Nanas Digressives II

It begins again . . . :)

2010-07-31T06:17:00.000-07:00

As promised, I'm up and at it again. It's going to take some time for me to get this all on track as I have been away from it for quite awhile and there is SO much to blog.

Most people who know or are acquainted with me know I lean to the conservative side of the political spectrum. I believe in the Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html and support it 100%. I don't think our Founding Fathers created it by accident or without much prayer and consideration. I have no tolerance for those who choose to ignore it and treat it as just an historical document.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html and that all citizens are created equal and have the inalienable rights to to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are a few key words in what I just wrote. First of all, we are all CREATED equal. That says NOTHING about us being entitled to what another may have. We are created with the same options, choices. What we do with those options or choices is up to each of us, individually.

We have the rights to life, liberty and the "pursuit" of happiness. Nowhere does it say that our government is to provide such. Being born and raised in America,or becoming a citizen through the citizenship process, aka legally, offers endless opportunities to anyone who cares to work hard, get an education and be willing to fall a few times. NO ONE is ENTITLED to take from one person who might be successful because of his/her hard work and ingenuity because the other person is too lazy to earn success for him/herself.

There are varying degrees of success, too. Money and possessions do not always constitute success. Doing what one loves, whether on the executive level or on the home front, makes one successful. Many things contribute to one's success. A government who takes from one to give to another is not one of those things.

The past 19 months have changed our country in such a way as to make our Founding Fathers cringe and "roll over in their graves". Our sovereignty is crumbing. Our position as the leader of the free world is in jeopardy. Our worldwide respect is now a joke. Leaders of some of our most trusted allies are shaking their heads while those of our enemies are
laughing at our impending peril. Our backbone is now collapsing -- we apologize for our country while appeasing our enemies; turn our backs on our allies while bowing down to those who seek to destroy us.

I've heard some folks call themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". I struggle to understand that description. It seems to be contradictory. Social liberalism, to me, would tend to wipe out the fiscal conservatism, would it not?

To be fiscally conservative, again in my opinion or understanding, would mean cutting spending, cutting out many "social" programs, trimming the fat so to speak and cutting taxes to bring about fiscal responsibility.

Being "socially liberal" seems to me to mean creating more entitlement programs, therefore, creating more spending, more and higher taxes, digging the deficit hole deeper and deeper. A country cannot tax itself into prosperity. It does not work! History and common sense tells us that!

I consider myself a compassionate person. I believe that there are folks who truly do need help getting back on their feet, feeding their families, etc. I have no problem with helping folks -- none. However, our government makes it nearly impossible for these folks to help themselves. They hold them in bondage to the system. Therefore, we now have have a society of
freeloaders. Why should they try to help themselves when the government gives them everything . . . except pride and dignity?

Our open-border policy has now become a problem as well. It has added thousands to our entitlement programs, and unfortunately, many are illegally getting these "benefits", adding to the financial burden of our citizenry, who themselves are struggling to provide for their own families!

I TOTALLY understand people wanting to come to our great country for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; to partake of the liberties and freedoms they do not have in their home countries. I really, really do. However, there is a process in place in which to do things right. Yes, it's a lengthy process with much room for improvement, but if one truly wants to become part of this country, they should be willing to do it right. If they scoff at and mock the laws of legal citizenship, many other laws will be ignored as well.

America is a country of laws, not created to oppress but to protect! We have the Constitution in place for a reason. It is to protect us from what is going on right now in this country. One by one, inch by inch, we are losing the liberties that our Constitution was created to protect. Slowly, but with increasing speed, our government is becoming "by the government, for the government", forgetting "for the people, by the people". The government believes it knows what's best for the citizenry, destroying individuality, creativity and initiative. WE, THE PEOPLE, are supposed to be the government, not those elected to REPRESENT us. Somehow, we've let that tenet slip through our fingers. We are being seduced by the charms and personalities of our leadership, all the while giving up what this country was based on.

I truly believe we are in trouble. Our economy has not improved in 19 months, despite the words coming out of Washington DC. Unemployment is holding at near 10%. Our national security is weakened to the point where we could be wiped out by the push of a finger or by the parking of a minivan. Our schools are over-crowded and not educating; public officials are crooks and scammers; partisan politics is running amok; Washington is out of control and needs a good enema; our defense is weak and costs continue to be cut, while entitlement spending is at an all time high with no end in sight. Big corporations are being blamed for the countries failures while those who set policy get a free pass, except G.W. Bush, of course (though he's not without fault). Religious freedom is under attack. Parental rights almost no longer exist. Citizens rights are being replaced by rights for the law-breakers and hardened criminals. Everything is bass-ackwards and just wrong.

It is my opinion that we'd best get a hold of ourselves and shake the shinola out of our heads. We'd best make some drastic changes or the America we grew up with will be unrecognizable in the not-so-distant future.

Remember November, folks. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. KNOW YOUR CANDIDATES!!! We've got to get "the most transparent and ethical administration" out of Washington DC while we still have a chance!

Let's unite!

2009-10-22T06:44:00.000-07:00

Can this man be any more divisive? The great uniter. Yeah. Uh-huh. He's an arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest, campaigner. He campaigns because he has no clue as to how to lead. We are in deep trouble and he can't find his rear end in a dark room. But, hey. He can spend time attacking a cable news outlet and "the other side". Never mind we have men and women dying everyday in a war; never mind that our economy is in the ditch; never mind that our borders are unsecured; never mind that we grow ever closer to a nuclear disaster every day. Let's denigrate, name-call, stick our tongue out and pretend we're the playground bully. Maybe all that will get the job done. The man's a phony, a liar, and a legend in his own mind.

Cry Babies

2009-10-20T11:11:00.001-07:00

Been awhile since I've posted, but I just had to put this up. This is the whiniest bunch of snot nosed brats I've experienced in the White House since I've been alive. I thought Nixon was bad, but this administration is beyond belief. If they're so upstanding, above board, honest and doing the right thing, where's the PROMISED transparency and why are they bothered by ONE cable news channel? Good grief. As Jack Kemp used to say, "The flak is heaviest when you're over the target". Hmmmm, could it be? I'd have to say so.

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refers to "Beck" and "Hannity" as the reasons why the Obama administration is criticizing Fox News.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday pointed to two top-rated opinion shows on Fox News as the reason why the Obama administration has castigated the network as an illegitimate news organization.

Gibbs weighed in on the controversy after several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

Gibbs said White House officials "render (that) opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."

But asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations, Gibbs mentioned the channel's 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to "Beck" and "Hannity" -- even though those two shows represent opinion programming.

Informed that those hours are for opinion programming, Gibbs said: "That is our opinion."

The White House also appeared to stand by its effort to urge other networks to isolate and alienate the channel. Gibbs said Tuesday that it's up to the White House Correspondents Association to decide whether Fox News should continue to be part of the White House pool which covers President Obama.

"I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job," he said.

The pool, the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage, represents the most significant interaction among the news channels. Despite the Obama administration's guidance to other channels to disregard Fox News, there are no indications so far from the other networks that the pool relationship will change.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on Sunday called on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox News is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world (to) basically be led in following Fox."

Disturbing

2009-09-29T08:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556722,00.html?test=latestnews

This is so much more than disturbing. Does Facebook not monitor what is put on their network? There are some truly sick minds out there. Whoever put this up is one of them. I do hope they find the person who posted this poll.

Olympics, Iran, Afghanistan, economy -- where's the priority?

2009-09-28T13:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Obama-Heading-to-Copenhagen-62317937.html

Gosh, with the war in Afghanistan, the tense situation in Iran, the economic crisis here at home, I sure am glad that The Won is focused on what's really important -- bidding on the Olympics for Chicago. Now there's a president we can all believe in. I feel real secure, don't you?

Is it any wonder I do not trust this man?

2009-09-28T10:59:00.000-07:00

You Mislead!
Fact-checking Obama.

By Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru

It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.

By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.

1. “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.” The Congressional Budget Office writes, “Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” It is true that individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded.

2. “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”An outright falsehood, whether you use the president’s noncitizen-free estimate or the standard, questionable estimate of 46 million uninsured residents.

A study prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted as “uninsured” in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12 million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford estimate that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase coverage, but choose not to do so.

3.“And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” The paper that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses would continue forever. Applying that paper’s methodology to a broader period of rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces a figure below 9,000.

It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the 46 million Americans we label “uninsured,” many of those 9,000 will regain coverage after a number of months. (David Freddoso illustrates the absurdity of assuming that all coverage losses are permanent.)

4. “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.” He didn’t die because of it. The originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy Noah, has admitted he got it wrong.

5. “Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.” Scott Harrington supplied more facts in the Wall Street Journal: “The woman’s testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist’s chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.” The woman deserves sympathy, but Obama has stretched the truth here.

6. Rising costs are “why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance.” Perhaps no other issue generates as much of a consensus among health-care economists as this one: The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. In this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic truth. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill.

7. Rising costs are “why American business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage.” False. The rising cost of health benefits does not increase employers’ labor costs because, again, wages adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama economic aide Christina Romer has called this competitiveness argument “schlocky.”

8. “Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.” That number comes from a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report mentioned above reached the same conclusion.

9. At this point, Obama said, “These are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” This comment continues Obama’s already long tradition of trying to curtail debate by denying that anyone disagrees with him.

10. “[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” In July, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said, “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” The CBO projects that the legislation that Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has since introduced “would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to that under current law, during the decade following the 10-year budget window,” but hints that the 40 percent cut in Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which helps Baucus achieve that feat, is politically unrealistic. (More on that below.) Health economist Victor Fuchs writes that the proposals before Congress “aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction.” Obama and his allies have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

11. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” Obama’s wording is lawyerly: While not denying that his plan would cause people to lose existing coverage with which they are satisfied, he leads us to believe that he is denying it. But even on its own terms, Obama’s claim is false. The CBO estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.” It would also cause some people to lose their coverage.

12. Requiring insurers to cover preventive care “saves money.” Nope. According to a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”

13. “The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens . . . is a lie, plain and simple.” Sarah Palin claimed that Obama’s “death panels” would deny people medical care, not actively kill them. If Palin believes her claim, it is not “a lie, plain and simple.” Most important, the substance of Palin’s claim is, in fact, true. Obama himself proposed a new Independent Medicare Advisory Council with the authority to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled.

14. “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” For better or worse, the president’s plan would, in his words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies, immigration critics, and the media all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible aliens to enroll.

The House Democrats’ health-insurance exchange, which Obama supports, would “apply to” undocumented aliens. The CRS writes that the House legislation “does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present.” Nor does it require that the legal status of people receiving subsidies be verified.

Finally, Obama supports granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, which would make them eligible for government benefits under his health plan.

15. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Unless Obama refers to some draft legislation inside his head, this claim is false. The House bill allows the “government option” to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House and Baucus bills would subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. (See Douglas Johnson’s comment on this article.)

16. Critics of the public option would “be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” How quickly we forget the example of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washington would not allow the program to fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates. (During the Clinton administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its less-subsidized competitors.

17. “And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.” Unless the president proposes to abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what patients “need.” Such tensions are sure to arise under the president’s IMAC proposal.

But even if a new program would be “administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare,” it would interfere in those decisions. As an administrative-law judge wrote to one of us after Obama’s address: “I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and the care prescribed by the physician.”

18. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” “The plan will not add to our deficit.” None of the bills before Congress can credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest, the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller cuts.

19. “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” Even the supposedly parsimonious Baucus bill would cost closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion once we “add it all up.” The CBO says that bill would spend a mere $774 billion over ten years, in part because the spending begins late in that ten-year window. Republican staffers on the Senate Budget Committee estimate that the Baucus bill would cost $1.7 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation.

Moreover, the preliminary CBO score does not measure the full cost of the bill because it does not include the mandates Baucus would impose on states (about $37 billion) and the private sector (not yet estimated, but 60 percent of total costs in Massachusetts). The other bills would cost even more.

20. “The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn’t a tax, he should listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers, or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied. Both liken the “individual mandate” to a tax, as do other prominent health economists like Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton) and Jonathan Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms that the penalties for non-compliance “would be equivalent to a tax or fine.”

If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn’t pay the taxes he wants to impose on the “drug and insurance companies,” he should read this CBO report or talk to the junior senator from West Virginia, who accurately describes those levies as a “big, big tax” on middle-class coalminers.

21. “I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” Who are these special interests? In case Obama hadn’t noticed, everyone from the drug-makers to the unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has promised to buy them off with middle-class tax dollars.

When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.

— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.

Forehead or hand, where would you like your mark ?

2009-09-27T06:59:00.000-07:00

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

By Carrie Budoff Brown 11:40 AM

Put me in jail because the government isn't going to dictate the terms of my existence.

Let's see how the Obamaites "spin" this. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to jail! And the president is looking out for us?

This admin is out of control. To FORCE ME to buy health insurance in their program, when I don't want it, and if I refuse, they will put me in JAIL?!?!?! What country is this, Iran? Russia? China? What happened to freedom of choice, I thought that was the liberal battle cry!

Sounds like a nasty staff infection in the Administration and Congress. Someone call a doctor, quick!!

Your stimulus at work

2009-09-26T10:37:00.000-07:00

Stimulus program = 25,000 government jobs created. Must be all the White House czars.

GI Bills: Another empty promise

2009-09-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

And yet another government program that sucks!!

This is not a government program so much as it is a BENEFIT of service to our country, yet the government, under this new administration, has seen fit to screw it up, too.
I swear to goodness that everything these people touch turns to a pile of manure.

This is from HotAir.com. You can go there and read the comments. These folks are so right.

Obama administration blows School for Soldiers program, too
posted at 1:36 pm on September 25, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

The Obama administration has yet to fully unsnarl the reimbursements from the Cash for Clunkers program, and have claimed that the overwhelming demand caught them by surprise. In contrast, the latest GI Bill for veteran education, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, has been in effect for more than a year, with fairly predictable demand curves. So why did the administration botch tuition payments for tens of thousands of veterans at the beginning of this semester?

The U.S. government failed to send promised college tuition checks to tens of thousands of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars before they returned to school this fall, even after being warned that it was inadequately staffed for the job.

The Veterans Affairs Department blamed a backlog of claims filed for GI Bill education benefits that has left veterans who counted on the money for tuition and books scrambling to make ends meet. …

Out of more than 277,000 veterans who have filed for the college tuition benefits this semester, more than 200,000 claims have been processed and approved, but fewer than 11 percent of the veterans have received the funding, according to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

The group says it has been contacted by thousands of veterans who have not received their benefits and that they are forced to take out loans or pay the money out of their pockets.

Just imagine what these same people can do when they take over your health benefits!

How long will it take before the media notices the pattern here? This program has been in place for months, and now it has a whopping 89% failure rate in a program that shouldn’t have a 5% failure rate. It doesn’t take a claims genius to process and approve tuition reimbursement requests. They are a lot less complicated than, say, health care claims.

There is no excuse that covers this performance. For those who believe that government can handle systems better than the private sector, let them first demand that government fix the systems it currently controls. They can start with the School for Soldiers program, and then start working on Indian Health Services, and let us know when they’re done culling the waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicare. Maybe at that point, we’ll trust them with a pilot program someplace else.

Addendum: Yes, I know the program applies to Marines, sailors, airmen, and Coast Guard too, but I wanted to give it the same alliteration as Cash for Clunkers. Hopefully the other branches will forgive me that.

Update: The Warrior Legacy Foundation released this statement today:

WLF partners with White House and Department of Veterans Affairs to get GI Bill payments expedited

Recently a number of veterans have experienced prolonged delays in receiving payment for college expenses they were guaranteed in the new GI Bill passed by Congress in the summer of 2008. This has caused financial hardship in an already difficult economy, and concern about the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system whose only mission is to serve the needs of all veterans.

The Warrior Legacy Foundation (WLF) finds this unacceptable and is committed to helping fix the problem. Alongside the White House and the VA, WLF is working to assure veterans will receive the benefits they have earned in service to our nation. Senior WLF leadership have been contact with veteran’s officials at both the White House and the VA. Our coalition has agreed this is a top priority that must be addressed as soon as possible.

WLF will provide assistance to veterans by connecting them with the proper authorities who will facilitate each Warrior receiving the benefits they deserve in a timely fashion. WLF appreciates the quick attention and help from both the White House and the VA in addressing this problem. Together we will ensure that the systemic problems will be fixed and that there are no future issues regarding the GI Bill and payment to qualified veterans.

Veterans who have not received payment with regards to their GI Bill benefits can contact the Warrior Legacy Foundation at info@warriorlegacyfoundation.org.

Please enter “GI BILL”in the subject line.

The new disease

2009-09-26T10:17:00.000-07:00

See how this disease is spreading? It's everywhere. The sad part about it is that it is such a horrendous lie! http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2009/09/23/adam-and-john-salley/

Jimmy Carter has a lot of steel calling those who disagree with Obama racists. He himself should be considered a racist. After all, he described Obama in the primary "that black boy".

Keep up the talk, folks. It's going to come back to bite and bite hard it will.

Stomach turning

2009-09-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Eight months into the Obama presidency – as cap and trade languishes in the Congress, health care reform suffers the slings and arrows of a “racist,” “astroturf” opposition and Americans continue to stubbornly cling to their guns and religion – it’s hard to give much credence to the President’s election night pronouncement that “change has come to America.”

It was always a shallow notion. Saying that voters who elect an opposition party want “change” is like saying that restaurant patrons want food. It may be true, but it tells you nothing specific about what you need to do to satisfy that desire.

Improbably enough, it turns out that Americans still think that freedom is more important than irredeemable promises of security. They still think that constitutional limits mean something. And they still think that a federal government that does little more than defend our shores and deliver the mail is (at least half) a good idea.

But if change hasn’t yet come to America, it has certainly been felt in the nations that never had the pleasure of casting a ballot for Barack Obama.

Let’s turn first to Latin America. There, the President has gone to great lengths to pacify Castro’s Cuba, even pushing for the island nation’s entrance into the Organization of American States despite its long history of human rights abuses. He has embraced Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as a friend despite the dictator’s continued attempts to partner with other rogue nations and his forceful suppression of the country’s free press. And he has cast his lot with an exiled Honduran president who sought to use Chavez-style tactics to systematically dismantle the Central American nation’s constitution.

In Europe, the President’s track record doesn’t look much better. He has revoked the protection of missile defense that he promised to the people of Poland and the Czech Republic as recently as six months ago, giving newfound courage to a rapidly weaponizing Iran and a revanchist Russia. He has needled our allies in Germany and France about adopting economic stimulus plans that look like his own while ignoring that our friends in Western Europe are actually enjoying a quicker economic recovery in the wake of their decision to act with fiscal prudence. And he has touted the glories of Russia’s claim to “great power” status while dismissing American exceptionalism as mindless political chauvinism.

In the Middle East, Obama has handled the Israeli government so roughly that his popularity ratings are in the single digits amongst the population of one of America’s most evergreen allies. He has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the most dramatic act of civic revolt against Iran’s vicious theocracy in decades. And he has intentionally obscured the needs of American forces in Afghanistan in order to delay a tough political decision.

Finally, in Asia, President Obama has rewarded the North Korean regime for sentencing two American journalists to 12 years of hard labor by giving a fading Kim Jong Il a photo-op with a former president. He has virtually ignored our allies in India despite that nation’s vital role in ensuring a peaceful future for the continent. And he has fundamentally shaken the faith of the Chinese in an economic partnership with the U.S. by laying the predicate for a dramatic weakening of the dollar and imposing stiff tariffs on tires – tariffs that are already precariously close to launching a trade war.

As many of Obama’s critics noted during the 2008 campaign, “change” is an amoral word. Taken alone, it neither instructs nor illuminates. A fair conjecture about voters’ intentions in sending Obama to the White House would probably conclude that what the American people wanted was a change from a collapsing economic system; a change from unsustainable (and at times unclear) wars; and a change from the cynical standards that dominate Washington.

But on the foreign policy front at least, what Obama has delivered is a change from remaining strong against America’s enemies; a change from standing firmly beside our allies, and a change from recognizing that the rights of individuals supersede the rights of governments. In short, he has abandoned the moral imperatives of American foreign policy. It turns out he’s changed one more thing too. The old status quo is starting to look a lot better by comparison.

New Free World Leader

2009-09-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

Mark Levin declares Benjamin Netanyahu new leader of the free world. I concur.

Silence is broken

2009-09-23T12:42:00.001-07:00

I have been quiet for a time, mostly due to family illnesses but also due to my dumbfoundedness at the condition of our country.

We are rapidly approaching October. Obama took office in January. The amount of damage done not only to our economy but to our foreign relations is astounding. We're coddling our enemies and dissing our allies. We're flying the communist flag next to the American flag in Washington DC for crying out loud!

The Arrogant Won is ramming a seriously flawed health care reform down our throats. They change the wording, but I doubt the content has changed at all. He's casting off the elderly of our country. He's demoralizing our military. He's all but given up on the war in Afghanistan. He lies and lies and lies and lies, yet there are people who still believe he's "The Won". Remember Bush? Remember how the left was so indignant about his lies? Where's the indignation now?

We have ACORN and his denial of knowing they were receiving federal funds. WHAT??? Are you kidding me? This alone is proof that the man has no business being in the highest office of our country. Perhaps if he stayed in the White House and actually did something instead of traveling the country. I would be very interested in knowing just how many days he's actually spent in the Oval Office. I'd almost bet they could be counted on one hand!

This man will go down in history as the worst president in our nation's history. He's doing all in his power to destroy what our founding fathers built and visualized our nation being throughout her lifetime.

One by one our freedoms are being attacked. Obama will not be happy until we are a third world country. He will not be happy until America is a weak nation militarily, because HE is a weak man.

I do see a glimmer of hope. Polls are showing his popularity slipping among the young and the black. I believe his veil is being lifted and people are seeing him for what he really is -- inexperienced and arrogant. Listen to his speeches and see how often the words I, me, my are used. It's all about him. ALL ABOUT HIM.

Another good sign is that people are once again on their knees praying for their country, praying that we don't lose all that has been fought for in many wars; praying that our children and grandchildren can grow up free and that they can bring our country back to it's position as the strongest nation in the world, instead of lowering our standards to the level of nations lead by dictators and despots. I can only hope those prayers are not falling on deaf ears.

Next year will be the telling year. If we can clean "House" and Senate, I believe we have a chance. If not, I don't even want to think about what will happen.

Racism: Alive and well on the Left

2009-09-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that all those on the Left have these days is the race card. It's pulled each and every time anyone on the Right (or any Republican) does or says anything. Even Jimmy Carter is adding his two cents worth (which is actually more than his opinion is worth, IMHO). I knew this would probably happen when Obama was elected; I just didn't realize it would be to this degree. True, there are some who may be racist, but they are FEW AND FAR BETWEEN!

It just goes to show how far down America has fallen since The Won took office. No one can disagree with him without being called a racist. No one can protest without being called racists. No one can ask questions at a town hall without being called a racist. It's unbelievable that things have gotten this bad.

But since the Left has nothing legitimate to use to dispute opinions from the Right, they pull the race card. That's pretty damned low.

Remember, Obama is supposed to be as much white as he is black.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?????????????

2009-09-15T12:16:00.000-07:00

It's peoplelike this Johnson doofus that will keep the racial tide growing!! The Dems and those on the Left have made ANY disagreement with anyone in this administration about nothing but race. THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DISAGREE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COLOR. Geez! I want to take a megaphone and scream that from a rooftop. I'm beyond sick of the ever-convenient RACE card being pulled EVERY freaking time someone disagrees with The Won and his court.

One more time: Rep. Joe Wilson APOLOGIZED. HE HAS APOLOGIZED. A.P.O.L.O.G.I.Z.E.D.!!!! I want apologies from all those who have a hate on for tea party goers. I want apologies from the likes of Pelosi who calls CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES nazis, just because they protest against her and the rest of those who are taking our country in a dangerous direction. I want apologies from Eric Holder who ignores intimidation practices from the Black Panther Party and sets free terrorists. I want apologies from Tim Geithner for being a tax cheat. I want apologies from the President of the United States for calling the people of this country liars because they see through HIS lies. I want apologies from Obama for giving one red cent to ACORN! Do I believe I'll hear any of these apologies?? NO! Can I bring sanctions against any of these people? No! They're royalty! They're protected! They've got their king! Rep. Wilson DARED to call a lie a lie and they're ready to draw and quarter him. It's going to backfire. Mark my words. It WILL backfire.

**

Congressman Suggests People Will Don 'White Hoods' If Wilson Not Rebuked
In an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., says that people will put on "white hoods and ride through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Rep. Joe Wilson, are not rebuked. He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst last week is drawing new recriminations from his colleagues, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican is tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.

In an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked. He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

The charged comments come as the House is preparing to take further action against Wiilson. House Democratic leaders decided to formally discipline him Tuesday afternoon for jeering President Obama during last week's joint session of Congress.

Wilson bellowed "You lie!" as Obama delivered his address.

The punishment is expected take the form of a "resolution of disapproval," which is a milder version of other more traditional means of congressional discipline. Wilson can avoid the slap on the wrist by apologizing to his colleagues on the House floor, but Wilson -- who already apologized directly to the White House -- has said that's not going to happen.

While he has been widely condemned by colleagues on both sides of the aisle for breaching protocol, some have gone a step further and accused Wilson of being racially motivated.

Johnson seemed to reference the protests held in Washington, D.C., on Saturday in making his claim. While many protesters were there to demonstrate against big government and federal over-spending, Johnson argued that a "fringe" element is motivated by race and that Wilson's behavior is a "wink" to that fringe.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in her column Sunday that Wilson's outburst convinced her that racial angst is the underlying motive among Obama critics like Wilson.

"I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer ... had much to do with race," she wrote. "But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president -- no Democrat ever shouted 'liar' at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq -- convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

Dowd wrote that Wilson "clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."

Asked about the claim, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said race is not the factor.

But it is against House rules to call the president a "liar" or accuse him of "lying" when the House is in session, which is the basis for the punishment Tuesday.

"We're not the British parliament for a reason," said Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C.,."Ignoring the issue sets a precedent for bad behavior."

Greco described the resolution as "direct" and "non-partisan."

"It goes directly to conduct on the House floor," Greco said.

Most Democrats in the House appear poised to sanction Wilson. But many Republicans argue that since Wilson has already apologized, this step is unnecessary. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., opposed punishing Wilson until Clyburn and other Democratic leaders persuaded her to change her mind.

Critics say Democrats are only prolonging the issue and hurting themselves by pushing for further action against Wilson. Republicans may use the Wilson resolution to try to embarrass Democrats Tuesday, by bringing up the alleged ethical lapses of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., or Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., or others.

The resolution is "privileged," meaning whenever it is introduced the measure goes to the front of the legislative line. It is unclear who will call up the measure.

A "resolution of disapproval" is not one of the four forms of discipline typically meted out in the House. The most commonly used means of punishment are expulsion, censure, reprimand or fine.

For instance, in 1997, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was both reprimanded and fined for his book deal. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was reprimanded in 1990 for ethical breaches tied to a male prostitute. Republicans tried to censure Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in 2007 for comments he made on the House floor about President Bush. But Democrats voted to set aside that effort.

A simple majority vote is needed to approve the resolution against Wilson.

Not surprised!

2009-09-15T06:25:00.001-07:00

CABLE NEWS RACE
FRI., SEPT 11, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,212,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,644,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,544,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,968,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,705,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,067,000
MSNBC MADDOW 948,000
CNN BLITZER 889,000
CNN KING 875,000

Where's the outrage over this one?

2009-09-12T18:02:00.001-07:00

Pro-life demonstrator murdered at Michigan high school; Update: Motive confirmed
posted at 12:55 pm on September 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

On the day that we remember almost 3,000 Americans murdered by radical Islamists, we should all condemn this lunatic murder in Michigan. A pro-life protestor got shot by an assailant in front of Owosso High School and died before anyone could rescue the victim. The shooter is in custody, but neither he nor the victim has been identified:

The Michigan State Police say an anti-abortion activist has been shot and killed in front of Owosso High School.

The Flint Journal reports the shooting took place around 7:30 a.m. today, and a suspect was taken into custody about 45 minutes later at the suspect’s home.

The victim’s identity has not yet been released.

LifeNews has more details:

The shooting did not take place on school property but officials have locked down the school and taped off most of the front portions of the school grounds.

According to the Associated Press, in the spot where the protester stood, a black car is parked and a portable oxygen tank is lying next to a sign with a picture of an unborn child and the words life.

NBC 25 is reporting that interim school superintendent, Susan Wooden says the person is a well-known local pro-life advocate — a man who frequently stands in high traffic areas with the sign to protest abortion.

When abortionists get murdered by lunatics, the Left uses these incidents to indict the pro-life cause while the Right correctly notes that lunatics don’t adhere to any set of rules but their own madness. The pro-life advocates tempted to use this as a tu quoque, either in the murder itself or reactions to it, should resist the urge. Lunacy is evidence of only one thing — lunacy.

Today, of all days, we should remember that. Terrorism and murder are never acceptable forms of political action in a democracy of free people, not for any reason or provocation. People who toss bombs, shoot people, and conspire to commit acts of terror to impose their view of the world on free men and women should be objects of derision, regardless of our personal politics.

My prayers go to the family of the deceased, his friends and colleagues, and the emergency responders in the area who acted so quickly to make their community safe and try to save the life of the protester.

Update: And that’s assuming abortion had anything to do with the shooting at all. It may have been a personal conflict. We should know more soon.

Update II: Part of a murder spree?

Update III: Police have identified the murder suspect, who allegedly committed both murders out of personal grudges — and in the case of the pro-life protester, the grudge was political:

Harlan Drake of Owosso, near Lansing, was arraigned on two counts of first-degree murder and other gun-related crimes. Prosecutors said Drake also had planned to kill a third, unidentified person. …

Drake was arrested at home about an hour later. Police said he stated he had also shot Fuoss.

“The indication is that he had ill will … a grudge against these three individuals,” said Shiawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry. “The defendant was offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon’s message.”

I love this man

2009-09-12T17:45:00.001-07:00

The real ACORN. Come on, people.

2009-09-10T15:38:00.000-07:00

Tell me the "sham" about this corruption? These people should be IN JAIL!!! ACORN should be SHUT DOWN!!!!

The speech. Nothing new.

2009-09-10T11:15:00.000-07:00

From a policy standpoint, there was nothing new in President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight. It can only be assessed, therefore, in political terms. I read the transcript rather than watching it, but the speech struck me as reasonably effective. I assume the delivery was standard Obama--smooth, generally flat, occasionally a bit whiny.

One striking aspect of the speech was that Obama kept talking about the "plan" that he "announced" tonight--but there is no plan; not in writing, anyway. Not unless Obama meant Nancy Pelosi's House bill, but he didn't seem to, since he made a point of saying that details remain to be filled in, referred to work still going on in committee, and said that "his plan" is open to alternatives to the public option. This vagueness gives him a sort of deniability: what he was describing was more his concept of the qualities health care legislation should have, rather than a specific bill. Whether that was politically smart remains to be seen. So far, vagueness hasn't seemed to be the President's friend on this issue.

Here are some excerpts from the speech that I thought were noteworthy:

"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics."

Then, a few minutes later:

"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result."

By far the biggest scaremonger on this issue has been Obama himself.

"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

I'm not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not "bickering." Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a "game." This kind of gratuitous insult--something we never heard from President Bush, for example--is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.

I assume most people noticed how, in tonight's speech, Obama's assurance that we will not lose our present insurance coverage has been scaled back. This was after thousands of critics pointed out that under the Democrats' proposals, many people (more than 100 million according to some estimates) will in fact lose the insurance coverage they now have:

"[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

That's true, of course. No one ever said it did. What the Democrats' plan does do, however, is give employers the opportunity and, depending on pricing, the incentive to terminate their employees' plans and dump them into the public system. And whether private insurance companies can compete with the public "option" depends on whether Obama keeps his pledge that the public program won't be subsidized.

"[I]nsurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."

How does that work? Better coverage for more people at less cost. Does anyone actually believe that is possible? I don't think so.

Obama described his plan for an insurance exchange where those who are not part of a larger plan will be able to buy coverage. He then added:

"This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right."

But wait! Aren't people dying? The Democrats tried to ram their bill through Congress before the August recess, with essentially no debate and with virtually no one having read it. Their theory was that we are facing such a dire emergency that there is not a moment to lose. If, in fact, we have four years to spare, could we maybe stop trying to cram the bill down Americans' throats?

"Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those - particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk and go without coverage."

That's true, of course. There are millions of people, mostly young and single, who choose not to buy health insurance or take a job where compensation comes largely in the form of benefits (same thing) because they have made a rational decision that for them, health insurance isn't worth the money. As Americans, they should have that right. The problem is that, in the unlikely event they do get sick, they know they will be treated anyway.

"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

Traditionally, it was liability insurance that drivers were required to carry, not to protect themselves, but to protect others from their possible negligence. It is only because of no-fault laws that most states now require drivers to carry insurance that includes first-party coverage. There are some similarities, but many differences, between automobile and health insurance.

"[U]nless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek - especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - just can't be achieved."

This is a key point that many will overlook. One of the central purposes of nearly all health care "reform" proposals is to force young people into the system to help pay older peoples' bills. Why is it that you can't force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions--i.e., "insure" against something that has already happened, a logical impossibility--unless you force young people to "do their part"? Insurance companies, and, eventually, the government as single payer, need young people to pay premiums that far exceed any actual risk to subsidize the known losses that will come from being forced to "insure" people whose medical conditions are not risks but certainties.

Consider the analogy to life insurance: could a dying, 90-year-old person expect an insurance company to issue him a million dollar life insurance policy? Maybe, but it would cost close to a million dollars. Why can life insurance companies sell policies at rates that people consider reasonable? Only because they are insuring against premature death, and the insured has been paying premiums for many years, during most of which time there was little risk of his dying. The same principle applies, pretty closely, to health insurance.

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."

No, it isn't. The Democrats' bill doesn't call the agencies it sets up "death panels," it says they will decide on "best practices." But any socialized medicine scheme saves money by rationing care. Who gets shorted, the politically powerful? No, of course not; the elderly and those who are otherwise helpless. In the United Kingdom, the death panel goes by the Orwellian acronym "NICE."

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

This is an outright lie, as Congressman Joe Wilson couldn't resist blurting out during Obama's speech. The Democrats defeated Republican-sponsored amendments that would have attempted, at least, to prevent illegals from being treated under the House version of Obama's plan. I think everyone expects that if Obamacare becomes law, illegals will receive benefits on an equal basis with citizens.

"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

More oily language from the master of the half-truth. Under Obama's plan, it won't be necessary for federal dollars to fund abortions, at least not until socialized medicine actually arrives. Insurance dollars will fund abortions. The House bill sets up a nameless, unaccountable committee that will decide what coverages must be included in any approved private insurance policy. Those required coverages, you can be 100 percent certain, will include the costs of abortions. But Obama will take no responsibility; those are just "best practices."

This seems to me to be the most critical moment in Obama's speech:

"My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down."

In fact, Obama and Congressional Democrats have zero interest in increasing choice and competition. If they did, there is an easy solution. There are over 1,000 health insurance companies in the United States; why do you think it is that in Alabama, one company has 90 percent of the business? It is because there are major legal obstacles to insurance companies operating across state lines. State legislatures, and lots of the companies, like it this way. Competition is hard. But if Obama really wanted to expand "choice and competition" in health care, all he would have to do is go along with the Republican proposal to allow health insurance companies to sell on a national basis. Like, say, computer companies, beer companies, automobile companies, law firms, and pretty much everyone else. The Democrats' refusal to allow existing health insurance companies to compete against each other nationwide, more than anything else, puts the lie to their nonsense about "choice and competition."

"Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business."

Really? We've all seen the YouTube video where Obama says that under his plan, private health insurance will be driven into extinction over a period of ten to twenty years. Has he changed his mind? When? Why? Does President Obama fail to understand the ubiquity of YouTube? Does he not understand that many millions of Americans consider him a liar when he says things like this?

President Obama talked about the "public option" and assured listeners that it would not be subsidized by the government:

"I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers."

Is it churlish to point out that profits are not overhead? It might be if this were just a slip of the tongue on the stump. But this was a speech that was carefully crafted by Obama and his top advisers. They really do not know the first thing about business or economics. So why should we put them in charge of our economy?

"I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate."

Actually, the administration has said that around half the cost of the plan, $500 billion, would be paid for by cuts in Medicare. So it isn't exactly "demagoguery and distortion" to suggest that there might be cuts in Medicare.

"[N]ot a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan."

I should hope not, since there isn't any Medicare trust fund, just like there isn't any Social Security trust fund.

"The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud...Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."

But wait! If we can identify hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and we know how to eliminate it, why haven't we done so already? Why don't we do so--right now!--regardless of the administration's highly controversial health care bill?

There is no possible answer to these questions. The Obama plan--whatever it is, once reduced to writing--depends for most of its financing on the bare assertion that we are currently wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, and that we will stop wasting that money only if taxpayers knuckle under to Obamacare.

This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people.

Dragnet Obama

2009-09-08T07:20:00.000-07:00

Sorry, not my kids!

2009-09-03T13:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.puma08.com/2009/09/02/sept-8th-here-are-two-of-the-books-on-obama-your-kids-are-expected-to-read/

This man is unbelievable!

Raving Mad Stark

2009-09-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

#
On September 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am, Jet Jaguar said:

What a crass, filthy, excuse for a human being, let alone a Congressman. The fact that this kind of scum can keep getting re-elected to Congress speaks worse about the state of our nation than anything else I can imagine.
#
#798217
On September 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am, HomeoftheBrave said:

And this ladies and gentlemen, is the poster-child for our elected federal officials, the majority of which infest the highest offices in our country. All the clips I have seen are Socialist/Marxist/Democrats. I have not seen a Conservative go “off the reservation”. Anyone who knows of a recent clip, please let me know. Just trying to confirm that this is a left-wing sickness that we have to cure over the next few years….
#
#798218
On September 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 am, TooMuchTime said:

In the mid-1990s, a group of moronic “economists” said that countries would be better off accumulating debt. A co-worker and I used to have pretty good discussions about conservative vs. liberal. I explained we needed to balance the gov’t budget. He countered with the “study” mentioned above.

It’s interesting that even liberals balance their personal budget but somehow give the gov’t a pass. Intelligent people balance their own budget and demand the same from their gov’t.

Now, Stark “Raving Mad” has given us proof of the complete stupidity of socialsts.

Regime change begins at home! Come on 2010!
#
#798221
On September 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am, granite said:

“…or I’ll throw you out the window:”

Isn’t that a threat?

Is not threatening to lay hands upon someone considered to fall under the legal definition of assault?
#
#798222
On September 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am, J S Ragman said:

“The more debt we owe, the wealthier we are”.

Yep, that’s a Cal Berkeley MBA talking.

The intimidation continues ... until 2012

2009-09-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

White House Seeks to Capture and Archive Citizens’ Comments on its Facebook, YouTube, MySpace Sites
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

President Barack Obama (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – Anyone who posts comments on the White House’s Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Twitter pages will have their statements captured and permanently archived by the federal government, according to a plan that the White House is now seeking a contractor to carry out.

The Executive Office of the President is looking for a private contractor to capture and archive comments and information posted on social networking and new media sites where the White House has established a presence. While the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally requires that the administration preserve information generated by the president and his staff, the White House says that in seeking to collect and preserve comments made by common citizens on social networking sites it is acting “out of an abundance of caution” to comply with the law.

In mid-August, the White House put out a “request for quotation” (RFQ)which seeks bids from private firms for the project. Under the terms stated by the White House, the contractor would have broad responsibilities in collecting information from White House related Web pages.

The RFQ for bids says the contractor is to “capture, store, [and] extract” information that will be transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for permanent storage. According to the White House proposal, the information involved will include the “capture of comments and publicly visible tags posted by users” on publicly accessible Web sites where the White House has established a presence.

“Publicly-accessible sites may include, but are not limited to social networking sites,” says the RFQ.

The document says that White House—which it refers to as the Executive Office of the President (EOP)--“currently maintains” seven sites. These are, www.facebook.com/whitehouse, www.twitter.com/whitehouse, www.myspace.com/whitehouse, www.flickr.com/whitehouse, www.youtube.com/whitehouse, www.vimeo.com/whitehouse, www.slideshare.com/whitehouse.

The document also says, “The contractor shall include the information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP maintains a presence.” This would include “both comments posted on pages created by EOP and messages sent to EOP accounts on those web sites.”

The RFQ says: “Currently, the government team is capturing the data and content.” It does not specify, however, whether the data and content that is currently being captured by the government includes the comments posted by citizens on the White House social networking sites, as the RFQ envisions an outside contractor would do once that contractor is hired.

The White House did not respond to questions from CNSNews.com about this RFQ and whether it has already started capturing citizens’ comments posted on the White House’s Facebook, Myspace, YouTube and Twitter pages.

In the question and answer section on the last page of the RFQ, it says: “The Presidential Records Act does not require the storage or archiving of non-EOP content, as such is there a specific reason as to why the content provided on EOP related websites in the form of comments is included in these archiving procedures?”

The answer: “PRA includes in its definition of presidential records content ‘received’ by PRA components and personnel. Out of an abundance of caution, we are treating comments made by non-PRA personnel on sites on which a PRA component has a presence as presidential records, requiring them to be captured or sampled.”

White House logo
The White House RFQ calls for a 12-month contract that allows for seven one-year extensions. The RFQ does not estimate the cost of the project. It also requires confidentiality on the part of the contractor.

The scope of the project, according to the RFQ includes, “Capture of comments and publicly-visible tags posted by users on publicly–accessible websites on which an EOP component subject to the PRA maintains a presence. Vendor must be able to either: (i.) Capture all comments posted to a list of web sites provided to vendor; or (ii.) capture a sample of comments posted to a list of websites provided to the vendor according to a sampling methodology that will be provided to vendor and approved by EOP.”

“In order to comply with the Presidential Records Act,” says the RFQ, “the White House New Media team is looking for a non personnel service contractor to crawl and archive PRA content on all third party sites where the EOP has a presence (i.e. Facebook.com/whitehouse, Twitter.com/whitehouse).”

The RFQ tells vendors to contact the Office of Procurement and Contract Management Officer at the Executive Office of the President.

As of Sept. 1, 10 private firms have shown an interest in the project.

Neither the procurement office nor the White House press office responded to questions about the project from CNSNews.com last week and this week.

The National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group that discovered the 51-page bid solicitation, was highly critical of the project.

“This is a huge, secretive effort by the White House to capture web material far beyond what is required by the Presidential Records Act, which only requires archiving materials produced by the president and his staff at the Executive Office of the President,” said NLPC chairman Ken Boehm in a statement to CNSNews.com Monday.

The concerns raised by the NLPC come after the White House reversed a policy of encouraging citizens to send messages to flag@whitehouse.gov to report opposition to the health-care reform legislation backed by President Obama after Fox News reported that citizens were getting e-mail messages from the White House promoting the health bill despite having never signed up for messages.

However, Wayne Crews, director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he did not believe the White House RFQ for this project was cause for alarm.

“As much as I oppose information gathering, my problem is when databases are compulsory,” Crews, co-editor of the book Who Rules the Net: Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, told CNSNews.com. “I always say; if it’s privacy you want, the Internet is the wrong network for you.”

Crews does believe the government should make extra efforts to make people aware that the comments they post on White House networking sites will be archived.

“It’s not just presidential statements and proclamations, but anything people leave on a Web site becomes part of a permanent record potentially traceable to them,” Crews said. “I have to say, given the nature of social Web sites, it doesn’t worry me a lot.”

Nonetheless, the NLPC maintains that broad non-disclosure requirements for the contractor and the possible wholesale capture of all comments, including those critical of the president, are particularly troubling.

The anti-disclosure requirements are on page seven of the RFQ.

“The contractor also agrees not to publish, reproduce or otherwise divulge such information in whole or part, in any manner or form, nor authorize or permit to do so,” the RFQ says, “taking reasonable measures as are necessary to restrict access to the information, while in his or her possession, to these employees who must have the information to perform the work provided herein on a ‘need to know’ basis, and agree to immediately notify the Contracting Office in writing in the event the contractor determines, or has reason to suspect, a break of this requirement.

Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Tailspinner
GASP! They're after all the right wing extremists. You know, the stay at home mom's, and senior citizens who care enough about OUR country to stand up and say NO to the marxist attack on our government, our economy, and our FREEDOM. Did you expect anything less from a bunch of marxists?

Washington heights man (19 hours ago)

This is just the beginning AMERICA. As the fellow from Cuba said this is communism and he will try to take America down.
adamten (19 hours ago)

President Obama is a master of trickery. This technique is just one example of Obama's insatiable desire to control American Thinking. Let it be a warning to you; when Obama creates a "supposedly" passable Healthcare Reform Bill. We rely on private Health Insurance. Will Obama rely on Private Health Insurance too, to trap us? Beware!
jnk (20 hours ago)

Come on people...wake up. This is 100% communism. Now they want to archive our comments on their websites because Obama want to comply with the law. You should have started by showing us your birth certificate. I lived in Cuba under communism and have been here for 43 years as a proud american citizen. Mr. Obama, I'll be damm if I am going to be intimidated with your bullshit about tracking this stuff. I alreaady had to put up with that under the Castro regime. You can start tracking my stuff right now. All I have to say is that your are nothing but a communist,and I believe people are starting to wake up to that fact. Your new 45% approval ratings show that. Another day and another controversy by the Obama administration. All I can hope for is that in Nov 2012 we get your *** out of office.

I pledge . . .

2009-09-03T07:52:00.000-07:00

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

I refuse to "pledge" to Obama or his agenda. He is NOT a god or anything resembling such. And now he wants to invade our kids' school with his subliminal message of servitude. Ugh.

Congrats, Matt Drudge!

2009-09-01T06:16:00.001-07:00

A TRILLION THANKS FOR MAKING AUGUST 2009 THE TOP AUGUST IN DRUDGEREPORT'S 14 YEAR HISTORY! VIEWERS FROM ALL CORNERS HIT THE PAGE 669,392,126 TIMES, UP 8% OVER AUGUST 2008 [614,577,960]...

So glad Obama loves his Unions

2009-08-31T13:11:00.000-07:00

Nice to know the unions really look out for their members. 1300 more people without jobs by the end of next year. Isn't that just groovy?

HUNTSVILLE, AL (WAFF) - Continental Automotive will close its Huntsville
components plant by the end of 2010. Company officials announced the
decision to its nearly 1,300 workers late Monday afternoon.

Product lines at the Huntsville facility will be relocated to plants in
Seguin, TX and Mexico.

"The Huntsville facility has the highest manufacturing costs of any
Continental automotive electronics plant in North America and we were
unsuccessful in reducing these costs through labor negotiations with the
United Automobile Workers union and other cost reductions in capital,
equipment, overhead and expenses," said Continental Spokeswoman Kathryn
Blackwell in a news release.

The plant closure will be implemented in several phases through December 31,
2010.

"Continental sincerely regrets the impact that this decision will have on
our employees and their families," said Joe Fadool, Continental's
Vice-President of Operations.

What in the world?

2009-08-31T06:45:00.000-07:00

These are the people The Won surrounds himself with, takes advice from, even lets do HIS job. I can't believe there are people who are okay with this. Honestly. Then there are the likes of Madelyn Albright, Diane Watson, etc. Good gosh.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108180

http://www.thefoxnation.com/health-care/2009/08/28/congresswoman-gop-hates-obamacare-because-they-want-black-president-fail She should move to Cuba!

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336005488181276 This man should be FIRED!

Here's a question begging to be answered:
http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2009/08/30/what_is_president_obama_really_trying_to_do?page=full&comments=true

http://www.thefoxnation.com/international/2009/08/28/albright-calls-lockerbie-bombing-terrible-accident

Great stuff from the "honorable" Huffington Post

2009-08-28T08:33:00.001-07:00

August 28, 2009
Liberal at Huffpo thinks Mary Jo Kopechne didn't mind dying for Ted
Rick Moran
Maybe she phrased it wrong. Maybe liberal blogger Melissa Lafsky writing in Huffpo this morning had a brain cramp and wrote something she didn't want to.

Maybe aliens made her do it.

Somehow, some explanation must be given for this kind of incredible, tone deaf, idiocy:

We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.

Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.

I don't know about you, but I sure would rather be alive and kicking than being the "catalyst" for the notion that Kennedy could never be president because of my death and this was somehow a good thing because of all the good my killer did during the rest of his life, being forced to abandon his presidential aspirations and serve in the senate.

Mary Jo Kopechne - Martyr to Kennedy's failed ambition.

Of all the millions of words, tens of thousands of articles, blog posts, and other scribblings by liberals over the death of Ted Kennedy, this may be the most amazingly shallow, myopic, and ultimately self centered sentence ever written.

But it does highlight the liberal mindset quite well, don't you think? To left wing fanatics like Lafsky, human life does not belong to the individual, but to the higher cause of the collective good. For Lafsky, of course Kopechne would, if she had a crystal ball and been able to see the future, have sacrificed herself on the altar of social "progress" rather than live a full life filled with friends, family, kids, and a fulfilling career.

What a despicable thing to write.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

2009-08-26T10:50:00.000-07:00

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so . . . so . . . geez, can't think of a word.
Their rallies are "grassroots"; the right's are "astroturf; teabagging; manufactured". GIVE ME A BREAK, would ya????? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Dems plan hundreds of reform rallies
By: Chris Frates
August 24, 2009 08:24 PM EST

Faced with a souring public mood on health care reform, Democrats and their supporters are launching a national grassroots push Wednesday to show lawmakers that the majority of Americans still support overhauling the system.

Reform supporters are planning to hold more than 500 events between Wednesday and when lawmakers return to Washington Sept. 8, ranging from neighborhood organized phone banks to professionally staffed rallies with hundreds of people.

The Democratic National Committee and its grassroots arm, Organizing for America, are helping to organize the effort along with the Health Care for America Now, a group pushing to create government-run insurance plan.

“In these last few weeks of recess we want to demonstrate the energy, passion and commitment that the American people have to health insurance reform so that when members return after Labor Day they know that they can turn their attention to getting this done because they have the backing of the American people,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse.

Supporters have their work cut out for them. Many lawmakers were thunderstruck over the August recess by the anger and outrage expressed by their constituents in town hall meetings across the country. And in poll after poll, support for reform has eroded throughout the month.

But Democrats and their allies insist that the majority of Americans still support reform and have organized the grassroots campaign to buck up lawmakers as they get ready to head back to Washington.

A health-insurance-reform-now bus will travel the country starting Wednesday and anchor events in 11 cities: Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Des Moines, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Charlotte, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio.

But the talk of broad health insurance reform does not mean that progressives have backed off their push for a government-run insurance option.

“We want members of Congress to get back to work and pass reform that means something. We need affordable care. We need real insurance regulation. And we need a strong public health insurance option,” said HCAN spokeswoman Jacki Schechner. “It’s doable and we expect it to get done now.”

Thank you, David Hendrick

2009-08-26T09:21:00.000-07:00

And this man has received death threats for voicing his opinion and his BABY has been the subject of many vile, hate-filled emails. And the right is hateful???

Here comes the race card again

2009-08-22T05:42:00.000-07:00

Gee, it couldn't be that he's just not doing the job he was elected to do, could it?

Gov. David Paterson blames calls for him to step aside on race

By Kenneth Lovett
Daily News Albany Bureau Chief

Updated Friday, August 21st 2009, 8:44

Paterson plays race card

The governor says the calls for him to not seek re-election are because he's black and that we are not "post-racial."

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year's election - launching into an angry rant that left even some black Democrats shaking their heads.

"The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary," Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.

He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.

"We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said.

"The reality is the next victim on the list - and you can see it coming - is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system."

Paterson said the campaign against him is being "orchestrated" by reporters who would rather make the news than report it.

But critics said the governor should blame his own blunders.

"He's given the media more than enough to feed on with the incompetence shown in his administration," said state Sen. Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), an African-American.

"To quote Michael Jackson, he should start with the man in the mirror," Parker said.

Even state Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), a black supporter of the governor, urged him to be more like Obama by staying "focused on the message."

Paterson has been the target of Democrats who fear his low approval ratings - 18% at their lowest and about 30% now - will endanger the party next year if he decides to run for his first full term as governor.

Paterson insisted in the interview that he has made tough decisions to deal with the state's ballooning budget deficits while at the same time helping those most in need.

He noted that the state, despite its fiscal crisis, has not had to write IOUs or had its bond ratings drastically reduced, like California, and is not in as bad straits as Pennsylvania, Michigan or Massachusetts.

He seemed to take a shot at Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a possible primary competitor. Polls show Cuomo would trounce the governor in a match-up.

"If I run in the primary, the same people who are sitting in beach chairs while I'm in the ocean with the sharks will have to come into the ocean - and they will be eaten alive."

Paterson said there would be no shame in running next year - and losing.

"It will be my highest honor to have served as governor of this state, to make the tough decisions," he said.

Later, Paterson looked to downplay his comments, saying, "At no point did I claim that this media piling-on effect was due to race."

"What I did point out was that certain media outlets have engaged in coverage that exploits racial stereotypes," he said.

Death as an alternative for vets

2009-08-20T14:33:00.000-07:00

WSJ: VA pushes vets to consider death as an alternative to treatment

posted at 11:36 am on August 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The ObamaCare bill may not contain “death panels,” but even Charles Lane and Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post wonder why the bill incentivizes end-of-life consultations with the elderly and ill as part of its cost-containment strategy. Maybe Lane and Robinson should take a look at the VA, where the Obama administration and former General Eric Shinseki have reinstated a program called “Your Life, Your Choices.” The Wall Street Journal reports that this program amounts to a high-pressure sales pitch for refusal of treatment for veterans:

“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran’s health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.

I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update “Your Life, Your Choices” between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as “Compassion and Choices”).

Of course, the program is entirely voluntary, right? Well, the VA has instructed its physicians to deliver this end-of-life counseling to all of its patients. In effect, the US government is telling every veteran it treats that they may want to die for their country — not to defend it, but to save it a few bucks.

This booklet has been in use since the Clinton administration. When the Bush administration finally reviewed “Your Life, Your Choices,” it suspended its use within the VA system. For some reason, the Obama administration and Shinseki have reinstated the booklet this year. The directive reinstituting the booklet was issued last month.

Perhaps some of the “death panels” rhetoric was overblown, but this is downright disgusting. The Bush administration was correct in suspending the use of these tactics to push vets into refusing treatment, and the government these men and women defended should be ashamed to have put that in their hands in the first place. If Obama wants to argue that he won’t bend the cost curve downward at the expense of treatment, maybe he should start by stopping that very policy at the VA — one of the existing “public plans” that need reform much more than the overall health-care system.

Question

2009-08-20T08:31:00.000-07:00

I'm wondering what would happen to the churches that Obama, The Won, has beseeched to push his health care bill on their congregations, if said churches discouraged support of the health care bill? The left is always harping on "separation of church and state", so what gives this man the cajones to even suggest such a thing? Does he have the IRS czar sitting in the wings, spying on churches to see who says what and acting accordingly? Wouldn't be surprised. The man ought to be ashamed, but narcissim doesn't allow shame, does it?

It's time the left got off their damn high horse about hate mongering!

2009-08-20T07:50:00.000-07:00

Media Didn't Care About Protest Signs Threatening Bush

By Noel Sheppard
August 20, 2009 - 10:15 ET

In recent weeks, the media have focused a lot of attention on anti-Obama signs showing up at town hall meetings and Tea Parties from coast to coast.

Without a doubt, some of them cross the line of decency.

However, the press's outrage is quite different than what happened when protesters carried offensive signs threatening former President George W. Bush.

To refresh the memory of the conveniently amnesiac news media, Zombietime dug up a number of posters from demonstrations past which didn't garner the press's ire like those harped on in recent weeks (readers are warned to proceed with caution, h/t Walt Gilbert):

A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.
(Source: Innovative Minds.)

“Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: People’s Cube.)

“I’m here to kill Bush (shoot me)” reads this protest sign (location unknown).
(Source: I found this image several years ago in an online report about an anti-war protest, but I unfortunately failed to note down where or when the protest happened, and the Web site that originally hosted the report is now defunct.)

Remember the guy in our first picture? Here he is again, with another explicit death threat against the president, this time calling for “Death to…Bush” at the October 27, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.
(Source: Looking at the Left.)

An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

Bush being lynched by an American flag at a rally in New York on September 19, 2006.
(Source: Fred Askew Photography.)

That is just a sampling. Readers and media members are urged to view more of Zombietime's pictures to remember what was considered an acceptable demonstration of free speech less than eight months ago.

Press members are highly encouraged to ask themselves, "What's changed, and why?"

Excellent! Try it, please!

2009-08-19T09:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.gratitudecampaign.org/shortmovie.php

Speaks for itself

2009-08-19T06:39:00.001-07:00

Newsweek's Profile of Late-Term Abortionist Riddled With Misrepresentation

By Dave Pierre
August 18, 2009 - 22:28 ET

A shoddy and slanted profile of late-term abortionist Dr. LeRoy Carhart by Sarah Kliff in Newsweek magazine contains misrepresentation of the practice of late-term abortion. It also omits a serious episode in the career of Dr. Carhart that resulted in the tragic death of a 19-year-old woman.

In writing about the grisly practice of late-term abortion, Kliff falsely claims, "Past viability, no doctor will terminate a pregnancy without a compelling reason." This has been proven completely false in recent testimony by Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the country, who examined the medical records of patients seen by deceased late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller.

Last year, the Harvard-educated McHugh relayed that some women stated that their reasons for wanting a late-term abortion included "not being able to go to a rock concert." According to Dr. McHugh, Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions for "mostly social reasons."

A 2007 must-see interview with Dr. McHugh contained the following exchange:

INTERVIEWER: And did you see anyone's file that justified a late-term abortion by demonstrating that she would suffer substantial and irreversible harm?

DR. McHUGH: I saw no file that justified abortion on that basis.

Kliff fails to note that late-term abortionists themselves have admitted that almost all late abortions are purely elective.

Dr. Martin Haskell is doctor who has performed late-term abortions. He was recorded on audiotape at the National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco in March 1996 saying that "[close] to 100%" of late-term abortions are elective:

"We seem to be taking a position that, in the case of the D&X [a procedure often used for late-term abortions], that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure versus the 90% who it's elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period; and as you get on up towards 28 weeks, it becomes closer to 100%."

In addition, Dr. Tiller was quoted at the National Abortion Federation conference in New Orleans in April 1995. (I've transcribed Dr. Haskell's and Dr. Tiller's own words from the audio of a CD called "Fire & Ice" (available at Life Dynamics).)

"We have some experience with late terminations. About 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks, and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."

Do the math. Tiller said that about 8% of his late terminations were for "fetal anomalies." Following reason through Dr. Haskell's premise, the rest are completely elective! (In this case, I'm ignoring the argument that a "fetal anomaly" is a justifiable reason for an abortion. It is not.)

Kliff writes that there are "many circumstances" that lead to women seeking abortions, "whether she is that suicidal rape victim or a well-heeled New Yorker who just discovered a fatal fetal defect." From the testimonies of actual abortionists, we can see how misleading Kliff's words are.

In her long profile of Carhart, Kliff makes no mention of the fact that he played a key role before the tragic death of a 19-year-old woman with Down Syndrome, Christin Gilbert. Miss Gilbert was 28 weeks pregnant after being sexually abused. According to a must-see study of the case by Operation Rescue, Dr. Carhart attended to Miss Gilbert for her abortion. Three days after visiting Women’s Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas (operated by Dr. George Tiller, but Dr, Carhart was there at the time), Christin was dead. According to the autopsy report, she died "as a result of complications of a therapeutic abortion."

Why didn't Kliff mention this awful, awful case?

Surprised? Not me.

2009-08-14T10:11:00.000-07:00

SEIU Organizers: “We Will  Never Let Your Employees Vote” 

An employer in the building  management industry recently sat down with the National Right to Work Committee  to share his first-hand account of the union bosses’ abusive card check  organizing scheme. What followed was a harrowing inside report on the personal  and economic impact of Big Labor’s scorched-earth “corporate campaign”  strategy.

In the mid-1990s, the radical Service Employees International  Union (SEIU) targeted Randy Schaber’s company in Sacramento for unionization,  even though the company paid its employees higher than the average union wage  and with better benefits.

Didn’t matter, the union bosses wanted more  dues.

When Schaber learned that the SEIU was paying 8-10 full-time union  organizers to unionize the workplace through any means necessary – including  intimidating visits to employees’ homes to get them to sign cards – the company  agreed that the fair course of action would be to support the workers’ right to  a secret ballot.

But the SEIU organizers didn’t want a secret ballot.  They told Schaber, “You don’t understand. We will never let your employees  vote.”

In this 3-part video series, Schaber discusses how the SEIU  union militants started filing frivolous charges to get the company to back down  and how a former SEIU employee in Bills Clinton's Department of Labor wasted  taxpayer money investigating alleged wage and hour violations at the company  (before it was eventually revealed that the company had actually overpaid its  employees).

Watch the full videos on the National Right to Work  Committee’s YouTube channel.

Town Hall Etiquette

2009-08-14T07:09:00.000-07:00

Lead Story
The Etiquette Czar’s Rules for Patriotic Protest
By Michelle Malkin • August 14, 2009 08:44 AM

The Etiquette Czar’s Rules for Patriotic Protest
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

The White House press office is now Miss Manners’ office. President Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs took to the television airwaves this week to criticize congressional town hall protesters for “yelling.” Gibbs’ underling, Bill Barton, chastised voters not to “disrupt” and “scream.” Instead, he advised America to engage in a “spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it.”

What constitutes “spirited?” How do they define “vigorous?” When does forceful dissent become intolerable disruption? Herewith, the Obama Etiquette Czar’s Official Rules for Patriotic Protest. Keep this guide with you at all times to avoid being flagged by the Democrat politeness monitors.

*No shouting. Congressional representatives cannot sell Obamacare with mobs of unruly senior citizens and small business owners interrupting to press them on specific sections of the bill. Limit your objections to a library whisper (30dB or less) and only challenge your lawmakers with hushed, dulcet tones. Otherwise, you will scare them and they will be forced to hide behind teleconference calls, sick children at hospitals, or union bosses.

If, on the other hand, you are attending a presidential town hall to show your affection and approbation, “spirited” chanting is acceptable.

Don’t: “HANDS OFF HEALTH CARE!” and “READ THE BILL!”

Do: “I LOVE YOU, BARACK!” “AMEN!” and “YES WE CAN!”

Also permitted: Shouting at historic inaugurations to protest war (as legions of Code Pink activists did in 2005 during the president’s address) and shouting, “We didn’t cross the borders, the borders crossed us!” to protest immigration enforcement (as thousands of illegal alien supporters did during raucous rallies in 2006).

Do refrain from boisterous shrieking against those who accuse you of lacking patriotism - unless you are Hillary Clinton, who bellowed at the top of her lungs in 2003:

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

*No laughing. Snickering at proponents of nationalized health care is rude, bordering on political terrorism. Stifle all derisive chuckling at bogus statistics and denials that Obamacare will lead to long lines and rationed care. That would be “evil-mongering,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it on Thursday.

If, however, you are a member of Congress confronted with silly questions about whether you have read the bill, feel free to giggle. For tips on executing acceptable levels of cackling, take a cue from Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com while choking back laughter after a recent news conference. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill.” Tee-hee-hee.

*No Nazi comparisons. References to fascism are ugly and un-American. Swastikas have no place in debates about nationalizing 20 percent of the economy. Swastikas may, however, still be used as substitutes for the “S” in “BusHitler” and tattoos on the forehead of Darth Cheney.

*No boorish questions. “Real vigorous conversation” requires town hall attendees to formulate queries that will encourage true debate. This is not the time to ask why Congress won’t subject itself to the health mandates it wants to foist on every other American. This is not the time to ask how the White House will pay for the massive Obamacare bureaucracy without raising taxes on the middle-class. The White House endorsed model citizen questioning at its stacked East Room health care town halls in March and July, including this:

“Hi, Mr. President. I’m a member of SEIU and I’m down here in Fairfax County working on Change That Works. What can I do, as a member of the union, to help you with your reform bill?”

*No mean signs. That 11-year-old daughter of a Massachusetts Obama donor/campaigner who was randomly chosen to criticize the scary posters held up by town hall protesters in New Hampshire was right. “Mean” signs are, well, mean. Never mind the placards that blared “Bush is the only dope worth shooting” in Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco and the assassination art depicting former President Bush with a gun to his head in Chicago. “Obama is a socialist” is a sign too far and cannot be tolerated in a civil society. Period.

Instead, print out the “STANDING UP FOR HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM/THANK YOU” signs helpfully produced by Obama’s Organizing for America and burn your “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. Such rebellious sentiments are dangerous incitements to violence.

To those of you who can’t abide by The Rules: Stop talking and get out of the way.

Shhhhhhhhh!

The sleeping giant

2009-08-14T07:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=8164356&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749

And one more hypocrisy

2009-08-13T13:17:00.000-07:00

Press Largely Ignored Hostile Protester Rhetoric Towards Bush
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
August 13, 2009 - 10:12 ET

As Obama-loving media continue their assault on town hall meeting protesters, they seem to have forgotten how they covered civil disobedience when George W. Bush was in the White House.

As Fox News's Bill Sammon pointed out Wednesday, when former President Bush was greeted by hostile protesters on a fund raising trip to Portland, Oregon, in August 2002, the news media didn't bother sharing with the public some of the truly incendiary signs in the crowd or the vulgar behavior of the attendees.

In fact, some of the television reports at the time painted the protesters as innocent victims of an overly aggressive police force.

Before we get there, here's Sammon's take (h/t NB reader ShruggedAtlas and Michelle Malkin):

When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

"BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."

Another poster showed Bush's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"

A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!" [...]

All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"

How was this reported then?

Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event.

Sammon's quite right. In fact, some of the television news reports sympathized with the protesters.

Here's how Aaron Brown covered the event on the August 22 installment of CNN Newsnight:

AARON BROWN, HOST: That said, the president has taken his share of knocks on the environment, fair or not is for others to say. But the criticism boils down to this: Whether it's Alaska and oil or Oregon and timber, the solution offered by the administration, say the critics, always seems to benefit big business. Again, fair or not, it is part of the national political landscape.

And for more on things political in the president's journey out West, we're joined by CNN senior White House correspondent John King -- John out in Portland.

Just before we get into the politics of trees and timber, tell me about the protest the president encountered tonight.

KING: Some protests earlier today up near Medford, Oregon where there president was. More protests here in Portland today. About a -- more than 100 tried to walk up on the president's hotel. Police here in Portland used pepper spray to keep them away. There was some feisty altercation between the police and the protesters. After the police asked the protesters to leave the area around the president's hotel, as I said, some pepper spray used there. It is a calm situation now.

Not unusual for the president to encounter protesters, especially when his focus is on environmental issues.

Interesting by comparison to how town hall protesters are viewed today, correct? King made a similar defense of the protesters' activities on that evening's Moneyline:

KING: Several major environmental groups take issue with the Bush plan, and some protesters in Portland today suggesting the president was taking advantage of this year's wildfire crisis to try to help friends in the timber and logging industry.

Once again, protesters in the right, and absolutely NO reference to their hostile signs or behavior.

NBC's "Today" show the following morning also didn't seem at all disturbed by the behavior of protesters the previous day:

MATT LAUER, co-host:

Good morning. Not a warm welcome for President Bush. Protest in Portland turned violent as police confront demonstrators with batons and pepper spray outside the president's hotel. The streets are calm this morning as the president moves on to California today, Friday, August 23rd, 2002.
Announcer: From NBC News, this is TODAY with Katie Couric and Matt Lauer, live from Studio 1A in Rockefeller Plaza.

LAUER: And good morning. Welcome to TODAY on a Friday morning. I'm Matt Lauer.

CAMPBELL BROWN, co-host:

And I'm Campbell Brown. Katie's off. The demonstrators were protesting against fres--President Bush's foreign policy and also his new forest initiative.

