“The sky is falling, the sky is falling, give us your tax money and shut your mouth!"

                While today’s Democratic party leadership might get credit for saying, “Never let a decent crisis go to waste, invent one, if you really need to!”  It’s clear that with Chicken Littles like Obama Science Czar John Holdren on their side, climate alarmism has become the mother of invention. Back in the mid- 70’s Holdren was already warning that we needed to cut emissions to avoid the onset of a human-created ICE AGE! Public policy emergencies are imminent, they cried, government intervention is required immediately to drastically limit the population to prevent this global-cooling disaster.

                In a book, “Eco-Science,” which Holdren co-authored with the infamous Ehrlichs, draconian population measures such as mass sterilizations (via secret addition of chemicals to the drinking water); forced abortions; and mandated medical sterilizations of certain populations (eugenics) were all advocated as reasonable means to carry out the necessary population control that might save us from global-cooling and all sorts of other population-driven disasters the trio saw coming our way.

                The inconvenient pseudo-science behind global-cooling was that smog-like emissions were making the earth’s atmosphere “opaque” and preventing sufficient sunlight from reaching the planet’s surface. Now, of course, the alarmist’s party line is that “oops, we missed on that one, but we got this one right: the earth is heating up due to proliferation of green-house gasses and the planet’s entire ecology is at risk. Our only logical step is to immediately begin population control measures such as . . ." etc., etc., etc.

                All the poor ill-informed greenies who KNOW, just KNOW that global-warming is a scientific fact and inescapable without massive government interventions are all pawns in Barak Obama’s power struggle. Obama, as is clear to anyone who read his first book “Dreams from My Father,” is a Marxist. He sees the U.S. Constitution as fundamentally flawed and the country’s long successful history with free market capitalism as an abomination.  Cap and Trade; Obamacare; “creating five million ‘green-tech’ jobs; all the stimulus funding and soon coming back to ask for more stimulus funding; moving the national debt up to 225% from where it was when he took office just 9 ½ months ago . . . it’s all about . . .

1. 1.                   More government power                  Can I get a few "Hallelujahs" on that, Brother?
2. 2.                      More government control over the economy
3. 3.                      More government intervention in every aspect of our lives
4. 4.                       More redistribution of wealth
5. 5.                     Immediate socialism and moving toward a real Marxist government by the time he’s served two terms
6. 6.                     In short, the green and other emergencies (Swine Flu, etc.) besieging us on all sides are just convenient ploys to allow the government to step into our daily lives and jettison the U.S. Constitution.

One of Obama’s biggest obstacles to carrying out his mission is barbaric and antiquated ideas we Americans have toward the notion of private property. According to Adam Smith, “Give a man a 7-year lease on paradise and he will turn it into a desert, but grant a man a life-time lease on a desert and he will turn it into an Eden.” In other words, property ownership is one of the truly good things in this world according to Smith because it motivates people to improve themselves and their lot in life. 

Through the “magic of bigger government," Barak Obama seems hell-bent on destroying all wealth and redistributing it and gradually eliminating old-fashioned concepts like private property. As his father, Obama, Sr. is quoted in “Dreams from My Father,” “There is no reason that tax levels must be limited, 100% tax is feasible, so long as privileges commiserate with contribution are granted.” In other words, you do a good job for Obama’s USA and the government will grant you the right to drive one of their cars, live in a nicer one of their homes, etc., etc. 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

The Straight Skinny About Liberal Dreams

of Tree-Hugging

                Good stewardship of the earth, as in conservation of resources and threatened environments and animal and plant life; prevention of toxic effects and substances despoiling the planet; some sort of wise and attractive balance between mankind and the natural world; and n0n-polluting power sources are what liberals call “no-brainers.” Unfortunately, not using your brain to go beyond these obvious desiderata and the practical implications for individual people and their governments is the reason that so many liberals seemingly act like they don’t have a pea-brain in their heads. 

                The amazing ability of green enthusiasts to demand draconian measures (including ultra-extreme population control methods) which show less than small regard for their fellow man while championing the survival of menaced mice, mosquitoes and mildew is shocking in its obvious misanthropy. In a perfect world: everybody would be green conscious philanthropists who think of fellow humans first.

                The green contingent’s miniscule regard for homo sapiens is easiest seen in the abhorrent and extreme population control methods advocated by Obama’s Science and Technology Czar John Holdren in a 1973 book he co-authored with the notorious Ehrlichs (Paul and Anne) in their “Human Ecology.” The book, said to have played a role in the passing of Roe vs. Wade later in the year, championed forced abortions, mass sterilization (via secret chemical additions via the water supply), mandatory body non-fertility implants and also paid more than lip service to eugenics. 

                The Ehrlichs and Holdren wrote: “a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being . . . a fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until it is born” thus the rationale behind forced abortions etc. on “potential human beings.” Since the born child years after birth will ultimately develop into a human being, infanticide sounds reasonable, too, no?

However, Holdren, an enthusiastic worshipper of notorious eugenicist Harrison Brown is not alone among the “liberal elite” (is that an oxymoron or what?) in believing that only certain types of special people should be allowed to live . . . recently Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a rather shocking interview with the New York Times said, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

There’s good reason to think that Einstein, who didn’t speak until age five, might well have been labeled as “a population” that Ginsburg “doesn’t want to have too many of . . .” Of course, 20/20 hindsight clairvoyance would help Rajjpuut decide his first candidates for abortion would be Ginsburg, Holdren, the Ehrlichs and Harrison Brown as well as mass murderers, tyrants, child molesters and all supporters of government spending and government interference boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs).  In fairness to the lady justice, it may well be that she only meant “poor people” we don’t want so many of . . . ???

If you were to make a litmus test to discover idiots from the ultra-right wing, it would probably include belief in absolutely no abortions even in case of rape or incest; creationism taught in all public school science classes and evolution banned; religion taught in public schools; and howitzers for every six-year old capable of hunting small game.  To discover extreme liberals perverts, however, the litmus test listing could be much, much shorter -- let’s shrink the list of beliefs down to just one item: POPULATION CONTROL whether that means ZPG (zero population growth) or NPG (negative population growth). One item? Is Rajjputt crazy? Consider this:

1.        Abortion on demand: plays first violin in their population control symphony.

2.      Global warming/cap and trade/green tech: all these supposed problems and impractical solutions are their bass instruments in the NPG or ZPG movement of our “Unwashed Symphony.”

3.      End of Life Counselors in Obamacare: any potential chance to refuse medicines or services to the elderly for cost control or intercede in the natural decision to live as long as possible is clearly their brass section since Medicare is the problem ($34 TRillion in obligations now and officially bankrupt in 2016) and the last six months of life cost one-half of a person’s lifetime health care expenses . . . the temptation to control costs by “omission of care” to the elderly is surely too great to be avoided.

