Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 30, 2009 2:39 am

I was disappointed in Mozilla’s Firefox recent upgrade, in which they removed the “cookie exceptions” option. I had a whole list of known spyware websites in that box. I’m constantly clicking “remove all cookies” while using the Internet, anyway, so it’s not that big a deal.

However, I now see in my Spyware Doctor that I can type in specific websites for SD to block those sites from placing cookies in my browser, by clicking settings>global action list, and then clicking add and then typing in a specific website. For example, if I want SD to block Google from placing a cookie on my browser (that it would need to track my searches, as has been noted in the news recently), I would type in Google.com.

I hope the Obama Administration doesn’t make my Spyware Doctor a government doctor, because then it wouldn’t be very good. One thing government does very well is destroy everything in its path, like a big, voracious tornado.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 29, 2009 12:32 pm

This legislative bill passed the Massachusetts State Senate in April and is on the way to the House, and I’m sure that Gov. Deval Patrick will sign this hard-core anti-civil liberties bill into law. This is in response to the swine flu panic of 2009.

This law would allow state officials to enter private property without owners’ consent, and forcibly apprehend anyone deemed not cooperative in this forced administration of vaccines–regardless of some vaccines having been shown to cause people harm–and other mandated actions.

It used to be that Democrats sided with civil liberties, but no longer. Especially with the proposals for complete government takeover of the whole medical industry by…Democrats.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 26, 2009 1:52 pm

I was going to say some things about Ted Kennedy, but Michael Graham has a great post that is more than sufficient.

And here’s Howie Carr on that.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 26, 2009 12:05 pm

Sorry about the infrequent posts this past week. I’m working on new web design software so I can put the blog directly on the home page. It should look and work better. I hope.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 21, 2009 11:47 am

It appears that the ailing (maybe they mean “ale”) Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy is requesting that the state legislature change the law that requires a special election in the case of a U.S. Senator’s resignation or death. He wants the governor to appoint a successor speedily, in time to help the Democrats pass the bill for government-run health care, or, more

"Ale"

accurately, medical fascism. Here is Kennedy’s letter to state leaders.

If the state legislature does this, I predict that Kennedy’s wife, Vicki, will be the new Massachusetts Senator. If there’s a special election, then it is very likely that former Congressman (and Ted’s nephew) Joe Kennedy, a buddy of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, will get the nod.

In 2004, Kennedy made a similar request. He and the Democrats didn’t want then-Gov. Willard Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican in the case that Sen. John “Live-Shot” Kerry (pronounced “Kevvy” in East Boston, Revere and parts of Brighton) were to win his bid for President. At that time, the law was that the governor would appoint a successor, and they changed it, and overrode Romney’s veto, to having a special election. You see how things go? (i.e. Kennedy was for the law before he was against it.)

Kennedy is asking that an interim senator be appointed until the special election and asking that it be a “temporary” senator who wouldn’t run in the special election, just as was the case between John F. Kennedy’s resignation as Senator to become President in 1961, until his younger brother Ted was old enough to run in the special election in 1962.

John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy

As the Boston Herald’s Howie Carr says, it’s time to say “no” to bending the laws for Kennedys another time.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 17, 2009 2:05 pm

Here is a summary and analysis from American Thinker’s Leo Rennert of recent events in Israel, particularly with the Fatah party’s recent unreasonable demands on Israel and its expressed endorsement of terrorism against Israel. Caroline Glick gives further analysis here. And Alan Dershowitz has a blog noting how it’s okay for the US to engage in targeted killings but not okay for Israel to do that.

Here is what I think. The people of Israel have a right to defend themselves, when they are the targets of unprovoked attacks by Hamas, or by whatever group is attacking. It seems to me that there has been this double standard against Israel, that it’s okay  for Hamas to fire rockets into Israel but not okay to fight back. But it seems to be more a double standard against Jews. Throughout history the Jews have been the object of more hate and violence than any other group (that I can think of). They have to defend themselves. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu does not cave, as, unfortunately, Mr. Sharon did when he forced the Jews out of Gaza.

Golda Meir

And here is a column by Eric Hoffer of the Los Angeles Times from 1968 that is as true today as it was back then (Thanks to Moe Lauzier): Israel’s Peculiar Position.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 17, 2009 12:58 pm

I am so glad that Rush Limbaugh pointed this out: Andy McCarthy’s article in NRO that reinforces Rush’s argument that the Democrats’ proposals for government medicine are much closer to the socialism of Nazi Germany than anything from the conservatives, and that Rush was making a substantive comparison. Please see the McCarthy article just linked, that also includes a reference to the New York Times’s David Leonhardt having referenced 1930’s Nazi Germany as a positive example to promote President Obama’s economic stimulus.

And Nancy Mussolosi has the nerve to smear citizen protesters of medical fascism as “Nazis.”

Doh!

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 13, 2009 2:14 pm

Here is a defense of  Rush Limbaugh’s recent unvarnished review of mid-20th Century history, particularly regarding the German Nazi Party’s similarities to modern day leftist agenda of socialism and fascism. The term “Nazi” when translated to English stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” (I know, I’ve already mentioned that in a recent post.) Rush wasn’t referring to the Holocaust, and accusations that Rush was “trivializing” the Holocaust were unfounded and undeserved. For those who still have painful memories or difficulties dealing with any references to WWII Germany, Harold Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen to Good People and Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search For Meaning can be helpful.

What is really being trivialized is the massive scope of the ObamaCare proposals, and the extent that it will allow government officials access into the most intimate and personal details of everyone’s private health and other matters. The legislative proposals in the House bill include giving the IRS and the Social Security Administration even more power than they already have. Americans have already given up so much freedom as we’ve allowed the government to have too much power.