LAUER: That's right. About 500 protesters in all. There were five arrests.

No mention of disgusting signs or vulgarity thrown at the President.

This is how NPR covered it that same morning:

RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

President Bush campaigns for Republican candidates today in California after spending the night in Portland, Oregon. Hundreds of protesters demonstrated outside his hotel where he appeared at a fund-raiser for Republican Senator Gordon Smith. Earlier yesterday, the president used the nation's largest wildfire in southern Oregon as a backdrop to introduce his plan for improving the health of the public forest. He proposed easing environmental regulations so that timber companies could thin out decade's worth of the combustible material. NPR's Robert Smith was with the president in Medford, Oregon.

ROBERT SMITH reporting:

The residents of southern Oregon who came out to see the president unveil his plan are clearly fed up with living next to wildfires. People here say they are sick of the road closures, the threatened evacuations and the five weeks of brown haze that has filled the valleys.

Once again, the take is to present the side of the protesters as logical while completely avoiding how violent things got the previous evening and not mentioning the disgusting signs or hostility.

Quite different from today's reporting of what's going on at town hall meetings, correct?

MSNBC's Phil Donahue took it even further in an interview with one of the protesters who blamed the police for overreacting:

PHIL DONAHUE, HOST: Riot police used pepper spray and struck some demonstrators with batons after ordering hundreds of people to leave a protest near a hotel where President Bush attended a fundraiser. Protesting Bush's foreign policy, they chanted "Drop bombs" -- "Drop Bush, not bombs."

Joining us now from Portland is Chris Preucil, one of the protesters and founder of the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment. You are Well, Ms. Preucil, you are here to say, among other things, that you think that the police really didn't have to be this aggressive. Do I understand your position?

CHRIS PREUCIL, PROTESTING THE PRESIDENT: Oh, not at all. And the police in Portland, Oregon, have had years of history of completely overreacting to peaceful protests.

DONAHUE: You were there, and you're saying that nobody intended any violence at all, that you wanted to convey your displeasure to the president near his hotel. And then do I understand you to say that the police -- the police had you isolated, did they not?

PREUCIL: The president of the United States is not doing very well, as far as being accountable to the people, so there was essentially "no protest" zone, so Bush couldn't actually see the people who were protesting his administration. And the police insisted on pushing that "no protest" zone back, making it bigger and bigger, without really warning the crowd. And instead of announcing to the crowd to move back in a way that was audible, just unleashing pepper spray onto, you know, 12 people or more at a time. It was very inappropriate.

But President Bush's motorcade, we do believe, did get to see some of the protesters, but the message did not get through as clearly as it should because he isolated himself from the people.

DONAHUE: You make the point that you think that the elite, wealthy among us are being protected from people who disagree with them by the cops.

PREUCIL: Well, by the people that are oppressed by a system that allows an elite class to live in luxury while the poor, the working poor and the working class all stress about things like the recession and the amount of debt they're in and how they're going to feed their children and put them through school. And this is nothing new. You know, the elite class has tried to shield themselves from the lower classes and the working classes for thousands of years now.

And Mike Barnicle made the following statement that Friday evening while subbing for Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball":

Good old-fashioned political rioting is back in style in the Pacific Northwest. Check out these anti-war activists protesting President Bush in Portland. Nice to see that the president is being protected by low tech pepper spray.

Imagine that: good old-fashioned political rioting. Not how today's town hall meeting protesters are being depicted, is it?

In the end, I could not identify one television media outlet that in any way accurately reported the real nature of the hostilities expressed towards President Bush in Portland, Oregon, on August 22, 2002.

I guess it's only fashionable to negatively depict protesters when they don't agree with a President you helped get elected.

Where was the outrage when . . .

2009-08-13T13:08:00.000-07:00

CNN Video from 2006: Bush With Hitler Mustache? No Outrage; Called A 'Look-Alike'

By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive)
August 13, 2009 - 12:55 ET

The media are currently apoplectic about the Obama-as-Hitler references at town hall meetings across the country.

As we have reported again and again, they are often incorrectly ascribing these references to talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and conservatives - as it is lunatic fringe Leftist Lyndon LaRouche that is making these Obama-as-Hitler posters and comparisons.

But this collective media conniption at references to the President as Der Fuhrer is a new development. Back in the George W. Bush days, the Jurrasic Press was far less reviled by the often made Bush-as-Hitler comparisons, and indeed some saw similarites.

As you can see in the video at right. Anyone remember CNN's Susan Roesgen? She is the recently ex-CNN reporter who made a name for herself by assaulting on-air April 15 TEA Party protesters this past Tax Day.

But on January 13, 2006, Ms. Roesgen reported from New Orleans on Hurricane Katrina. During which she says, in reference to a man in a giant Bush head with a Hitler mustache (and devil horns):

"City officials aren't the only ones wondering when federal money will materialize. Catholic school girls marched on Jackson Square. They and their teachers say more money is needed to fix the levees, and they hoped the President would stop by after his meeting with business leaders. But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not."

NewsBusters.org | Media Research Center"Look-alike?" Where's the outrage? Where's the indignation?

Like LaRouche today, these were Leftists making the comparison. And the media didn't seem to mind.

What has changed between then and now? Oh yes, the Party of the occupant of the Oval Office.

Some Presidents, it seems, are more equal than others.

Evil mongers

2009-08-13T13:01:00.001-07:00

Reid: Protesters are 'evil-mongers'
@ 1:19 pm by Eric Zimmermann

Town hall protesters are "evil-mongers," says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Reid coined the term in a speech to an energy conference in Las Vegas this week and repeated it in an interview with Politics Daily.

Such "evil-mongers" are using "lies, innuendo and rumor," to drown out rational debate, Reid said.

"It was an original with me," Reid said of the term. "I maybe could have been less descriptive," he said, adding that "I doubt you'll hear it from me again."

Nevertheless, Reid worked in the word one more time during the interview.

"I feel I haven't done anything to embarrass [my children]," Reid joked. "Except maybe call somebody an evil-monger."

I wonder what Reid called all those who protested against Bush? I'm sure it wasn't "evil mongers". What a joke. No hate speech there!

Looks like the town halls are working! Keep it up!

2009-08-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision
By Michael O'Brien
Posted: 08/13/09 02:21 PM [ET]
The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.

"On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."

The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee not to report out a preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day.

Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in the House, which he asserted were "poorly cobbled together."

"The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants," Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to "advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.

"Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can't," Grassley added.

Looking for honest answers

2009-08-13T07:54:00.000-07:00

Really…forget Democrat or Republican for a minute and think about this…

Obama supporters, be honest now . Read the following and tell me how you would have reacted:

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?=2 0

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again 10 times within years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved ?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all the above in just 5 months -- so be patient -- you've still got three years and seven months to come up with an answer…

Another slight of hand

2009-08-12T06:03:00.001-07:00

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.

While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?

Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.

How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?

Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

The prez speaks and lies pooreth forth

2009-08-12T05:57:00.000-07:00

What a stupid remark. I have not heard anyone demonizing Canadians. It's their health care system that is being talked about. This man is beyond unreal.

Sorry. Had to do it.

2009-08-11T14:56:00.001-07:00

Can't Make It Up: Dem Rep Who Opposes Photo ID To Vote Requiring Photo ID For Town Halls
Photo of Tom Blumer.
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
August 11, 2009 - 14:18 ET

This is Congressman Eugene Green (HT to an e-mailer), Democrat from Texas, telling the world that if you're not from his District, you're not welcome at his future town hall meetings -- oh, and how he'll enforce his new rule (bold is his):

TexasRepGreenReTownHallPhotoID0809

This is how Gene Green has voted on laws relating to requiring photo identification to vote (from the web site "On the Issues"):

TXcongGeneGreenWantsPhotoID0809

Any questions?

Oh, I do have a couple:

* How many dozen other Congressmen who oppose voter ID laws are going to hypocritically enforce voter-ID rules at their town halls -- And does that mean that controlling their meetings more important than controlling the voting process?
* Will this be newsworthy to the establishment media, which would be all over this if Gene Green were a Republican, and which is scouring town hall sign-in sheets as you read this for evidence of out-of-district attendees?

Time off

2009-08-11T07:11:00.001-07:00

Am taking a few days off from the political scene. I'm so disgusted by the crap coming out of Washington and the media that I'm sitting back, regaining my composure, and taking a deep breath. I'll dive back in soon.

I will say that I am really looking forward to the 2010 elections. I see a major House cleaning in the near future. The Pelosi/Reid regime is about to come to an end. They are angering not only the right but many in their own party with their snide remarks. Keep it up, guys. I love it when you make asses out of yourselves.

Be back soon.

Now here's a REAL health care plan, Mr. Hopenchange

2009-08-08T12:21:00.001-07:00

Letter to Representative Melissa Bean
August 8th, 2009 | Author: kimsch

Dear Representative Bean,

Last April, my mother went in for a colonoscopy. Her doctor recommended it because she was presenting with anemia and having some gastro-intestinal discomfort. She’ll be 70 years old next month.

The colonoscopy revealed cancer near the cecum (at the appendix end of the lower intestine). The doctor said that it seemed small and looked like it could be resolved with surgery. Mom would need a CT scan to determine the extent of the cancer as the colonoscopy can only show the inside of the colon. She was able to get the CT scan scheduled within a couple of weeks. The CT scan indicated that the cancer was contained within the colon and surgery was scheduled for May 11th.

The surgery was a great success. Because the surgery was laproscopically assisted, Mom was in the hospital only from Monday to Thursday. She had only three small incisions above and below her belly button and a small 3 inch incision on the right side, under her ribs. Friday, the doctor called at home and told us that he had removed all the cancer and tests showed that Mom would not need chemotherapy or radiation. She was cured.

My sister, who has Irritable Bowel Syndrome, had already scheduled a colonoscopy and endoscopy for May 1st. As a result of Mom’s cancer, I scheduled a colonoscopy for myself for May 6th. Both of us were clear, but with the history we have of gastro-intestinal issues, with the history of my father sucumbing to esophageal cancer in 2002, and now Mom’s cancer, we need to be checked out more frequently than the usual 10 years between colonoscopies.

I worry that under plans currently being considered in congress we may not have had such a good outcome. I worry that some of this testing may not have happened, or not happened as timely as it did. Mom was having issues, doctor ordered tests which found a very early stage 1 cancer. Surgery resolved the issue.

What if she’d had to wait months or longer for the colonoscopy? What if, after waiting for a colonoscopy she had to wait again to schedule surgery? Her cancer may not have been caught as early as it was. It may not have been as easy to excise the cancer. The cancer may have spread to lymph nodes or other organs as well. She may have needed radiation and chemotherapy as well as the surgery. All that would have cost a lot more than a colonoscopy, a CT scan, and a quick and effective surgery. And that’s just the monetary cost. Just imagine the pain and suffering Mom may have had to endure had she had to wait. Add to that the radiation and chemo side effects.

By being able to get these services in a timely manner, all that was avoided and she is cancer free. This is what we need. Not a single-payer option, not a ‘public’ option.

I understand that Congress will not avail itself of the public option should that be included in the final markup of a health care reform bill. How about you open up the insurance choices that Congress has to the public? Allow us to have the same choices you have. Wouldn’t your premiums go down too, if there’s a larger pool of people paying in?

