Congress should vote No on the override of the President's veto of H.R.976.

I know even Senator Grassley (R-IA) says that the bill is safe from abuse re adult use as it lets the HHS Secretary determine what's too much, still, why is the door open? As it is, even the American Cancer Society has been running cable tv ads lately in Lake County IL, all the alleged cancer patients appearing to be my age (47) or well older even minus afflictions; I've nothing against separate research funding and development funding to help such people, but like Katrina and Rita victims, why do we all have to be collectivized into single supplier, single source public care at expense of private R/D and health jobs, so that all who need care overburden the unique system while reducing likelihood of strident bounds toward cures?

Many in government tell us the eyes of potential immigrants and foreigners are upon us, and we must show them the USA has constructive leadership; I share that concern and simply think that it may be shooting such goal in the foot to enact just any old legislation for such primary purpose.

I concur with President Bush on his own merits re SCHIP as is veto, and the within balance is to show my concurrance also with objections as raised by the American Conservative Union.

As one of their nationals, I am disappointed that Congress voted for a massive expansion of government controlled health care known as the SCHIP bill. I am appalled that supporters of the massive expansion of government controlled health care known as the SCHIP bill have used children as political props on television to change some votes and override the President's veto.  I urge Congress to reject these tactics and vote to sustain the veto.

While claiming to expand the coverage of health care to poor children, this bill actually does the opposite.  It prevents the federal government from asking the states to certify that 95% of poor children are covered before covering other people.   

This bill would allow, and even encourage states to cover families who have private insurance and make up to $62,000 per year.  States that have done this and added adults to the program have now run out of money and cannot cover the poor children this program is supposed to help.  How absurd; and since tobacco use alone would allegedly fund such additional coverage, why are areas such as Chicago even now widening tobacco use bans to literally every place in their jurisdictions?

I believe the real purpose of this bill is to attract people who already have private insurance and get them to switch to government run health care.  I understand that the Congressional Budget Office has a study that shows that 77% of the children that would be included in the expansion of this program already have personal health insurance.  Whatever the problems with the present system, government-run health care is not the solution.

It is clear to me supporters of this bill do not have the interests of poor children at heart, but want to play politics with their health.  If it were otherwise, they would have drafted a bill that puts poor children first.  No one should be a part of this cynical attempt to make a political point.  Congress should vote "NO" on the override of the president's veto of the SCHIP bill.  
 

These days, it seems some in Congress are content to allow the activity of dreaming up sentiment after sentiment Bills alone to somehow be the litmus test of what they have in mind and who are the ogres to face in opposition on election day.

Sure, there may some Socialist-LIKE conversions that need to be permanently ensconced for the non-elected masses, but such sovereigns and those who cavort to their whimsy and are lucky enough to become annointed thereby promise we'll have a great culture notwithstanding.

For example, we need no vehicles, jobs, farms, equity...all that worrisome if free trade stuff that probably would lead to a war elites would even be bugged by, anyway; is education important when you can vie ala "Jackass" or "HBO Real Sex" or "American Idol" or play lotteries or win at casinos? Come on, just let ol' Uncle Sam keep a-borrowing to fill in the gaps, and let officials decide who's critical to playing musical chairs and not...anybody who votes against genocide, likes gays, likes minorities, likes women, hates the USA lapel pin flag or flag, berates and reduces our military, and says Qaeda are just freedom fighters can't have the stony hearts they say Conservatives opposing them have, right? I mean, come on...litmus test SCHIP shows it's GOT to be the word "Child" they hate, not possibly ANYTHING in the vetoed text under the title.

Goofy bills like Franks do seem to need be taken only as ephemera to the comprehensive Socialist-like society Bush opponents appear to be building themsleves while constantly searching for others to blame, as such society ever advances.  Too bad Franks and his Congressional intimates can't use, say, nationwide requirement of voter trails as a current litmus test.

To me, it's a factual nullity if Franks or anyone else is not put out by gays, unless a Franks or someone wants to add special priviliges for saying you're gay to avoid social responsibility(ies) or to receive greater benefits than anyone else...I'd say the same if anyone tried to protect ME in any such Father State manner, especially since orientation just means who you like to sleep with, not some more motive item making it more "worthy" for you to have justice only if a Franks or such sovereign deigns it "critical"...like with workforces, inter alia, already. 

As to the more meaty subject of SCHIP as litmus test, MoveOn sent another email PSA today saying the GOP hates children, and only children...tiny ones, by MoveOn ad photos...will be hurt; to that PSA I replied:

I saw at the DNC homepage today Dean has a lead post re the bill to stop war profiteering; there's no indication that HAS been going on, but note the cute Democrat doff to foreign populations generally that they're "saving" them from the USA and Conservatives by using the word "stop" as if it IS going on.

Once again, somehow telling someone that they're under imagined attack or about to be for a Bush/GOP military-industrial complex profit grab which the Left will save with spreading global government-owned housing only and government-run healtchcare as ONLY option while the Left shuts down ALL USA everyday occupations...while of course calling al-Qaeda freedom fighters (Marcy Kaptur, D-OH) who did not attack us on 911 (Barack Obama, D-IL). 

The psychology of the Left is not as subliminal as it may believe, self-deception being commonplace in life; self-doubt ought not ring in Conservatives over opposition to SCHIP as it was in vetoed form.

It seems the spate of anti-war mongering bills solve non-existant problems.

Some people who lean left are funny and often provocative, like Jon Stewart, using humor either to express their views, attempting to spur better debate on both sides of the aisle, or both; some people who lean right, like Ann Coulter, are like abrasive anti-Stewarts but are going for the same gists, even if Stewarts and Coulters make money along the way.
 
Then there are entities which accept no one's voice but their own, and search for and entice only the most loyal echoes thereof, in attempt to say such "unity" is indicative of the masses. MoveOn comes to mind, a group which today emailed me a PSA saying we must all call Congress and stop Bush from absolving phone companies from lawsuits re monitoring; here's what I said to and about MoveOn after reviewing said PSA:
 
"I know Soros doesn't like Bush, and anything at all is to be "negatived" on auto-pilot from the first day Bush took office, no matter what did or otherwise could have passed. But MoveOn within relevant seems to ignore both parties on massive assent passed PATRIOT and related, and that the laws direct the office of President, ANY sitting USA President, to effectuate their will...further, once more, playing to the primal fear of rape/invasion psychology and nothing else, MoveOn so conjures inference mean ol' Bush harmed USA citizens getting their data, assenting to absolution of companies complying with bipartisan laws from lawsuits, or both; get real, MoveOn and other pro manipulators: without a shred of evidence that someone HAS been legally wronged with negligence or malice aforethought, don't just yap at any official of any nature coming down the pike because you believe yourselves to be wearing little penny-farthing number lapel pins numbered 2 through 200 (ala McGoohan's "The Prisoner" 1960's tv show) and can control the world through media and a few elected parties on faux images alone...or could do it for them if they choose to so practice. I support Bush in absolving phone companies, and in DREAM Act concerns that allow both immigrants and nationals to do more than KEEP dreaming once everyone's here." [End of cite]
 
Now we have Wes Clark, whose WESPAC website homepage has said "help Wes Clark elect Democrats" for years, telling us it's not partisan to applaud ANY Democrat Kosovo, Darfur, ad infintum excursion, but Iraq or Iran, well, it's, it's just to much for him (although he accedes we can't JUST leave); then there's Jimmy "Glad I outlived most folks who voted me out 27 years ago" Carter with the same faint heart against ANY aggressors he had when he sat on his hands as Iranians took and held USA nationals as Islamic fundamentalist hostages; and in today's email, Bob Barr seems to be using his credentials as a former CIA official and GOP Congressman ( um, no reasons given why he just stopped running in 2003), and former(?) CNN affiliate, to say that oh no, it's impossible to imagine world forces like say Russia or Iran having ongoing aggressions against the USA period, say starting way back in 1917 for some and 1979 for others...even if many of the same old foreign aggressor faces are still on point today.
 
I am a USA citizen first, Wm. F. Buckley Jr. Conservative second, and all other things last; I never have wanted and never will want such office or potential to bend populations to my will; I love upwardly-driven competition benefitting the most while helping them be better people as well, globally; in short, I will never sell myself to anyone for fleeting fame, "easy" wealth, or my own comforts and without risks to me at the perils of the unwary, innocent, or my countrypeople regardless of race/origin/etcetera. And I will never bend to the threats made against my USA or ANY of its officials regardless of who they are or where they sit.
 
Wherefore, I continue to support President George Walker Bush in his diplomacies, martial applications, approach to secure yet free democracies, and dedication to free market trade pursuit; I also will support Conservatives for election in 2008, and note even Democrats have opportunity before general elections to show what States are willing to put behind a Bush vision under their own control. 
 

So many email PSAs today asking to support or oppose SCHIP veto; here's what I told relevant members of Congress:

"The within following next four paragraphs were conceived and drawn by me, and the balance thereafter above my sender data was prepared by the American Conservative Union...I incorporated their text as it amplifies my position on SCHIP.  
 
An email PSA I received today from MoveOn on its face and through its terms tells me that President Bush hates American children...let's examine what say MoveOn must ignore about the all-important, how-can-you-think-about-anything-else-or-quality-thereof SCHIP program to rail at Bush and feed this Hitlerian extermination of business, populations, and such Dems and other truly non-Conservative folks of assorted stripes accuse or tacitly "affirm" Bush and his supporters and troops are committing ( why Bush is bad for going to Iraq and not Darfur....get the joke, ar-ar-ar? Genocide creator and importer and exporter? Why, how could THAT talk alone embolden those killing our troops or undermine even Iraqi alone diplomacy?).

Well, those in MoveOn's club at all times know there's hardly going to be enough money to pay for what the President vetoed; none of those nattering nabobs of negativity even want to talk anymore why they think SCHIP as "improved" will fund tons and tons of USA smokers TO tax; this means you either have to borrow the money or cut all defense and perhaps border, DHS, and police monies while pretending "mean ol' Prez du jour did this or that mumbo jumbo" to explain things getting paid while others get cut.

The other most significant drag on SCHIP recently offered is that prior SCHIP is NOT affected...the SCHIP add-on would be to offer such money to anybody not currently on it, and only proponents could say who they believe beyond present level will soon be needing coverage by the State, or how infinite the SCHIP payments are meant to become. Thus, "mean" child-eater Bush has harmed no one currently on SCHIP with his veto.

The plain fact is, MoveOn and its club of diverse political and social admirers miss that being a child is but one mere phase of a child's existance; Conservatives such as myself simply point out that proposing budgets for needs that don't even exist, or have no real or accurate funding source, or are meant as "offsets" to the futures of children and their families being designed by non-Conservatives to drift into State-run housing, healthcare, gambling, and foodstamps in conscious resistance to free trade or capitalism at all, or combinations thereof, tend to make claims like "Hitler Bush did it!" and "we offer HOPE" seem like anti-democracy, anti-free trade sound byters having their cake and eating it too.

As a civic minded USA national, I urge you to uphold the president's veto of the SCHIP bill.  While claiming to expand the coverage of health care to poor children, this bill actually does the opposite.  It prevents the federal government from asking the states to certify that 95% of poor children are covered before covering other people.   

This bill would allow and even encourage states to cover families who have private insurance and make up to $62,000 per year.  States that have done this and added adults to the program have now run out of money and cannot cover the poor children this program is supposed to help.  How absurd.

I believe the real purpose of this bill is to attract people who already have private insurance and get them to switch to government run health care.  I understand that the Congressional Budget Office has a study that shows that 77% of the children that would be included in the expansion of this program already have personal health insurance.  Whatever the problems with the present system, government run health care is not the solution.