4.      Curtailing human endeavor for the sake of “endangered species” (such as the delta smelt in California stopping irrigation of the country’s largest and most fertile vegetable growing region and driving unemployment nearby to 41%) is their greenie symphony conductor letting the world know who’s more valuable: mankind or a two-inch fish too stupid to avoid irrigation piping.

5.      Etc., etc. the main message of radical environmentalism is that people are the problem and the planet would be better off without any people, except radical environmentalists, of course, leaving no one to hum along with their symphony.

Rajjpuut finds this approach disingenuous, if nutcase greenies really cared for the planet, surely their own suicides would be the logical and integral acts affirming their love of the natural planet and hate for humankind? Save the planet^^, Greenie, kill yourself now! 

Of course, Mother Nature herself has on two separate occasions pretty well cleaned things up on her own without any help from Wall Street and other “polluters.” The comet 65 million years ago that brought on the demise of the dinosaurs and eventually the rise of mammals and even primates and mankind also wiped out 96% of all life on the planet: plant or animal; and 420 million years earlier over 98% of Earth’s life was extinctED, to coin a term, by widespread super-volcanic activity bringing down upon the planet a total ice age lasting about six million years if Rajjpuut’s memory of pre-pre-history serves correctly. Given that background a little more reverence for the preciousness of human life might surely be in order in Rajjpuut’s not so humble opinion.

 The more vocal the green advocate whether their primary focus is global warming, other ecology, or green tech . . . the more likely they are to be an advocate of ZPG or NPG. In fact many Negative Population Growth fans literally are promulgating desired human population numbers ranging from as low as 180,000 to as high as two million for the entire planet. To put that in perspective, 29 out of every 30 people living on earth would have to die to satisfy the two million figure; and 33, 332 out of every 33, 333 people now living would be sacrificed to the whims of those favoring 180,000. If that seems like some sort of cruel intellectual parlor game to you . . . you’re right . . . that is exactly the sort of Maoist-Hitleresque mentality that it takes to dream up this sort of philosophy of life. One suspects that the earth-firsters would see the necessity of including themselves in the 180,000 valuable survivors, eh?

The main reason that “thinking lefties and greenies and even anarchists” (Rajjpuut knows, yes, that’s an awful lot of oxymorons) are so in favor of forcing green tech down our throats (even at the cost of $675,000 and 2.2 real jobs** for every green temporary green tech job created by government intervention) is their fervent belief that the planet’s only hope, regardless of quiescent human population is to develop a power source that is non-polluting. In that desire and understanding is the only agreement that greenies and Rajjpuut have. Green tech is ultimately desirable. Green tech would be a godsend. However, it’s in the little matter of PRACTICALITY that we differ. To insist upon cap and trade laws now or on financing green tech now is putting the cart before the horse. Right now practical, AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE green technology is a dream only.

A whole lot of people marvel at Da Vinci being beyond his time with drawings of tanks, helicopters, and submarines centuries before those ideas became practical. That’s the way it is with green tech. Let’s say that 40 years from now, 89-90% of the greenies’ fondest wishes come true and a 21^st Century Edison-clone comes along and does for power generation and green tech what Edison did for electricity . . . hurrah! What we must NOT do now is to spend today’s dollars and eliminated today’s jobs on pipe dreams. Now’s definitely NOT the time to spend money on green tech jobs and converting the power grids . . . not 40 years too early, for crying out loud. 

What we can do now is to fund research, and only research, by bona fide scientists/inventors (not global warming enthusiasts friendly to the administration’s viewpoints)who've proven their credentials most practically of all by winning contests open to anyone where anybody with a non-polluting or extremely-lightly polluting non-traditional energy source ideas can demonstrate the efficacy of their ideas. Winners win cash prizes, free patents and government research bucks for, say, ten years. When we find our Edison, then we spend and convert the energy grids, not before.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

** This data comes from a longitudinal study of the Spanish experience with funneling tax money into green-tech and furthermore it showed that only one in ten green-tech jobs was permanent. Many of the green tech jobs of the five million Obama promised/threatened to create will only last three weeks or a month, or perhaps six months. This means that 22 real jobs are sacrificed to create one permanent green tech job, which alas, only pays $10-$16 per hour.

It (gay marriage) is a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

                However, the fact that President Obama’s “Safe Schools Semi-Czar” Kevin Jennings wants primary school children studying homosexuality is “very iffY” to say the least to Ol’ Rajjpuut’s thinking. 

And the fact that Jennings himself is also a big supporter of NAMBLA (nambla.org) the North American Man-Boy Love Association and seemingly a pedophile sympathizer is “iffiER,” if such a word exists. 

The fact that Jennings has praised Harry Hay effusively (Hay like NAMBLA has repeatedly, consistently and openly opposed ALL age of consent laws) saying Hay (a lifelong advocate of homosexual pedophilia) is “one of the people that's always inspired me . . .”   That’s got to be iffiest.

Jennings is also infamous for filing a counter-suit to cover up a scandal when homosexual activists were caught in a sting while teaching children as young as 13 the gruesome and painful activity known as “fisting.” Jennings has long counseled homosexuals the best way to get what they want is to avoid direct language about “promoting homosexuality” but rather to use euphemisms like “safety” and “violence.”   Appropriately enough Jennings' standing in the “Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools” is definitely on the Obama euphemism path.

Compared to the abhorrent Kevin Jennings, the now shamed communist and associate of anarchist bomb makers and bomb planters, Van Jones, appears to have been merely a exuberant ultra-leftist. Jennings and his agenda and the homosexual marriage agenda are very real threats to the American family and America itself.

Besides everything else, as a health educator, Ol’ Rajjpuut would remind the reader that homosexual behavior shortens life expectancy by 10-20 years, roughly 2 ½ times as much as smoking because of HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general populace, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.” And then there’s all the other STD’s and Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C and 64% of all syphilis cases. Kevin Jennings needs to go, now and homosexual marriage needs to be stopped now. 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

New Jersey Police are investigating an incident in which a bullet struck the home of CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs while his wife and driver were nearby. According to NJ state police spokesman Sgt. Stephen Jones, Dobb’s wife and driver were outside the house when they heard a gunshot. No persons of interest have been identified in the case. Because the bullet may well have been “spent” since it didn’t penetrate the house’s siding and fell to the ground instead, one theory is that the bullet came from a hunter some distance away. New Jersey is presently in “small-game hunting season.” Initial police reports were that the bullet was long rifle rather than handgun or shotgun. Until further more conclusive evidence, if any, of a deliberate attack is found the “stray bullet guess” may well be the best hypothesis anyone in law enforcement can make.

However Dobbs has reported receiving threatening phone calls for weeks on his radio show. He tied the gunshot to his long expressing his distaste for the illegal alien wrist-slapping and his cry for a “crackdown” at America’s borders. IF the near-miss bullet was the product of malice, however, it is certainly NOT CLEAR that illegal alien protest is the root cause.   ACORN members and supporters have been protesting Dobb’s fiery attacks on the recently shamed Democratic-leaning organization.  Meanwhile the left-leaning internet group AmericasVoiceOnline.org has been extremely “vocal” about their irritation with Dobb’s attacks on the Obama Administration and the Democrats’ proposed Government Spending Boondoggles and Government Interference Boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs) such as Obamacare and “Cap and Trade” legislation. Here is a typical example of Dobbs’ presentations:

http://www.cnn.com/video/savp/evp/?loc=onsite&cnnSectionName=CNN%20TV%

                On his radio show broadcast via United Stations Radio Networks, Dobbs said, "A shot was fired at the house where I live" and that it came after "weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls." He attributed the verbal attacks to those who disagree with his stance on illegal immigration.

Dobbs further said that hostility has "become part of a way of life, the anger, the hate, the vitriol, but it's taken a different tone where they threaten my wife. They've now fired a shot at my house while my wife was standing next to the car.  It's become something else, and if anybody thinks that we're not engaged in a battle for the soul of this country right now, you're sorely mistaken."

Besides his immigration revelations, Dobbs made two recent reports on ACORN:  exposing first the fact that ACORN could be back in the business of receiving federal funds as soon as November 1^st depending upon the budget drawn up by the congress. Most Americans thought the temporary measures taken by both the House and Senate were the end of the issue, not so according to Dobbs. Dobbs has also recently revealed that pending Democratic bills would make ACORN eligible for oversight power over the financial institutions which between 1995 and 2007 they browbeat and forced to make high-risk mortgages to sub-prime high risk buyers; and also that that ACORN could gain oversight powers over many of the very companies that otherwise contribute to ACORN.

Recent ACORN revelations, however, “juicy” have not shown that organization to advocate violence. The threatening phone calls, many of them from A.V.O. dot ORG. have grown increasingly more “agitated” as Dobbs goes about his business of reporting the news and serving up solid editorials based upon unquestionable factual revelation. Just as with the Obama attacks on FOX News, Rajjpuut deplores any efforts aimed at denying journalists, news gathering organizations and the American public the benefits of a free and independent press and all Americans’ right to freedom of responsible expression. 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

According to Rasmussen Reports for the first time in roughly seventeen months, American women are now feeling negative about Barak Obama and his performance as our president.  Women are the biggest demographic in the country (53% of the voters were women and only 47% were men in the 2008 election).  Black men voted 95+% for Obama and Black Women 96+% for Obama giving him an incredibly racist almost 92% edge among Black voters but since the percentage of Black voters is so low compared to the percentage of women voters, it's fair to say that women put Barak Obama in office.  During the Democratic primaries in 2008 was the last time women did not strongly approve of candidate/nominee/president Obama.

                The Rasmussen approval poll, which considers the "strongly Approve" and "strongly DISapprove" numbers presently shows that overall 11% more Americans strongly disapprove of the president and his performance ( positive 29% compared to negative 40%); the overall disapproval balance has been as high as -13% and as low as -8% in recent weeks.  The big news is that for the first time a significant percentage of women are strongly disapproving* of Obama's job performance.  Currently 4% of American women and 17% of American men strongly disapprove of the president's job performance.

The last time American women on election day did NOT vote in higher numbers for the younger and more physically attractive  presidential candidate was in 1984 during the second Reagan landslide.  The so-called "pretty boy syndrome" has been amazing in its consistency for predicting female voting.  The highly racist nature of the Black vote in 2008 (Obama got 47% of the White vote and Mc Cain only 4% of the Black vote is almost comprehensible in comparison to the pretty boy syndrome's effect on female voters over the last six election cycles.  Men, for all their faults, are by comparison far more apt to pay attention to the issues and the candidates' stances on principle.  Men are also far more likely to call themselves "Independent or Moderate" while women are far more likely to label themselves "Democrat or Republican; Conservative or Liberal."  The pretty boy syndrome was even at work in late 1998 when American Women overwhelmingly stood behind Bill Clinton and his assertions about Monica Lewinsky until months later he owned up to his lies about the affair.  It's about time we showed some sense, Ladies!

Ya'alllive long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

*straight “approve-disapprove” polling shows Obama only down -2% (+49% to -51%) although that number has been as high as -5% in recent weeks

                Nancy Pelosi is the most distrusted Democrat in the country according to many national polls. Second place for duplicity has been running very close between Obama, Barney Frank and Harry Reid. It now appears Harry Reid has moved past the other two and is poised to actually challenge Pelosi as the most hideous personality among the extreme-liberal left.

                Pelosi recently showed her utter contempt for the intellect of Americans by blatantly and openly changing the name of her favorite Obamacare feature from “the public option” to “the consumer option,” although, of course, NOT changing any of the ridiculously tenets of Obamacare itself . . . Reid, however, not only showed contempt for the intellect of all Americans but also for the integrity of the conservatives and moderates within his own party.  Reid has unilaterally, it seems, abandoned the recent health care “compromise” that Republican senator Snow felt she could agree to and instead replaced it with a public option which individual states may “opt out of” and a simultaneous co-op.

                Logic tells us that if one state “opts-in” for the “consumer public option” then all states eventually MUST opt-in to prevent themselves from supporting every other state’s public option with their own citizens’ tax money. Reid is clearly saying to the Blue Dog Democrats. “Time to get on board boys. I’ve created a handy way for you to lie to the American people because if you vote for it, there’s absolutely no need to say you supported the public option."  The gall of the man and his stupidity know no bounds . . . .

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

                Rasmussen Reports with their constant barrage of questions routinely kicks Gallup’s rear end in poll results, because Rasmussen does not tend to ask silly questions in silly ways. Today, the Gallup people tell me that for the first time since 2004, Conservatives outnumber moderates in America . . . gosh, call Ol’ Rajjpuut cynical, but the Ol’ boy is NOT going to take the Gallup numbers to the bank. Since the Republican Party has been literally banking on those numbers for years and parading them around and repeatedly been disappointed in the results gained . . . maybe it’s time the Republicans grew up and decided to find out what the truth was/is and abandoned the Gallup lies, wouldn’t you think?

                “In the voting booth which of these patterns below describes your most probable actions and tendencies?

         A.      I vote for bigger government and for more human rights.

         B.      I vote for less government control and more human rights.

         C.      I  vote for bigger government and less human rights

         D.     I  vote for smaller government and less human rights.”

Asked this way, 54% of Americans will say they go for option B and 7% will opt for option D, the two conservative options.  Asked this way, 31% of Americans will choose option A and 5% will choose option C, the two liberal options.  The Republican party today, however, incredibly enough, is perceived and with good reason as standing for principles somewhere along the lines of half of option C and half of option D. Yes, they are more likely to cut taxes than the Democrats are but they still let the government grow way out of hand.   And, most damning, the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party is seen as “intolerant,” “out-of-touch” and “old-fashioned.” And the ultra-right wing of the G.O.P. is clearly the most visible aspect of today’s Republicanism in the eyes of both Democrats and Independents. 

Rajjpuut fully expects today's G.O.P. to blow the most incredible opportunity in Republican history and fail to learn the simple lessons of this blog. The ultra-fundamentalists will vote Republican or they will not vote. The Independents will vote for the “better man” as they perceive him/her and they will vote for option B, smaller government, less government spending, and more human decency as they perceive those things. If the Republican Party were actually serious about 1)Winning  2) Being an effective force benefitting the American people and 3) Building and maintaining the most powerful and beneficent and integral political party possible . . . they would conduct themselves accordingly both in the campaign and while in office. And the word “Abortion”? Abortion is the law of the land* for 36 years now. If the time ever came that the Republican Party was perceived as the party of justice, perhaps then they would be trusted to make small alterations in the abortion laws, but that day is not even close to fruition when the loud-minority ultra-right wing of the party controls Republicanism.

Right now the American voter is depressed and untrusting of both major parties and distrusts the Republicans far MORE than he distrusts the Democrats. Read that sentence again, carefully.  Think about it.  This sad fact is true according to Rasmussen even right now while the Democrats are leading the country to rack and ruin. Yes, Obama’s excesses are changing the dynamic, perhaps dramatically, but unless the Republican party is committed to winning and benefitting the American people as delineated in the paragraph above, items A,B and C:   the Democrats will benefit most in the contest between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber as they almost always have.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

            In honor of the memories of Harry S Truman (just a letter no middle name), Ronald Wilson Reagan and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, three of the most diligent and competent statesmen in world history, Rajjpuut will be awarding a monthly Truman-Reagan-Kennedy Award for statesmanship. Whole encyclopedias could be written about these three men.

Truman, a hero in World War I made the courageous decision to drop the atom bomb ending World War II and saving an estimated one million American fighting men from death or wounding. He also inspired the Dixiecrats to leave the Democratic Party at great political risk to himself, Truman who was raised a segregationist, integrated the armed forces. And unlike his successor Eisenhower, Truman was an immediate and stringent vocal opponent of Joe McCarthy and his communist witch hunts.

Reagan personally intervened to get the final funding and stinger missiles that spelled the defeat of the Big Red Machine in Afghanistan. His confrontational style (“Tear Down This Wall, Mr. Gorbachev!”) but willingness to talk face-to-face helped bring about the fall of communism and the Warsaw Pact, the end of the Soviet Union and Cold War and yes, the smashing of the Berlin Wall: not a bad legacy for “the Great Communicator!”

Kennedy inspired warm hope in long jaded American voters. He, like Reagan, made a courageous speech in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. Most importantly, Kennedy stood tough upon discovering that the Soviet Union had moved missiles to Cuba just 90 miles off America’s shores and put the whole world on a nuclear disaster watch by blockading the island and demanding removal of the missiles. Like his book “Profiles in Courage,” Kennedy, a World War II hero, practiced what he preached.

The October, 2009, Truman-Reagan-Kennedy Statesmanship Award WINNER is: 

 Ex-Vice President:   Richard* Cheney

                 Rajjpuut has NOT always been an admirer of George W. Bush’s Vice President. However, during the months of September and October, 2009, and earlier Richard Cheney has made an ardent practice for speaking up for simple truth.  The travesty of the Obama Administration’s on-again, off-again decisions to put CIA operatives on trial without honoring Cheney’s respectful request for declassification of all the necessary and relevant data on exactly what information was obtained from their work (in law these are called "mitigating factors"), is clearly a charade that can only hurt American intelligence-gathering efforts now and in the future.  Obama’s now ten-week procrastination in neither deciding to honor nor to ignore General Mc Chrystal’s request for 40,000 needed troops in Afghanistan has recently evoked Cheney’s straightforward scorn, to wit:

“Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

“In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for calling a spade a spade. America needs far more truth-talking and straight-talking from its statesmen past and present.

Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,

                  To honor the memory of the Last Great American Statesman, William Proxmire (Wisconsin Senator for 32 years) whose “Golden Fleece Awards” uncovered shameless pork barrel projects and focused media attention on all manner of self-serving, waste, and corruption in the United States government: Rajjpuut has since June, 2009, begun to award the “Platinum Fleecer” to the elected or appointed official or private citizen most deserving of the illustrious title.

The October, 2009  

Platinum Fleecer WINNER is:

U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

       Recently Speaker Pelosi has made a crusade of attacking the “obscene profits” of the health insurance industry.   A recent fact check run in a lead article by Liberal-leaning Yahoo.com, however,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fact_check_health_insurance

showed the health insurance industry with a profit of mere 2% of revenues and ranking 53^rd of the 55 industries yahoo monitored. Even the recent economic downturn Pelosi and liberals helped create cannot be blamed for the Speaker’s lie: in the article Yahoo stated, “Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.” Pelosi’s unrelenting attacks on real American businesses performing a useful even noble function are typical from the semi-Marxist speaker. Typing in “Nancy Pelosi lies*” in the Yahoo search engine generates 8,400,000+ hits and searching for “Nancy Pelosi scandal” resulted in 4,460,000 more hits, so Rajjpuut feels remiss in not having honored the Speaker earlier. There are, perhaps, 5,000 valid reasons why Nancy Pelosi deserves this Golden Fleecer award, but probably none is more little known then her efforts to obtain amnesty for illegal aliens. Along with Congressman Guiterrez, Nancy Pelosi has conducted the “Amnesty for Patriotic Aliens Tour” aimed at making every illegal in this country and every illegal who can get into the country a validated American citizen and in conjunction with her support for the ridiculous Obamacare health initiatives thus driving up the cost of being an American a good half a TRillion dollars a year. Nice work, Madame Speaker!

Congratulations, Speaker Pelosi, you certainly are a platinum fleecer!

Ya'all live long, strong, and ornery,

Rajjpuut  

*The Speaker’s lies about the Catholic Church’s stand on abortion are among the most diabolical word-twists Tom Brokaw ever endured. If Rajjpuut believed in hell, he’d certainly have downward expectations for the good Ms. Pelosi . . . .

Medicare Rip-offs Reveal

How Poorly the Government

Manages Your Tax Money

Every American ought to learn this lesson about their government’s gross INability to manage money; about the alarming propensity for government spending and government interference boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs) to totally mismanage and waste your money. Going to the link immediately below you can either watch or read the 60-Minutes script for a shocking 7-8 minute story on Medicare thievery: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419844n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

                Medicare, the health cost benefit program for the elderly; and Medicaid, the state-run program jointly funded by the individual states and the federal government to fund medical care for low-income adults have been ripe for the picking since their inception in 1965. Medicare was planned to only cost the government $12 Billion by 1990.  Instead it already was running up monstrous deficits every year so that by 1990 the program cost $109 Billion yearly. Forty-four years ago they hung out a shingle that says “Free Government Money Available Here,” so we shouldn’t be surprised that crafty, greedy people have taken them up on it . . . . today the program has $34 TRillion in obligations it canNOT meet and it’s officially scheduled for bankruptcy in 2016. 

                President Obama, rather than cleaning up the wasteful programs we now have is seeking to drop a whole new level of bureaucratic health care INefficiency upon us. Who are these morons who believe the federal government can be expected to correctly manage boondoggles like this? Look at that first estimate, $12 Billion becoming over nine times greater ($109 Billion) and today over 25 times larger.   Government Spending Boondoggles, GSBs, are always underfunded, underestimated for cost: Why? That’s how they get the bills passed, make some sort of asinine low-ball estimate of a program’s cost, jack up beyond reason your statement about the potential benefits so idiot congressmen think the country is getting something for nothing, a free lunch and VIOLA! You have created an ongoing GSB sure to ripoff the taxpayer for the next half-century. That’s, however, just the first problem. 

Unlike a real person or a real business which is always looking over expenditures trying to see why costs are doubling every three years . . . pseudo-businesses created by the federal government are never audited well and never even remotely protected against fraud or thievery. The Feds estimate that $90 Billion a year in Medicare expenditures are actually the result of Medicare fraud. The crooks estimate that 95% of the money spent goes to them. Who do you believe? Well, on the 60 minutes segment above they showed one little  south Florida store front Medicare fraud outlet which during the two months of its (BOGUS) existence “collected more Medicare money” than the largest Walmart in the state of Florida.  Since the FBI was showing the 60 Minutes host dozens of these little operations every day:  since they seem to be in on the ground floor of Medicare ripoff technology and actually have a handle on the size of the problem -- Rajjpuut’ll go with say, half of the thieves estimates (that would come to about $240 billion in ripoffs a year:  par for the course.).

Of course, the unsophisticated hit and run scam depicted in the 60 Minute segment is just the tip of the iceberg. Doctors and insiders can do a lot better gaming the system with far, far less chance of getting caught, for presumably even greater looting by fraud.  See the show, it may well be the most important TV you’ve ever watched and it’s only 7-8 minutes long . . . .

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419844n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Feminists Upset Over Higher,

 Justified, Health Care Costs

Since eight million one-hundred thousand more women than men voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election; 13 % more women than men supported Obama; and 14% of all women call themselves feminists: it’s no secret that the big push for a national health option comes from liberal Democratic feminists. The feminist argument, in a nutshell is that women shouldn’t be penalized because their plumbing is different than a man’s. As with virtually every statement and issue raised by feminists (“every act of heterosexual intercourse, even consensually on the marriage bed, is RAPE”) the ILL-logic and the social impact of the ILL-logic is down-right mind-boggling.

 Yes, it is true that women’s health care premiums can be up to 56% higher than a man’s. Putting her check in the box marked “female” on a health insurance premium definitely is likely to cost a woman more than her brother pays. That is about all the truth in the feminist argument . . . and there are very logical reasons for the greater expense, unfortunately.  

This does NOT necessarily mean that ALL health insurances are necessarily fair in its treatment of female clients compared to men. Rajjpuut knows there are instances where a healthy female NON-smoker will pay 20% higher premiums than an unhealthy male smoker especially in states dominated by a single health insurance carrier. But the simple expedient of opening the borders to all health insurers and making all equally welcome would eliminate such violations of sound actuarial practice virtually immediately without initiating another GIB/GSB (government intervention boondoggle/government spending boondoggle). 

Why do women get charged more  

than men for health insurance?

 1.        Women, especially women under age 55, use health insurance far more often than men do.

 2.      Women are much more vulnerable than men to the most expensive of diseases: notably Multiple Sclerosis and cancers of the breast, ovaries, cervix, uterus, bladder and even anal cancer. Men don’t have ovaries, cervixes, or uteri and are about 1/12th as likely to get breast cancer and less than half as likely to get cancer of the bladder and MS. Despite the risks to homosexual men for anal cancers, women still get anal cancer more frequently than men do. Penile cancer, testicular cancer and prostate cancer are far less frequent and generally less expensive to treat and the surgeries involved are far less threatening (which goes to the great question of malpractice costs being passed on by surgeons in the cost of surgery).

 3.      Covered abortions and medical malpractice associated with covered abortions are very expensive.

 4.      Four very expensive medical conditions: obesity, morbid obesity, pre-diabetes and diabetes are about 33% more likely in females than in males.

 5.      Women are far more likely to obtain and use prescription drugs from their doctors. Men are far more likely to “tough it out” and not fulfill any given prescription. Women are less likely than men to be serious exercisers. Women are far, far more likely than men at any given moment to be indulging in some illogical and unhealthy diet,

 6.      Women are far more likely to self-medicate with expired prescription drugs and also with over-the-counter drugs and by combining drugs than men are. Iatrogenic (in this case, problems associated with side-effects and accidental over-dose) deaths and illnesses are much more likely in women.

 7.       Women are far more likely to use mental health benefits than men are.

 8.      Women are far, far more likely to get depressed and seek treatment for depression which can be long-lasting and very expensive. Drugs prescribed for depression are also very risky as far as their side-effects. 

9.      Women are much more likely to seek the services of specialists, even when Ob/Gyn visits are NOT counted as specialist visits. Women are also far more likely to be referred to specialists (not to mention the Ob/Gyn) then males are.

 10.   Specialists cost much more than visits to GPs and first-line doctors do.

  11.    Ob/Gyn visits also cost more than GPs and first-line doctors do.

 12.   Women are far more likely to seek elective covered surgeries than men are (plastic surgery, for example, after an accident).

 13.   Women are far more likely to initiate malpractice suits than men are.

 14.   When pregnancy is involved more than one life (up to nine!) is involved and care immediately gets more complicated and expensive; and malpractice suits far more likely because much more can go wrong.

 15.   An Ob/Gyn faces among the very highest malpractice insurance fees and must pass that cost on to female patients just to stay in business. An Ob/Gyn is also liable for years for problems associated or allegedly associated with delivery.

 16.   An Ob/Gyn is the medical professional most likely to be sued, suffer a huge malpractice judgment, and most likely to leave the business . . . shrinking numbers of them mean those left are more in demand and more likely to raise prices.

 17.    Since the feminist movement, a whole wave of previously seldom-seen female bad habits like criminal involvement; drug-use; smoking; and alcohol abuse have resulted in virtual equality for women and men in several previously male-dominated areas such as automobile accidents; drug-overdose; lung-cancer; cirrhosis of the liver; and throat cancer.

  18.   While problems caused by illegal drug use are still slightly more common among males than females, complications caused by taking more than one prescription drug or over-the-counter drug at a time are much more frequent in women than in men because women use drugs for medical purposes far more often than men do.

 19.   Families headed by a male generally have two care-givers to watch over children. Single or divorced female-headed families much more frequently only have one supervising parent and child care health expenses routinely prove greater in such families.

 The careful reader will have noticed the huge impact of malpractice costs to the doctor on female health care costs. For both males and females; the cost of expensive malpractice insurance passed on from the doctor to the patient is suspected to account for up to 40% of the cost of medical treatment (because of unlimited damage judgements in these suits and because of unnecessary but “ultra-cautious medical testing batteries” doctors prescribe to protect themselves from malpractice suits.

