all income. “Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.” That’s the bottom line. Doubling federal income taxes for everybody would raise $1.1 trillion, $400 billion shy of the deficit. I know these numbers are hard to follow, but all this is gonna be on later today, and I suggest you go there, print it out, or e-mail it, make electronic copies, PDF, whatever you want, and spread this around. This needs to be seen by many people. It’s not going to be in the US media.


If the Federal Government doubled everyone’s taxes, that would only be enough to cover roughly three quarters of the Obama/Democrat Deficit Spending. We would still have a 400-billion-dollar-a-year deficit, a historically high figure. And that’s considering a static economic environment. That’s not taking into account the heavy inflation, unemployment, business closings, personal bankruptcies, etc, etc that such a massive tax hike would cause. This is Cloward-Piven stuff, folks. Cloward-Piven.

Even in a static environment where doubling income tax rates would double income tax revenue, the Federal Government would have to actually cut 400 billion dollars from its annual budget. In Washington, DC and in the Democrats’, lamestream media’s, Ruling Class Republicans’ language of “reducing the increase in expenditures equals a cut” where a 400 billion dollar “cut” over 10 years is draconian, “kill your momma and your kiddies” extremism, how is the Fed ever expected to make an actual 400 billion dollar real cut for a single year?

And we need real, actual cuts of at least 1,200 billion dollars a year, and not just reductions in the rate of growth. 2012 is critical, folks. Getting rid of Obama and 6 Democrat Senators is not enough to save this country. We need to throw the Democrats and the RCRs out, and replace them with true Constitutional Conservative men and women. And we need to hold their feet to the fire.

No more “Centrist” Republicans. Our nation cannot afford them. All the “Centrist” Republicans will do is pilot the Ship of State to the scene of the crash a bit more slowly. And the TEA Party is here for a time such as this — that’s why Democrats, lamestream media, RCRs fear and hate and malign the TEA Party.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, Palin, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Taxes Cannot Erase Deficit

%d bloggers like this: