Friday, 12 October 2007
A PREVIOUS GRAEME FROST
If you think the Fraud..er, Frost family is the first instance of
Democrats - with willing accomplices in the media - trotting out a phony example
to sell bad policy, think again.
Here is an article by (gasp!) Michelle Malkin, dated February 4, 2000, that
tells the story:.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- FLORIDA IS HOME to an ill-fated child
whose life was ruined upon becoming a political pawn. No, this is not another
lamentation about Elian Gonzalez.
This is the tragic tale of Jennifer Bush.
Do you remember Jennifer? Probably not. First Lady
Hillary Clinton, who helped turn Jennifer into a national political prop for
health care reform in 1994, must be very grateful that we've all forgotten the
poor little girl from Coral Springs. Jennifer's story, which took a shocking but
largely unnoticed twist last week, is not merely a case of
legislation-by-anecdote run amok.
It's poster child abuse.
Six years ago, Jennifer's mother wrote a
widely-publicized letter to the White House. "Do you know what it is like to
choose between purchasing groceries for the week to feed your family or buying
needed medications for your chronically ill child?" Kathleen Bush asked.
Pale and wan, young Jennifer suffered from
unidentified chronic digestive problems and myriad ailments from birth. She had
her gall bladder, appendix, and fragments of her intestines removed. Those
organs were replaced with a tangled cable of feeding tubes that constricted
Jennifer's 43-pound frame. Surgeons threaded a catheter into the girl's heart.
After 200 hospital visits and 40 operations, the Bush family had racked up
medical bills worth more than $2 million.
Puzzled doctors and nurses scratched their heads
over Jennifer's 33,000-page medical file. The media ran maudlin profiles of the
family. With TV crews in tow, saintly mother and sickly child headed up to
Capitol Hill to campaign for Clinton-sponsored health insurance mandates.
Politicians unquestioningly embraced the Bushes
and their tale of need. Hillary cuddled with seven-year-old Jennifer for the
cameras; their mugs were splashed on the pages of USA Today and newspapers
across the country. Shamelessly coached, Jennifer gave the Clintons a lucky
silver dollar "to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance." In
another pre-programmed, kiddie-sized soundbite, Jennifer dutifully told the
press: "I pray every night that I can get better - and that everyone can have
Jennifer's mother reveled in the relentless media
attention and generous outpourings of public sympathy. Dropped by the family's
health insurer, out of a job, and in allegedly dire financial straits, Mrs. Bush
poignantly appealed for government relief from the burden of Jennifer's
mysterious illness. "It's strangling us," she told one reporter.
But who was strangling whom? Several years before
Hillary deified Mrs. Bush and elevated Jennifer to poster-child stardom,
suspicious medical professionals had already begun questioning the mother's role
in making her "beautiful little angel" sick. Nurses complained that Mrs. Bush
was force-feeding her child with unnecessary seizure drugs that made her vomit.
Independent specialists conducted extensive tests
on Jennifer and found no evidence of digestive disorders. When Jennifer was
separated from her mother for treatment at a Cincinnati hospital, the starved
child feasted mightily on pizza, hot dogs, and chocolate bars. Meanwhile,
authorities discovered that while the Bush family claimed poverty because of
Jennifer's health problems, they had splurged on trips to the Bahamas and Disney
World, house remodeling, and a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle.
Dr. Eli Newberger, a professor of pediatrics at
Harvard Medical School, concluded that nothing in Jennifer's extensive records
indicated "that the child has any underlying illness except the suffering she
has had to endure as a result of efforts to portray her as needing urgent care."
Jennifer was removed from her family in 1996 and has been healthy ever since.
And now the final piece of the story that didn't
make it onto the front page of USA Today or into the First Lady's talking
points: Last week, Kathleen Bush Hillary Clinton's once-proud and loud sister
in arms -- was sentenced to five years in prison on two counts of aggravated
child abuse and one count of fraud. She also pled guilty to a separate count of
welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms. "There
was probably more abuse in this single case," lead prosecutor Bob Nichols noted,
"than in all of the child-abuse cases I've prosecuted in my life combined."
Mrs. Bush's behavior is an extreme example
of the Nanny State opportunism to which Hillary Clinton has dedicated her life.