 Conservatives have sought four main changes to Obamacare: 

A.      Lower overall cost to implement the bill

 B.     No abortion funding in the bill

 C.      No services for illegal aliens allowed by the bill

 D.     A cap on medical malpractice judgments

 While all of these features have at one time or other been added as Republican amendments to each of the Obamacare bills, none of those four features are presently found in any of the five Obamacare bills still extant in the House and Senate.   All four of these are needed in any true health care reform, perhaps none is needed as badly as a reasonable cap on medical malpractice judgments.

                 Meanwhile, the main item driving feminist desire for a public option health care system is “de-genderization” of health care costs. That means men pay for greater female drain of health care resources. Is this fair? To Obama, the collectivist, it is not only fair it is wise and necessary. This collectivist notion of his and of the feminists brings us to a greater philosophical issue: "responsibility."

Of the 44 issues that Rajjpuut has called Relevant to America getting 1) better health care 2) less expensive health care and 3) greater health and vigor and longevity for Americans, Obamacare’s several thousand pages of non-essentials only includes one single factor that both Obamacare and Rajjpuutcare agree upon:   infant mortality. 

Imagine that, only one factor in common, right away that would tend to indicate that either Obamacare is total nonsense or the Ol’ Health Educator, Rajjpuut himself, is full of it. But even here with infant mortality, the understanding and pinpointing of responsibility by Obamacare is totally lacking. Here is the truth about infant mortality as emphasized by Obamacare and debunked by Rajjpuut . . . .

First, Obamacare mentions two very serious problems: infant life expectancy (infant mortality statistics when taken from the other direction) and overall life expectancy being surprisingly low in America especially considering we have the most expensive health care in the world. To that, Rajjpuut says, “Amen . . . but . . .”

In point of fact, there is only one problem: infant mortality.

While wise and honest researchers include a wiser and more honest statistic reflecting upon overall life expectancy, Obamacare advocates “cheat and lie” with statistics to make things seem far worse than they really are. If you take the infant mortality effect out of the overall life expectancy statistic, Americans live surprising long considering we are the fattest and most out of shape people on earth; and take more drugs (prescribed, over-the-counter, and illegal) than any other people on the planet.  

                Our life-expectancy, once you get beyond the first twelve months of life, is damn good and nothing to be ashamed of despite our horrendous fatness and drug use. So we ARE getting something for our health care money however UNwisely spent. Obamacare puts the problem of infant mortality and life expectancy on the doctors and hospitals unjustly!

So now you know, there’s only one bad statistic: infant mortality. But wait a moment, back before all our government health interventions, back in the 50’s say, America’s infant mortality (and the Obamacare life expectancy statistic also) was among the very best in the world, what in the hell happened? What happened was something the Obamacare people don’t even want you to hear about, much less think rationally about: radical feminism. 

But let's you and Rajjpuut put all the shrill feminist screeching aside and look at the facts, undeniable cold hard facts . . . . 

Radical feminism unlike "the Women’s Movement" which it often claims itself to be (only 14% of women call themselves “feminists” today but virtually all women are believers in equality of opportunity, in education, for one thing) is not a sane and responsible social movement.   The Women’s Movement arose because there were some pressing social inequalities that needed to be addressed in education and in the workplace (some of those inequalities are just and still exist; many were not and virtually all of those were changed).

 More than anything else, radical feminism sought to divorce women’s actions from the consequences of those actions and to play upon men as the cause, pure and simple, of all problems for all women (think about the Gloria Steinem quote above saying that ALL heterosexual intercourse is RAPE). Well we know it's not all rape now, and except for homosexual men, the percentages of both genders suffering from sexually transmitted diseases is approaching equality, to mention just one tiny aspect of feminists denying responsibility: a whole "can of worms" that women in the years between 1945 and 1960 hardly thought about. To wit:

 Compared to the “Donna Reed” years of the 50’s “you’ve come a long way, Baby!” Today’s woman has staked her claim to smoking, heavy drinking, drug use, promiscuous recreational sex outside marriage, and even criminal involvement.   More American women today, for example, smoke than men; almost as many women as men abuse alcohol and alcohol wreaks more havoc, more quickly on the female anatomy and on her judgment behind the wheel than on the male’s; promiscuity is a much more dangerous avocation for females than males; etc., etc. . . . these are all facts which impact us today far more greatly than they did in 1960 because of the social shifts brought about by radical feminism’s influence upon American society.  

 It is a law of logic that consequences follow action. It is a law of logic that those who suffer the worst consequences from certain actions MUST, if they are wise, take the most responsibility$ for their actions. The implications from logic is that women, historically the gender where “virtue” was expected, suffer greater consequences from decadent living and therefore, women need to take greater responsible for actions along those lines. It may not sound fair, but it sure as hell is logical, and as my mother occasionally mentioned, life is not always fair: a lesson every first-born child learns quickly.

 The feminist movement has completely and egregiously denied women have responsibility for the consequences of stupid female actions and has denied that responsibility since its inception in the early 60's.   The feminist insistence upon formerly male prerogatives regarding sex is among the stupidest and most thoughtless in a long line of remarkably inane feminist philosophies. Last time Rajjpuut checked:   men don't get pregnant. Last time Rajjpuut checked: men who get sexually transmitted diseases and veneral diseases are quickly aware there's a problem going on -- but females can go for years not knowing they are sick. But sex is not the only area where radical feminist's plausible deniability in the chain of command of their own health leads to ruination . . . . 

 Our daughters, who were in days of olde, encouraged and held up to be reaponsible and "nice girls" today are bombarded by TV and movie images of exciting women who by yesterday's standards take absolutely NO responsibility.   From six years of age, many mothers dress their daughters to resemble what were considered sluts in  1960. Today here in America, we have the fattest females in the world. We have the highest percentage of female drug users and female smokers and female alcoholics in the world. We also have the highest teenage pregnancy outside marriage in the world, the highest percentage of all unwed mothers, and the highest percentage of single-parent female-headed families in the world. Those are deplorable statistics from a health educator's point of view.  Among the most telling of facts:  the nutritional practices of most American women are deplorable.  Besides leading toward morbid obesity and diabetes for some . . . the diet of the American woman (and by extension of her children in many cases) is virtually guaranteed to bring on chronic constipation.  Constipation is UNKNOWN in large parts of the world.  So unknown that in much of the world constipation is called "the American Complaint."

 Going back to the matter of unrestricted irresponsible sex, the leftists scream that “Just say NO!” doesn’t work; well apparently “Just use birth control^” isn’t working either because promiscuous girls aren’t taking responsibility for their bodies. Perhaps we need both? Apparently, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" doesn't work either. From time immemorial, men and women have been constituting families to the benefit of each other and of the next generation. (You were probably wondering when we'd get back to infant mortality, huh?) 

