Obamacare - Senate Finance Committee Effort to Keep Facts Away From Public Scrutiny
Why is the mainstream media attempting to hide the complete truth of what went on in U.
S.
Senate Finance Committee meetings this past week regarding debate on an Obama-connected healthcare bill? After scouring the newspapers and the Internet, via a Google search, the only media source of complete information I discovered regarding the current status of the Baucas Healthcare Plan (an innovation to the current healthcare bill moving through the U.
S.
Senate presented less than a week ago by Sen.
Max Baucas, wealthy and influential Democratic senator from Montana, and Chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee) was provided by World Net Daily.
Some respectably objective political scientists might say that "WND" is an unreliable source of news information because it is unfavorably slanted, and biased, toward the conservative Republican perspective, as they might also assert that "The Washington Post, CNN, and the bulk of the mainstream paper and electronic media are biased unconscionably in favor of the Obama administration.
So what news organization is consistently reliable in reporting unbiased news facts to the American public? The BBC? I don't think so.
When I look for reliable news coverage, political party endorsement and presidential favoritism are not included in my compilation of salient considerations.
These two characteristics of any slanted news reporting organization immediately removes any such entity from my very short list of reputable news offerings.
It isn't easy in today's gilded and binge-oriented world to ferret-out the truthfully accurate facts about what is really happening in the political arena.
An informed voter must read critically and pick and choose wisely among the most reliable news sources.
Paraphrasing what actor Michael Douglas quipped in the movie, "The American President," "being a good American is all about advanced citizenship, and it isn't easy.
" It is good to remember that Obama was elected with only 54 percent of the popular vote.
That means that 46 percent of the voting age population voted against him, and that's a lot of people; and of that 46 percent there were quite a few voters who didn't consider themselves Republican or Democrat, just as there were quite a few Independent voters among the 54 percent majority.
Hence, there is currently a profound disparity in the way people view Obamacare and the trillion-plus dollars he thus far added to the federal deficit.
The facts, uncolored and undistorted by the sophistic effect of politically biased news punditry, are the vitally important elements which lead to public opinion.
Undoubtedly, the current facts about the Baucas Plan, as contained in the preliminary text of the formally unwritten adjunct to the prevailing bill, were obviously so provocative that the Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously along a political party line (saying essentially that political alignment is more important than what is right or wrong), this past week to defeat an amendment presented by Kentucky Senator Jim Bruning to allow the American public at least 72 hours to examine and study the Baucas Plan on the Internet before a vote is taken.
Such an amount of time would have also given the Press the opportunity to get out special editions of their newspapers with copies of the Baucas Plan; but it didn't happen.
Yet, World Net Daily carried an almost immediate accounting of the vote defeating the Bruning amendment as described on the Center for Individual Freedom website.
Earlier in American history, there was a renown American statesman from Kentucky, a lawyer, who served in the U.
S.
Senate from 1831-42 and is remembered mainly for his having brought about a conciliatory peace between the Northern and Southern States at a time, in 1850, when an American civil war was imminent, eleven years before Fort Sumter.
This person was Henry Clay, who became known as "The Great Compromiser" for his oratorical ability to bring about agreement between the worst bickering federal legislators.
He was Abraham Lincoln's role model and an independent thinker who saw a certain value in political organization leading to appropriate compromise, but a much greater value in contending for what is right according to the majority will of the people.
Perhaps Sen.
Bruning's appeal to the Finance Committee for time in order to allow the American electorate an opportunity to study, and to express their opinions, about the Baucas Plan (which was considered as a full-fledged bill after Tuesday, September 22) was a clarion call for an exercise of legislative wisdom, much like Henry Clay's emphatic pleadings, in 1849 in the Senate, for a proper time to study the economic and political effects of sectionalism, and the consensus of the American people regarding them.
It appears that the overall lack of compromise in the Senate Finance Committee has ultimately led to an adjournment after an evocation of serious doubts about the Baucas Plan.
Nonetheless, the contempt that I have for attempts in Senate and House committee meetings to create legislation that directly affects the lives of countless millions of Americans, without the knowledge and consent of the electorate, cannot be expressed in publishable rhetoric.
Shame should only rain on those plutocratic U.
S.
Senators who have sought to keep the facts away from the American public; and the media, the trusted avenue upon which true facts should travel, should feel equal shame.
S.
Senate Finance Committee meetings this past week regarding debate on an Obama-connected healthcare bill? After scouring the newspapers and the Internet, via a Google search, the only media source of complete information I discovered regarding the current status of the Baucas Healthcare Plan (an innovation to the current healthcare bill moving through the U.
S.
Senate presented less than a week ago by Sen.
Max Baucas, wealthy and influential Democratic senator from Montana, and Chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee) was provided by World Net Daily.
Some respectably objective political scientists might say that "WND" is an unreliable source of news information because it is unfavorably slanted, and biased, toward the conservative Republican perspective, as they might also assert that "The Washington Post, CNN, and the bulk of the mainstream paper and electronic media are biased unconscionably in favor of the Obama administration.
So what news organization is consistently reliable in reporting unbiased news facts to the American public? The BBC? I don't think so.
When I look for reliable news coverage, political party endorsement and presidential favoritism are not included in my compilation of salient considerations.
These two characteristics of any slanted news reporting organization immediately removes any such entity from my very short list of reputable news offerings.
It isn't easy in today's gilded and binge-oriented world to ferret-out the truthfully accurate facts about what is really happening in the political arena.
An informed voter must read critically and pick and choose wisely among the most reliable news sources.
Paraphrasing what actor Michael Douglas quipped in the movie, "The American President," "being a good American is all about advanced citizenship, and it isn't easy.
" It is good to remember that Obama was elected with only 54 percent of the popular vote.
That means that 46 percent of the voting age population voted against him, and that's a lot of people; and of that 46 percent there were quite a few voters who didn't consider themselves Republican or Democrat, just as there were quite a few Independent voters among the 54 percent majority.
Hence, there is currently a profound disparity in the way people view Obamacare and the trillion-plus dollars he thus far added to the federal deficit.
The facts, uncolored and undistorted by the sophistic effect of politically biased news punditry, are the vitally important elements which lead to public opinion.
Undoubtedly, the current facts about the Baucas Plan, as contained in the preliminary text of the formally unwritten adjunct to the prevailing bill, were obviously so provocative that the Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously along a political party line (saying essentially that political alignment is more important than what is right or wrong), this past week to defeat an amendment presented by Kentucky Senator Jim Bruning to allow the American public at least 72 hours to examine and study the Baucas Plan on the Internet before a vote is taken.
Such an amount of time would have also given the Press the opportunity to get out special editions of their newspapers with copies of the Baucas Plan; but it didn't happen.
Yet, World Net Daily carried an almost immediate accounting of the vote defeating the Bruning amendment as described on the Center for Individual Freedom website.
Earlier in American history, there was a renown American statesman from Kentucky, a lawyer, who served in the U.
S.
Senate from 1831-42 and is remembered mainly for his having brought about a conciliatory peace between the Northern and Southern States at a time, in 1850, when an American civil war was imminent, eleven years before Fort Sumter.
This person was Henry Clay, who became known as "The Great Compromiser" for his oratorical ability to bring about agreement between the worst bickering federal legislators.
He was Abraham Lincoln's role model and an independent thinker who saw a certain value in political organization leading to appropriate compromise, but a much greater value in contending for what is right according to the majority will of the people.
Perhaps Sen.
Bruning's appeal to the Finance Committee for time in order to allow the American electorate an opportunity to study, and to express their opinions, about the Baucas Plan (which was considered as a full-fledged bill after Tuesday, September 22) was a clarion call for an exercise of legislative wisdom, much like Henry Clay's emphatic pleadings, in 1849 in the Senate, for a proper time to study the economic and political effects of sectionalism, and the consensus of the American people regarding them.
It appears that the overall lack of compromise in the Senate Finance Committee has ultimately led to an adjournment after an evocation of serious doubts about the Baucas Plan.
Nonetheless, the contempt that I have for attempts in Senate and House committee meetings to create legislation that directly affects the lives of countless millions of Americans, without the knowledge and consent of the electorate, cannot be expressed in publishable rhetoric.
Shame should only rain on those plutocratic U.
S.
Senators who have sought to keep the facts away from the American public; and the media, the trusted avenue upon which true facts should travel, should feel equal shame.