It's enough to make you sick. .
Yesterday it was Jennifer Bush and her family
Today it is Graeme Frost and his family.
Tomorrow, who knows? With this many unconditionally supportive media
stooges dutifully barfing out whatever the Democratic Party tells them to, the
sky's the limit.
Oh, but wait; this column was written by Michelle Malkin. So you
don't have to pay any attention to the facts it is filled with. Paul
Krugman said so.
Move along, sheeple. Nothing to see here........
It would be understatement to point out that the folks over at www.sweetness-light.com don't like the
Usually I don't share their feelings about the AP. But sometimes
they have a point. And today is one of them, as you can see below:
October 12th, 2007
From those moral relativists at the Associated
Iraq bomb in toy cart hits children in
By Mussab Al-Khairalla
A bomb hidden in a cart of toys
killed two children and wounded 17 others in a playground in northern Iraq on
Friday, the first day of a national holiday to celebrate the end of
the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
The attack came the day after U.S.
forces killed nine children and six women in an air strike northwest of
Baghdad targeting suspected al Qaeda leaders. The U.N. mission in Iraq urged
U.S. forces to conduct a vigorous probe into the strike.
Police Colonel Abbas Mohammed said
a would-be suicide bomber pushed the cart into a play area in the
predominantly Shiite northern town of Tuz Khurmato. He said the bomber was
The towns mayor, Mohammed Rasheed, told Reuters
two boys aged between 10 and 12 had died and another 17 people under the age
of 18 had been wounded in the deadly attack
The U.S. military said it was conducting a
thorough investigation of Thursdays strike by attack helicopters near Lake
Thar Thar, about 80 km (50 miles) northwest of Baghdad
In its latest human rights report on Iraq,
published on Thursday, the United Nations called on U.S. forces to
investigate the killing of civilians in air strikes or raids by ground forces
and make the findings public.
Iraqi civilians have borne the
overwhelming brunt of violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, with
tens of thousands killed across the country.
The United Nations also called for
probes to determine whether private security contractors in Iraq have
committed war crimes by killing civilians and for governments to
ensure that the rule of law is applied.
The killing of 17 Iraqis in a
shooting involving U.S. security firm Blackwater last month has
created tensions between Baghdad and Washington and sparked calls for tighter
controls on private contractors, who are immune from prosecution in
Even by the loathsome standards of the Associated
Press, this is a disgusting piece on so many levels. (Especially when you
consider the headline was probably written by someone other than the
Mr. Mussab Al-Khairalla just couldnt wait to
put in his (and the APs) idea of the moral equivalence between this
bomber and the US military, which appears in the second paragraph:
The attack came the day after U.S. forces killed
nine children and six women in an air strike northwest of Baghdad targeting
suspected al Qaeda leaders. The U.N. mission in Iraq urged U.S. forces to
conduct a vigorous probe into the strike.
Guess what, Mr. Al-Khairalla, the US does not
target civilians. Any civilians who get injured are due to accident.
And no other military force in the history of the
world does more to avoid such accidents. (At a deadly cost to their own
Iraqi civilians have borne the overwhelming
brunt of violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, with tens of
thousands killed across the country.
What a liar you are, Mr. Al-Khairalla, to imply
that these civilians have all been killed by the US, when the vast majority have
been killed by your fellow Muslims.
But congratulations, Mussab, for even
managing to drag in Blackwater once again.
Also, it is informative to note that there are as
yet no photos of this incident on the news wires. When you would think they
could make for some poignant shots. Mangled toys lying on the ground?
Remember how many (questionable) shots we saw
like that when the Israelis went into Lebanon?
But we will get no similar photos from this
attack, you can be sure.
But this is what passes for journalism from the
All Propaganda agency the AP. .
Apart from pointing out that Israel works at least as hard to avoid civilian
casualties as the USA does, I find it hard to disagree with this analysis.
What do you think?