The social wreckage which radical feminism has brought to the country is one thing, it's health debacles are another; but the obvious impact of every one of the facts discussed in the last three paragraphs is that infant mortality in this country is horrific now . . . but it was excellent once . . . back in the days when a code of moral conduct was in place and responsibility by girls and women was routinely taught. Why has the one unified cry of feminists over the years been “abortion on demand?” Because they wanted “the game” of sex without love and commitment but were unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences when their actions brought ruin. And, Rajjpuut, feels that our horrific infant mortality is the smallest price radical feminism has brought upon the country, the smallest price. You’ve come a long way, Baby!   So pay for your own health problems* damnit!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut 

*Rajjpuut suggests the public option be allowed only for feminists via taxes only upon feminists: that ought to be enough rope for them to hang themselves with $100 Trillion in problems over the next twenty years.

                According to the Obama Administration, another economic stimulus might be required because the “full impact of the old stimulus bill has already been felt.” Strangely enough, they seem to have forgotten that not one, but two, stimulus bills have already been passed, neither one approved of by the majority of American voters according to the polls. As a result, North Dakota has gained 1,800 jobs since the stimulus bill was passed (largely from oil industry jobs that have not been impacted by the stimulus) and meanwhile the other 49 states and the District of Columbia have all lost jobs since the stimulus.

                The apparent total lack of effect from the two stimulus bills is worrisome because A. 7,000 people every day see their unemployment benefits run out and B. the nation’s present 9.8% unemployment is a meaningless statistic. In reality it appears that stimulus or magic or miracle, whatever might be done is now roughly six million jobs short and the U-6 statistic which accurately measures the nation’s jobless rate shows that 17% of Americans are without jobs and California, where officially the jobless rate shows 10.1% suffers in reality an 18.5% U-6 unemployment rate depressing the Golden State’s economy.

                The only urgencies emerging out of all this are the administration’s recent   A. commitment of 40,000 troops to attack Fox News . . . and

B. the unending pressure to get emergency attention paid to the President’s Obamacare health initiative because “people will die” according to the commericials showing the president’s recent address to congress. Amazingly, despite all this unprecedented urgency, very little of Obamacare is set to begin before 2015 and virtually none of it before 2013 . . . utterly astonishing deliberation for a program “crucial to the whole recovery,” no?

                The president is still getting maximum humor and effect from blaming conservatives and the Bush administration for the financial meltdown with some version of his oft-repeated“I don’t want to hear from the people who caused the mess” charade. It is amazing to Ol’ Rajjpuut that 55% of the voters are so UN-informed as to blame conservatives and the free market itself for the evils of our present financial chaos. The informed will excuse Rajjpuut for this brief reminder of the history of our present collapse, to wit:

1.       Liberal Democrats and Jimmy Carter’s 1977 CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) was the first set of mortgage-guarantee laws which required lenders by law to make terribly ill-advised house loans to the worst possible credit risks

2.      The laws were not well crafted, so after they helped drive the nation’s inflation rate to 18-19%, mostly they were ignored and lenders were unthreatened by the ill-conceived CRA.

3.      By 1995, ACORN employed a different tactic. Clever lawyers like Barak Obama would extort the banks and other mortgage lenders to comply with the provisions of the CRA or be faced with mountains of non-compliance complaints and bad PR. Typically, the banks would cave in within two weeks and not only agree to make a certain amount of bad-loans every year but also would fund some sort of ACORN donation as well.

4.      But it was decided in 1998 by Bill Clinton and liberal Democrats to put teeth into the actual mortgage-guarantee picture itself. Accordingly a new set of mortgage-guarantee provisions were added which in combination with the CRA put the ill-advised mortgage-guarantee picture on steroids.

5.      By late November, 2003 James Stack of Investech.com was warning of the danger from a housing-industry investment bubble and the oncoming sub-prime mortgage collapse. January, 2005, the Bush Administration and Republicans in congress come to agree with Stack’s assessment and seek to pass laws to rid the nation of the worst provisions within the CRA and ’98 mortgage-guarantee laws. Democrats defeated their efforts.  Thirty months later in July, 2007, some Democrats saw the danger and a very weak bi-partisan law was created . . . however, it proved way too little, way too late.

6.      Financial meltdown began to be noticeable by late 2007.

So, Mr. Obama and the liberal Democrats are at least 10,000 times more culpable for the financial mess than Mr. Bush or the conservatives were.   And now, the Democrats would like the nation to continue to believe that the fox Democrats should not only continue to run the henhouse but that we citizens should overlook the fact that two, not one:  two, huge stimulus packages have already been created and doubled the country’s national debt . . . they are positioning themselves to ask for another monstrous stimulus package . . . hopefully, Americans are starting to feel “fool me once . . . .”

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

"We'll have the proceedings televised on C-span so that the people can see who's crafting the law on the basis of their constituents' needs and who's trying to hide some dealings favoring the health insurance companies and drug companies” claimed Barak Obama “once upon a time.” The truth, today, of course is a little bit different.  

Obama also pledged that “bipartisan input will be a vital part of the changes we’’ll be bringing to Washington.” Yesterday, the liberal Democrats had the locks on the committee room doors changed and refused to give keys to Republicans and conservative Democrats so only the liberals can access the ongoing discussions.

 For the third time this year, it appears liberal Democrats will be pushing for voting upon legislative bills (combining first in this case a 1500-page Obamacare bill with a separate 2300-page Obamacare bill both from the Senate) without the possibility of the bills actually being read both because of the size and complexity of the laws being designed . . . but also because according to accusations:  literally at the last minute just prior to the voting, the prior two such bills (most notably the “cap and trade” bill) saw parts of the bills (Republican amendments) removed in entirety; and wholesale Democratic pork added to the bills by the committees with only Democratic committee members aware of the changes.  In Rajjpuut’s not-so-humble opinion, our founding fathers did not contemplate this type of law-making behavior as Constitutional, much less beneficial to American citizens.

                Transparency, the supposedly greatest Obama desiderata, has been thrown in the trash can repeatedly. Conservative amendments requiring transparency on illegal aliens; abortion funding and on the bills in their entirety . . . have repeatedly been trashed by the liberals. Kentucky Senator (R) Jim Bunning's amendment to the bill requiring the Obamacare bill be written in normal legislative language and posted on the internet for 72 hours so that every citizen in the country as well as all the legislators can read it and understand it was shot down on virtually party-line votes. Conservative Democrats on the committees have seen their amendments suffer the same fate routinely. 

                Of course, the Obama attacks on Fox News, which is the only news agency that’s been watch-dogging the administration with anything like professional journalistic ethics rather than pandering to Obama, also speak volumes about Obama’s definition of “transparency.” If Rajjpuut were to say, the Obama administration has jettisoned transparency, accountability, openness and honest in the interests of advancing centralized White House power on all fronts, what evidence can be raised to oppose that opinion?