It is clear to me supporters of this bill do not have the interests of poor children at heart, but want to play politics with their health.  If it were otherwise, they would have drafted a bill that put poor children first.  Please don't be a part of this cynical attempt to make a political point.  Vote "NO" on the override of the president's veto of the SCHIP bill. "

 

As I recall, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), prior even to the 2000 election, nor President Clinton, objected to Iraq-like nation building for real by the USA in say Kosovo, but it then happened same appeared to represent a non-Conservative position "mere" al-Qaeda attacks on the WTC, USS Cole, and so forth were not worth doing away with Sanctuary Cities or so much as divising a way to merely track Qaedan type terror money and players; however, again, Kosovo actions were of import to Clinton, Durbin, and others...including then calling for military removal of Saddam Hussein by the USA military and perhaps so doing in Darfur; once it appeared the "not worth tracking" al-Qaeda would hit the USA proper just because say Bush WAS going to Iraq anyway and merely hypothezing what if Hussein were fooling Hans Blix about WMD to boot, suddenly it seems non-Conservatives found acting amid Qaedan threats was "rash". At least, now we're to forget Iraq as part of a onetime pastiche devised under Clinton to remove totalitarians whether or not they have, had, or pursue WMD; far more even U.N. called for reasons for removing Hussein had accrued before Bush came along and can be recalled via reading at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html  .
 
Today, as Jimmy Carter is again reported on USA MSM to be railing at Darfur's leadership and calling for USA military action against same, an Obama campaign PSA came into my within email; it's so lengthy that by itself it can't pass spam meters, but may be viewed currently at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/judgment.
 
This PSA further links to Obama saying he doesn't oppose USA defense or think most folks aren't patriots, he just thinks Iraq is a dumb war and thus one presumes Iraqis don't warrant liberation, and to protect America and defeat al-Qaeda we need to refocus all military some other way; obviously, it would be tricky to say why Durbin wasn't dumb under Clinton re Iraq, or  why it's dumb for anyone to even have been a USA soldier in Iraq...maybe these sophisticated re-deployers mean only an idiot would think they can do anything or go anywhere al-Qaeda doesn't approve of...Senator Obama recently also held that Qaeda was not involved in 911, any more than were airplanes, so how can you even suspect he or non-Conservatives or their craven admirers want al-Qaeda left alone?
 
To reiterate, I perceive that it's false hope, to Iraqis, the USA, Darfur, or anywhere else, to defund Iraq and defense generally just to push Bush to fund SCHIP whether or not tobacco use already almost non-existant produces promised funding; nobody should be faced with a choice of either highly paid officials, public-owned housing, and public-run healthcare before anything else is ever planned long-range for community developments, or having a military at all. It also doesn't seem to make sense to further say in any event, we'll just have to stay out of the way or appease any squawkbox foreign mischief makers, decide town by town who's critical enough to a workforce or appeasement diplomacy to warrant collectivized benefits at all, and imply that all here must be inferred as likely criminal aliens, terror supporters or ala Bush/Iraq terror inviters, or both.
 
I continue to support President Bush in his decisions re Iraq. And as to further innuendo over the years Bush is a Sunni-siding civil war mercenary just out to help the Saudi Royal Family, well, Saudis have owned Citicorp and also had the same relationships with Democrats across the USA since Clinton, and a look at recent financial tickers yields as the non-Conservative agenda for America continues to expand even Citigroup forecasts fourth qtr 2007 losses of 60% due to pre-collectivized housing subprime loan situations. 
 
Notice too that war tax or not, some just don't support the military or commercial development at all, which is why they needn't talk about job and economic growth in their vision; as to a war tax, I think it could be called a defense tax, and I would pay it for advancing the self-determined free trade populations of the USA and world in the traditional sovereign yet allied sense of diversity of proud nations.

Beats trying to pretend calling for Iraq partition is somehow spitting in bin Laden's eye as spitters furiously demand complete retraction from Laden once said not to go.