Incidentally, the import of those two pictures at the bottom of the article
may not be entirely clear, so let me explain: The children's toys in the
foreground certainly have a great deal of emotional impact. But the fact
that, amid the rubble, they are undamaged, no debris, not even a smudge, tells
us they are plants, and the photos, therefore, are setups, not
CAL THOMAS ON THE "PEACE PROCESS"
Cal Thomas understands middle east reality far better than a lot of
He speaks about it plainly and factually. In this regard he is miles
ahead of the dreamers and deniers who pass for "diplomats" when it comes to
Israel. His head is in a different place than theirs - i.e. out of the
And here is his latest column to prove it:.
Selling out Israel by
October 12, 2007
Cal Thomas - Name one concession Israel has made
in recent years that has been reciprocated by its sworn enemies. This is not a
trick question. There are none.
That's why next month's announced
"Middle East Summit" in Annapolis should be viewed as one more installment
payment in selling out Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East. While the
United States continues to struggle to shore up democracy in Iraq, the Bush
administration like others before it proceeds to undermine the likelihood
that the region's first democracy will endure.
At every negotiating
session, Israel is pressured into making concessions for "peace" and receives
more war in response. Mostly this is because of the wishful thinking in the West
that has replaced sound policy. Why should the Palestinians make concessions
when they are drawing closer to their objective of eradicating Israel by
throwing stones and bombs and stonewalling negotiations?
In an address
to the Israeli Knesset, President Shimon Peres reaffirmed the flaw in Western
thinking: "Even if there are some who express doubt at the ability of the
Palestinians to achieve peace, the impression must not be created that Israel
has doubts regarding the need and the willingness to achieve full peace." So
it's not about hard bargaining resulting in preserving Israel with defensible
borders and cessation of terrorist attacks; it's about "impressions"? No wonder
Israel's enemies are emboldened as never before.
While details of a
"joint declaration" by Israel and the Palestinians on a final status agreement
remain secret, some information has leaked. One report has Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert preparing to divide Jerusalem by allowing Arab East Jerusalem to come
under Palestinian control. The holy sites, now administered by Israel and open
to all (which was not the case when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem prior to
1967), would be internationalized.
For 40 years, Israel has provided
security for the holy places. It is doubtful an international force would do as
good a job protecting these sites from terrorists (think of the Taliban and the
destruction of ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and regular attacks on
Christians, their churches and schools in heavily Muslim nations).
According to one report, "the drafters are planning to call for a
withdrawal by Israel to the 1967 lines," thus making Israel more vulnerable than
ever to heavily armed Arab states and Palestinian enemies and leaving it
completely exposed to infiltration from the East. Does anyone doubt such
infiltration would not occur? Would the United States come to the aid of Israel
should it again be invaded? Probably not since that might hurt our "image" in
the Arab world.
Infidel Israelis, Americans and Europeans will not
dissuade those sworn to destroy Israel. President Bush had promised former
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon he could expect U.S. support to maintain
defensible borders. In the plan now being discussed, Israel's borders would be
In all this, the United States is trying to prop up
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But Mr. Abbas is a figurehead, manipulated
by the terrorist organization Hamas, which virtually controls the Palestinian
territories, thanks to democratic elections. Caroline Glick writes in the
Jerusalem Post: "Over the past week, Abbas announced his adherence to maximal
Palestinian demands from Israel. These include the full transfer of sovereignty
over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians; the complete surrender of Judea and
Samaria to the Palestinians; and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called
'right-of-return' that would force Israel to accept millions of foreign Arabs as
immigrants within its truncated borders."
Why should anyone expect
anything else when the real intentions of Israel's enemies can be summed up in
the "phased plan" for destroying Israel expressed in 2000 by Palestinian
Minister of Supply Abd El Aziz Shahian: "The Palestinian people accepted the
Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the
premise that the war and struggle on the ground is more efficient than a
struggle from a distant land ... for the Palestinian people will continue the
revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution."
'65 Revolution" refers to the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization
and the publication of the Palestinian Charter, which calls for destruction of
Israel through armed struggle.
So, why is the United States hosting this
sellout in Annapolis? .
Reality check: You cannot negotiate with or peacefully coexist with
people who want your country vaporized and you either somewhere else or dead,
And you cannot negotiate with or peacefully coexist with people who freely
elect "governments" that promise these results.
Can you name one palestinian Arab in authority of any kind who has
ever said that even one square inch of land is sovereign to Israel?
I'm not talking about Gaza. I'm not talking about Judea/Samaria
(the west bank). I'm talking about places like, for example, downtown Tel
The answer is that not one palestinian Arab in authority of any kind has EVER
said any land was sovereign to Israel. Zero.
We have heard dances and dodges, like "we accept the existence of Israel"
(much as a kid in the playground accepts the fact that the bigger kids get the
basketball court). Accepting something that exists is not the same thing
as agreeing that it is acceptable. Don't ever forget that. It
doesn't mean they think it is right or won't change it the minute they can.
Peace for Israel is a remote possibility under the best of
circumstances,. But until Israel stops the folly of making concessions and
handing over land to people whose only interest is the end of Israel, it will
never have even have that remote hope.
PAUL KRUGMAN & GRAEME FROST
Paul Krugman's latest column is about Graeme Frost.
Graeme Frost, as you probably know,
is the 12 year old boy who Democrats exploited the weekend before last, by using him to
read their response to President Bush's veto of the CHIP (Children's Health
Insurance Program) legislation.
Young Mr. Frost read a plaintive, poignant statement detailing how badly he
and his sister were hurt in a serious accident, how much it cost in hospital
bills and how vetoing CHIP legislation would hurt victims like his sister
If you are old enough to remember shows like Queen For A Day, or Strike It
Rich, you will certainly appreciate the stroll down memory lane you got
from Graeme Frost's radio debut.
The problem, however, is that questions immediately arose about the Frost
family's eligibility for this program.
-We were told that Mr. Frost was a self-employed woodworker, his wife worked
part time and their total household income was $45,000 - $50,000.
However, the Frosts would not show anyone their tax return. I grant
you that their personal finances are no one's business, but if you a) tell us
what you're earning and b) use your situation to petition for governmental
money, it seems to me you've forgone your right to fiscal privacy;
-The Frosts live in a home that is apparently worth about half a million
dollars (a smaller house on their block recently sold for $485,000).
-Two, and possibly all four, of the Frost children attend private
-Mr. Frost purchased a warehouse in 1999 for $160,000 and apparently still
At this point I urge you to think about how this could be done
on (let's take the midpoint) $47,500 a year. Maybe it would be a piece of
cake for you, but I can't even begin to figure out a way.
Yesterday I posted and debunked an article in Time Magazine about the Frosts
and their "eligibility" for CHIP help. Today it's Paul Krugman.
Here is Mr. Krugman's column, which essentially regurgitates what Karen
Tumulty of Time previously regurgitated -- and adds Krugman's requisite insults
aimed at "right wingers" like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh as well as a
recitation of other accusations that stand as legitimate in the world of
Two weeks ago, the Democratic response to
President Bushs weekly radio address was delivered by a 12-year-old, Graeme
Frost. Graeme, who along with his sister received severe brain injuries in a
2004 car crash and continues to need physical therapy, is a beneficiary of the
State Childrens Health Insurance Program. Mr. Bush has vetoed a bipartisan bill
that would have expanded that program to cover millions of children who would
otherwise have been uninsured.
What followed should serve as a teaching moment.
First, some background. The Frosts and their four
children are exactly the kind of people S-chip was intended to help: working
Americans who cant afford private health insurance.
The parents have a combined income of about
$45,000, and dont receive health insurance from employers. When they looked
into buying insurance on their own before the accident, they found that it would
cost $1,200 a month a prohibitive sum given their income. After the accident,
when their children needed expensive care, they couldnt get insurance at any
Fortunately, they received help from Marylands
S-chip program. The state has relatively restrictive rules for eligibility:
children must come from a family with an income under 200 percent of the poverty
line. For families with four children thats $55,220, so the Frosts clearly
Graeme Frost, then, is exactly the kind of child
the program is intended to help. But that didnt stop the right from mounting an
all-out smear campaign against him and his family.
Soon after the radio address, right-wing bloggers
began insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister
attend private schools (theyre on scholarship), because they have a house in a
neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house
for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous)
and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999).
You might be tempted to say that bloggers make
unfounded accusations all the time. But were not talking about some obscure
fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who according to Technorati has
the most-trafficked right-wing blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging
has a nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and is a frequent
guest on Fox News.
The attack on Graemes family was also quickly
picked up by Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing
universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with Vice President Dick
And G.O.P. politicians were eager to join in the
smear. The New York Times reported that Republicans in Congress were gearing up
to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to
include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance but had backed
off as the case fell apart.
In fact, however, Republicans had already made
their first move: an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell, the
Senate minority leader, sent to reporters and obtained by the Web site Think
Progress, repeated the smears against the Frosts and asked: Could the Dems
really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?
And the attempt to spin the media worked, to some
extent: despite reporting that has thoroughly debunked the smears, a CNN report
yesterday suggested that the Democrats had made a tactical error in holding up
Graeme as their poster child, and closely echoed the language of the e-mail
from Mr. McConnells office.
All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect
illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in
particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest
debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, theyre phony soldiers; if
Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, hes faking his Parkinsons
symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health
insurance program, hes a fraud.
Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far
from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And
some people in the news media are still willing to be used as
Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates
the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has
universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for
many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call
And theres one more point that should not be
forgotten: ultimately, this isnt about the Frost parents. Its about Graeme
Frost and his sister.
I dont know about you, but I think American
children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults
have made bad choices a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that
on one side only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing
their injured children. .
There is a lot of ground to cover here (sorry for the length of this blog),
so I'll do it as expeditiously as possible:
-If the Frost family really lives on the $47,500 they claim, why are they
refusing to show anyone their tax returns to prove it? They told the
world about their financial situation, so why hide the particulars - other
than that they may not be telling the truth;
-There are reports that all four Frost children attend private
schools. Is that true? If so, how could it be done on so
-The Frosts live in a half million dollar house. Even if
we accept the premise that it was far less expensive when they bought it in
1990, what are the TAXES on this house now? The house is currently
assessed at $263,000 (assessments are usually much less than actual value).
I don't know for sure, but it seems likely that would generate a yearly
property tax of five figures - and that's before we get to the costs of
running a house. On $47,500????????? If you're not suspicious by
now, you are living in downtown Krugmanville;
-In 1999 Graeme Frost's father purchased a warehouse for $160,000. He appears
to still own it. That leads to many questions, including a) where
did he get $160,000 to buy a warehouse, b) what exactly is he warehousing if
he is only a self-employed woodworker, and c) if he is renting warehouse space
to others, what income is he deriving from it -- income that the Democratic
party somehow forgot to include when they wrote his son's script.
-This, of course, is before we get to Krugman's fraudulent claim about what Rush
Limbaugh meant by "phony soldiers" (which I, along with countless others,
have already debunked) and the equally fraudulent claim that Limbaugh accused Michael
J. Fox of faking Parkinson's (as opposed to exaggerating the problem by
intentionally not taking his medication - which he has ADMITTED doing in the
If Graeme Frost were from a Republican family petitioning for Republican
legislation, do you think Paul Krugman would decline to look into every
one of these questions? You know the answer as well as I do.
Simply stated, Krugman is a hardline ideologue who does not want the
information if it falls outside his predetermined political model.
Krugman reminds me of a great scene in "Inherit The Wind", when
Frederic March, playing the Matthew Harrison Brady character, is pressed by
Henry Drummond (Spencer Tracy) on why he refuses to consider
BRADY: "I don't think about the things that I... don't think about"
DRUMMOND: "Do you ever think about the things that you do
Maybe Paul Krugman should watch that scene. Renting the movie is
cheaper than buying a mirror.
THAT'S OUR HILLARY....
This Associated Press article needs no commentary from me, it speaks for
itself. My only contribution is to make a couple of parts speak a bit
louder by putting them in bold print:
CANTERBURY, N.H. (AP) -
Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he'd meet with the
leaders of Iran without precondition. Now she says she'd do the same thing, too.
During a Democratic presidential debate in July,
Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of
his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would
first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible
But asked about it Thursday by a voter,
the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with
"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really
understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is
misleading," she said at an apple orchard.
She characterized her recent vote to label Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as a way to gain leverage for those negotiations.
Obama and other rivals for the Democratic
presidential nomination have been criticizing Clinton's vote late last month in
favor of the resolution, comparing it to her 2002 vote authorizing the war in
They have suggested that the Iran vote was the
first step toward a military invasion