The IRS in Washington

It is not unreasonable to remind ourselves of how totalitarian dictators have come to power in this last century. Those of our fellow citizens who would become government officials can’t be trusted with power. That is why we have something called a Bill of Rights, a basis for laws to protect the individual from the state.

The Bill of Rights

Do we really want to trust a known corrupt tax cheat like the current Treasury Secretary or a long-time head of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association like the current HHS Secretary? Here is an observation by William Grigg of where socialized medicine and the police state meet. And if people do not understand the connection that Rush Limbaugh is trying to make, they can read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and Ludwig von Mises’s Socialism.

We are constantly reminded in current events every day of how governments treat their own people, and how the world’s citizens treat each other, in many parts of Africa, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and on the police blotters of every American city (and suburb). Here is a recent account of  some Dirty Harryish police ladies and why no one should be exempt from the citizenry’s distrust.

When people say, in reference to the Holocaust, “It can’t happen here; this is America,” then I say they are in denial. We now have a culture of grownups who unfortunately are products of government-run schools, in which a blind trust of government and in fact a religious worship of the state is being indoctrinated. We have a culture of class- and race-based dehumanization. We have a new Supreme Court Justice who has in repeated statements devalued “white males” based on their race. Worse than that, we have a culture that devalues and dehumanizes human life only because of being unborn. And even when it is shown that adult stem cells are just as useful as embryonic stem cells in research, the pro-abortion groups still won’t let go of needing to use human embryos for  experiments. Those who are offended by a comparison of the dehumanizing involved in Dr. Mengele’s Nazi human experimentation with the dehumanizing involved with abortion and embryonic experimentation are also in denial.

No, I’m not comparing the researchers with Nazi experiments, but I am comparing the dehumanizing by both. Why is it so extremely necessary to some people to must use the embryonic stem cells, despite the equal usefulness of non-embryonic adult stem cells? It is almost of a ritualistic nature.

And all Rush Limbaugh is doing is pointing out the massive further loss of liberty we will have, and that it is unwise to let government have so much power over our lives.

It is illegal to forcibly institutionalize someone unless one is a danger to oneself or to others, but I fear that when we have ObamaCare, that might change.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 12, 2009 11:14 am

The questions about government medicine I asked yesterday are not out of hysteria. Unfortunately, too many people have not learned from history that when government intrudes into private matters of the citizens, ineptness, corruption and violations of human rights become the norm, and result in the spread of misery throughout the land. We see what government has done to our country, everywhere from in the inner cities to emergency rooms, and in education, the mortgage industry and the value of the dollar.

Our current health care system is far superior and helps a much higher proportion of the population than any other country with government medicine. And our current system is hardly a free market system, because of so many intrusions by government. Those intrusions, and all the government bureaucracy, regulations and mandates are what have driven up the costs of health care, along with frivolous malpractice lawsuits that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance.

President Obama and his fellow leftists are trying to turn our country into another Soviet Union–and that’s no exaggeration–with their propaganda and lies, while they accuse their opponents of using propaganda and lies. People really need to learn from history.

I’ve said this several times, and I’ll keep saying this, especially if  Romney runs in 2012, but Willard Mitt Romney’s CommonwealthCare, the Big Dig of health care, is

The Soviet symbol

actually a great example of why government should get the hell out of the medical business. And who the hell is Willard Mitt Romney to tell us, “You must-MUST-have health insurance?” Sorry to sound like a broken record. Here are some more links about that: Intensive Care for RomneyCare and Lessons on the Fall of RomneyCare and this more recent assessment by the Taxachusetts state treaurer.

Comments (0)

By Scott Lazarowitz, August 11, 2009 2:01 pm

Sen. Tom Coburn has some questions regarding the ongoing debate of the proposals for government-run medical care. Here are some more questions.

What will be mandatory and what will be forbidden?

Will it be mandatory to see a doctor? What if someone doesn’t want to go to a doctor? What if someone sees a doctor that a friend recommended, and not one that’s assigned by a government bureaucrat?

What if a doctor prescribes a particular prescription drug in which you see on the internet that, according to several valid studies, that drug is something you really, really shouldn’t be taking? What then? Will the government doctor still force you to take that?

What if you find over-the-counter supplements that have been shown to be safer and/or more effective? Would you be permitted to take those as alternatives? Will the government be making it more and more difficult to find or obtain non-prescription alternative supplements, or even ban them outright? If the government bans alternative supplements or treatments, and you find them on the “black market” anyway (and you take them, and get better without the government-prescribed medicine), will they arrest you and throw you in jail?

What if a government doctor wants you to have a particular medical procedure and you don’t want to have it, will they still force you to have it? What if a medical procedure or treatment or vaccine (like chemo or radiation or flu shot, etc.) has been shown to make some people sick or worse or more sick, will they still force you to have it? Since some medical procedures and treatments require a sedative and/or narcotic, some of which may make people sick or more sick, will the government doctor still force you to have that? What if you say you don’t want any of those things, and they force it on you anyway, or what if a medical worker gives

Charles Ogle in Frankenstein-1910

you too much of something or makes a mistake, and something makes you sick or more sick, can you sue the government doctor or provider as you can a private doctor of hospital? But I thought the government can’t be sued. What then?

Is it really any business of any government official or bureaucrat what medications, prescription or over-the-counter, we’re taking? Or what doctor we see or if we see a doctor? Who is the government to make demands on us  how we should keep healthy? And will this make having a medical license less important? (i.e., given that the government doctors who get promoted will be promoted based on political decisions, like all other political positions, which a government doctor’s position will be) Oh, well. My doctor is just as incompetent with or without a medical license, anyway.

And has anybody heard President Obama or Kathleen Sebelius or Sen. Kennedy or Arlene Specter ever mention the word freedom? Do they even understand what that is?