Ya’all live long, strong, and ornery,

Rajjpuut

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2009/10/17/the_truths_no_one_wants_to_hear_about_health_care__1.thtml

Even before Rajjpuut could get started on his scheduled second blog in the planned 28-blog series, he was assailed by rather unenlightened commentary. To wit: 

One comment actually assumed Rajjpuut’s great love of Obamacare and the liberal Democrats.  Rajjpuut is openly scornful of all GIBs and GSBs (Government Interference Boondoggles such as the mortgage-guarantee legislation that brought us to our present financial chaos; and Government Spending Boondoggles such as Medicare, now obligated for $34 TRillion it can’t pay, and Obamacare which is both a GIB and a GSB) and liberal fiscal “thinking” in general.  Regular readers probably got a good laugh out of this comment because Rajjpuut’s libertarianism is well-known to them. Libertarians are fiscally ULTRA-conservative.

Another comment assailed Rajjpuut’s typography. In defense of the dark-blue type on a yellow background, this has been proved most easy on the readers’ eyes in several studies as far back as the early 70’s and Rajjpuut because of his health-educator background elected to defy tradition and do what’s best for the readers’ eyes. You try to practice what you preach and get disparaged for it . . . Rajjpuut’s “just a soul whose intentions are good, Oh Lord, don’t let him be misunderstood” . . . .

One Maureen001 called the first blog “a load of misinformation, half-truths and hogwash” without giving specifics to refute anything in the blog, but only quoted the AMA “party line” about the conscientiousness and altruism of medical professionals. While many doctors are conscientious, Rajjpuut’s contention is that the medical outlook and more importantly medical school training generally encountered in the United States takes away much of the potential for great medical competency and replaces it with hard-line medical orthodoxy quite often to the patient’s detriment.

As promised in the first blog: truth is key and will be the fundamental priority in the blog series. For the sake of Maureen001, let me reveal just one truth before ending this response so that blog #3 can continue with the blog series itself:

Rajjpuut talked about the importance of honoring “First do no harm!” the 2,400 year old central message from Hippocrates the father of medicine.  He then, as an example, mentioned today’s doctors treating unrelenting hiccups and hyper-hidrosis (excessive sweating) by drugs and other medicines and even surgery as an example of doctors doing harm. Hopefully, the reader is sufficiently intelligent to understand that willy-nilly giving drugs, with their attendant side-effects and high monetary cost . . . or unnecessarily putting a patient under the knife are dangerous actions . . .?   Specifically, Rajjpuut mentioned the necessity to understand health and the human body and the mind-body connection well enough to never “go where you don’t belong” since the technical term for medically going where you don’t belong is “quackery.”   Now let’s prove that point and prove the truth of those statements from the first blog for Maureen’s sake:

Unending hiccups and “excessive” sweating are NOT medical** issues. Perhaps they can be considered psychological issues or even psychosomatic issues. But no outside treatment is required, any patient properly understanding his/her own body can cure both of these issues virtually immediately and permanently. Understanding first and then “treatment” is the crucial order of events. Treatment even correct treatment without understanding is usually a bad combination, and 99% of the time misunderstanding the nature of a patient’s problem causes serious errors and unnecessary expense. 

First the understanding . . . .

Autonomic responses are things like heartbeat, brainwaves, our body’s temperature control (sweating is one aspect of this), the knee-jerk response, and, yes, hiccups (to relieve perceived pressure in the diaphragm and other places). Some people, so-called yogis, perhaps are reputed to own such great control over their body’s autonomic system that they can willfully shutdown their heartbeat.  Perhaps that’s so.  In any case, average ordinary people can only mess things up when they try to control autonomic responses. Average people canNOT control the autonomic system.

Now let's review the Rajjpuut methods to “cure” the problems and prove the truth of the point at issue . . . .

The typical sufferer from hyper-hidrosis is a middle-age female socialite who is very “others’ conscious,” she obsesses continually about what everybody else in the world is thinking about her. She finds herself perspiring a lot, and the more she tries to control, stop or eliminate the problem the worse it gets. As a psychologist friend of Rajjpuut’s put it, “she needs to learn to get out of her body’s way!”

My psychologist friend might give her a “prescription” such as: “Take a bath before your next social event. Apply a small amount of a mild deodorant (NOT anti-perspirant) after the bath. Wear a sleeveless dress. While at the party 1) you can chit-chat, but your main purpose is to STINK ‘EM ALL OUT. 2) See if you can drown the whole party in your sweat. 3) See if you can offend everyone with your terrible stinky armpits. Concentrate at every moment during the party on doing those three things and only those three things. AMEN! 

After following the doctor’s orders, our nervous socialite would have experienced an important lesson in defying her severe “others’ consciousness” and discovered that when she tries to control her sweating and force her sweating and stinking, she CANNOT do it. Case cured!

When you go to:

http://www.musanim.com/mam/hiccup.htm

you’ll find 250 cures for hiccups. In all 16,600 links were found for “hiccup cures” on the internet. If any one of these worked, there’d be no need for all the others.  Accordingly,  Rajjpuut will only give one cure for hiccups -- one cure that works 100%. It’s, of course, very closely akin to the lady socialite’s problem. The long-time hiccup sufferer needs to learn to get the hell out of his body’s way. Here’s the cure:

            You get a hiccup, cheer, whoop it up! “Yes!” Now immediately attempt to put yourself in the Guinness book of World Records for hiccup loudness and hiccup duration (Being heard further than ¾ mile away and 76 years were the old records, you can beat those!) Really make every sort of bona fide physical effort to get hiccking. If you should get a second ‘hic’ out, “Yeah, Baby! Let’s go for five in a row!” Got the idea?

            Two questions: 

A.     How much harm or potential harm and unnecessary expense is involved every single time some doctor’s enthusiasm and his need for a boat payment overwhelm his respect for “First do no Harm!” occurs?

B.    If we take a condition like RSD (Reflex Sympathetic Distrophy) where a patient’s perceived pain is several orders of magnitude greater than actual injury seems to indicate should be the case . . . where a lifetime of doctors' and psychiatric visits and unending varieties of pain meds and perhaps $150,000 in medical expenses are par for the course just for the pain from one small injury: let's take the word “sympathetic” as in “sympathetic nervous system” (which is a synonym for “autonomic nervous system”) and instead of doubting the poor victim, we admit that she does feel like a truck fell upon her even though she only has a deep laceration to her index finger, and we ask her to really get in touch with her pain and try to make it grow greater and greater . . . see if she can feel so much pain that it knocks her out (makes her faint) well, perhaps you get the idea: Rajjpuut will say no more for fear of being accused of practicing medicine or psychotherapy without a license . . . nevertheless, for our second question, do you now see why Rajjpuut is so adamant against the AMA having a list of 65+ incurable “auto-immune” diseases, all of which have been cured by people who don’t believe in words like “incurable” and 99% of the time don’t believe in auto-immunity?

OK, having dealt with the detractors, Rajjpuut will make the previously scheduled blog #2 in the series into blog #3 next time out . . . .

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,