Another problem I have with with the options that are being considered has to do with my daughter. She is 18 years old and special needs. She has epilepsy, is developmentally delayed, has a moderate hearing impairment, and a few years ago she was also diagnosed with lupus. She is on medications for her chronic conditions. Because of her developmental delays, she is more like a five-year-old. except that her verbal skills are not even at that level. She can make her needs known somewhat, but cannot communicate even like a normal three-year-old. She can dress herself, use the bathroom, and feed herself. She needs help showering, she cannot cook or make a sandwich or use the microwave. She cannot cut food. She needs assistance at a certain time of the month. She can swallow her medications with water, but she is incapable of determining which medications, in what dosages, and at what time she needs them.

She knows how to put a DVD or CD into the built in DVD player in her TV. When she’s playing a CD she calls it her ‘radio’. She can put puzzles together. One with large pieces she actually puts together upside down, so all the pieces are white. She loves music and movies. She loves Barney and Dora and Blue. She calls Ice Age “elephant”, Ice Age II: The Meltdown is ‘elephant in the water’. She tries hard to say Ice Age and Ice Age 2. We’re waiting for Ice Age 3 to come out on DVD so she can have the whole trilogy. She loves going to Six Flags and riding all the rides. She isn’t afraid of any of them.

I am concerned that someday, somebody will decide that resources are being wasted on her. That perhaps she doesn’t need this medication or that medication because of the cost. What on earth will happen to her after I’m gone? She’ll never be a “productive’ member of society. I hate to think that someday in the future someone may decide that she needs ‘end of life counseling’. She’ll say yes to a lot of things because she doesn’t quite understand.

She’s a loving girl. She loves listening to music. She’s concerned when she thinks someone is sick or in pain. She’s been known to ask people in wheelchairs if they are okay. Most see that she is special and take her concern as it is intended and tell her that yes, they are okay. We went to my cousin’s wedding and she called the bride “princess”. She also called Mrs. Mary Todd Lincoln (a re-enactor at the annual Civil War Days at Lakewood Forest Preserve in your district) ’princess’ because of her long dress. We bought her a pioneer type bonnet there and she calls that her princess hat. She would touch the hat and say ‘princess’ and I’d say yes and she’d say, ‘me?’ I’d tell her that yes, she is a princess.

We’ll be seeing a lot of ‘princesses’ at the Bristol Renaissance Faire tomorrow as well. We can get her a pointed princess hat with ribbons so she can be even more of a princess. She is our princess and we don’t want to see her treated as anything less.

Let’s make sure we think everything through before we make a law regarding health care. Let’s make sure that by “fixing” parts of it we don’t “break” other parts. Let’s try not to regulate it to death.

Open up insurance. Get rid of the ties to employment. Let employers pay employees more and let employees purchase health insurance like they do auto insurance, homeowners/renters insurance, life insurance. COBRA was mandated by congress years ago as a bridge for people between jobs. I’ve been given the choice of COBRA. I have never availed myself of it. I think most people decline. It’s way too expensive. If insurance isn’t tied to employment, one would know exactly how much it costs and be able to budget for it while between jobs just as they do their auto and homeowner’s/renter’s insurance. Open up insurance so people can buy a policy from any state.

Let people pick and choose which coverages they want. Let the young, single, career woman choose insurance that will cover annual women’s wellness exams and birth control should she so choose. Let the post menopausal woman drop the coverage for childbirth. Go ahead and mandate a minimum catastrophic insurance like states already do for auto insurance.

Increase and promote Health Savings Accounts. Allow rollover of these accounts. Currently, if I don’t spend what’s in my Health Savings Account this year, I lose anything left over. Ours is currently used for prescription co-pays. At the beginning of the year I had to estimate what my costs would be and set a monthly amount to go to the account. No changes are allowed. One of my sons was on a medication that did not have a generic equivalent. The co-pay for that one was $50 a month. Halfway through the year the medication became available in generic form. That dropped the co-pay to $10. So now I have to find something that will be approved for payment from the Health Savings Account in the amount of $40 per month or I lose that money. $240-$280 that I will lose if I don’t use it by December 31st.

Health Savings Accounts are a really great idea, but only if they roll over year to year and one doesn’t lose the money one doesn’t spend in a particular year. The 25 year-old single guy who takes the minimum catastrophic plan could put some money into an HSA every month. Then, when he gets bronchitis, he has the funds to pay for a regular doctor visit and the medications prescribed. If he doesn’t get sick that year, the funds roll over to the next year when he sprains his ankle and needs x-rays, pain meds, crutches…

Please take the time to read the legislation that comes out of this process. Please insist that it is published online and allow time for public debate before laws that affect something as important as health insurance are voted on. Health insurance is a very personal matter to most of us. Let us have some input.

Hail, Caesar!

2009-08-08T07:28:00.001-07:00

American Caesar [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Yesterday, at a rally for R. Creigh Deeds in Virginia, President Obama said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

For Barack Obama, democracy appears to be a distraction. He really does seem to view himself as a Caesar.

Shortly after taking office, Obama held a meeting with governors. At the time, one person in the room relayed Obama's request that critics and skeptics of the stimulus plan keep their concerns to themselves. Just let me do it, was his attitude. He got pushback and he wasn't happy. He wanted democratically elected state governors to shut up so he could do as he pleased. He knows better and we should respect that, seems to be the attitude.

And if you disagree, you'll have Rahm to deal with.

Talk about messes

2009-08-07T15:32:00.000-07:00

OBAMA: 'I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess'... Then he'd better give the "shut-up" notice to his Democratic Congress, since they were major players in this "mess". He might ought to keep his mouth shut as well.

Not proud of my government

2009-08-07T12:02:00.000-07:00

I cannot tell you how angry I am right now. And I believe it's righteous anger.

For days and days, all we've heard on the MSM, the White House yes-man, Gibbs, Pelosi, Boxer, and many more is how the nazi-sign carrying, conservative wing-nut, mobs have stormed the town hall meetings in various cities and shouted down dissenters. And Obama, with his post-partisan way, has told his minions and worshippers to "hit back twice as hard" and has put his union goons in place to beat up anyone who stands in their way, whether they are protesting or trying to make a buck.

A black man at the St. Louis town hall meeting with Carnahan was beaten so badly that he'll spend at least two days in the hospital. Who was he beaten by? Obama's thuggery, a member of the SEIU! Why was he beaten? Who the hell knows! The man was selling American flags and buttons. That's AMERICAN FLAGS AND BUTTONS!!

Up until Obama's declaration of war, these town halls were peaceful gatherings, with nothing more than some shouting. There had not been a single incident of violence until Obama, The Won, El Presidente, the Godfather called out his troops to incite the crowds, to "punch back twice as hard!"

The Washington DC mob has gone on and on about the only people attending these town halls were paid conservatives or lobbyists, people "too well dressed" to be "real" people. Take another toke, Babs. They whine that all these town halls were "set up"; there were no everyday citizens out there asking VALID questions or protesting the biggest joke to come out of the WH since Carter left office.

People, if we don't make our voices heard through voting these morons out next year, then we deserve what we're getting. I'm hopeful that eyes have been opened and mouths are beginning to do the same. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD!!! DO NOT let the lives of our fallen military be in vain. They FOUGHT, SACRIFICED for you, to give you the FREEDOM to assemble and the FREEDOM to speak AGAINST government tyranny.

There are a lot of people in very public positions who are hell bent on destroying our Constitution and the country for which it stands. It begins at the top and trickles all the way down to the pages and aides, because they do the bidding of their king. This includes Democrats and Republicans. It's time to CLEAN HOUSE and SENATE!! THEN, the White House, you know the one that The Won calls his own? Arrogant, pompous, Omighty.

I've had my fill of this health care fiasco that The Won, HRH, King Barry is stuffing down our throats without so much as a sip of water. He's determined to choke us with this 1000+ page, no-one's-read paper landfill material, come hell or high water.

I must say that despite the anger, I'm very proud of those who are finally coming out of their lethargy and standing up to the goons and thugs of this administration and taking their responsibilities as citizens seriously. They're going to these town hall meetings and making their voices heard, even though they run the risk of becoming a victim of the Obama snitches. I'm sure my name is on his list and he's checking it twice. I don't care. He may be Santa to those who want everything for nothing and are just about sure to get it, but to me he's just a jerk in a suit. I've never witnessed such arrogance, such conceit, such self-deification from a man in the White House. Never!

He came out today expounding his healing powers because he thinks the recession is over and HE'S cured the ills of our economy. It's all him. He did it all. He da man. The mass destruction of the Bush administration has been healed. The Won raised his mighty staff and healed the economy. Never mind that our deficit is double what it was during the Bush years. Never mind that the budget is multi-trillion dollars. Never mind that this health care debacle will cost trillions and put an unsustainable tax burden on the middle class . . . and lower class for that matter. Taxes come in all shapes and sizes and by George, we're in for gang busters.

The recession may be over in his eyes because he pays for nothing. He doesn't even work! All he does is campaign, entertain, and apologize for America. We need a president who will do his job and represent ALL the people, not just his chosen few.

Two hours later . . .

I've cooled off some, but not much. Just spent the past couple hours with my daughter and youngest grandson, which is always a good thing. They remind me of the good in our country, of which there is an abundance. I just hope that it doesn't all go away before my grandchildren get to grow up.

I love America, but I'm not proud of my government.

Who's inciting violenc and hate speech????

2009-08-07T07:47:00.000-07:00

Violence At Townhall - Against A Conservative; Six Arrested, Including a Reporter

By Seton Motley
August 7, 2009 - 09:46 ET

But it's conservatives who engage in violence and hate speech, right?

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that one of their own, reporter Jake Wagman, was one of six people arrested in connection with the beating of a conservative activist outside of a town hall forum held by Democrat Congressman Russ Carnahan.

According to Dawn Majors, a Post-Dispatch photojournalist who witnessed everything unfold, an officer said that Wagman had been "interfering."

From the article:

Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don't tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.

"It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said.

That is some list of injuries, which means it must have been some beating. And Gladney says he was attacked by "some of those arrested," which means there were probably more in the mob than just that.

And let us not overlook nor forget the racial slur Gladney additionally endured.

Please

2009-08-07T07:41:00.001-07:00

Please read the Anchoress today. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/

Great quote

2009-08-07T07:30:00.000-07:00

"A community organizer can't bitch when a community organizes!" Rush Limbaugh in reference to Town Hall meetings

"Is Sarah Palin a Poster Girl for Racism?" OMG!!!

2009-08-06T14:41:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most reprehensible, despicable, disgusting things I have ever read. Who do these people think they are?

Matthews: 'Is Sarah Palin a Poster Girl for Racism?'

By Brad Wilmouth
August 6, 2009 - 12:10 ET

On Wednesday's Hardball, MSNBC host Chris Matthews hosted a discussion with Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker and Salon's Joan Walsh as the trio discussed Parker's latest column, "A Tip for the GOP: Look Away," in which she argues that the Republican party is hurt by being centered in the South with its history of racial politics. Matthews, who would later theorize that Sarah Palin will exploit white racism by visiting "cul de sacs of whitedom," set up the segment by reading a line from Parker's column which compares Palin to a white character in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mocking Bird who falsely accuses a black man of raping her, leading to his false conviction and death in prison. Matthews:

Here`s a quote that really grabbed me: "That same rage was on display again in the fall of 2008, but this time the frenzy was stimulated by a pretty gal with a mocking little wink. Sarah Palin may not have realized what she was doing. But southerners, weaned on Harper Lee, heard the dog whistle." Kathleen, "heard the dog whistle." Is Sarah Palin a poster girl for racism? Yes or no?

Parker suggested that Palin is indeed a "poster girl for racism," though "not consciously," and alluded to white racism being incited by a white woman and black man being pitted against each other, as in Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama, or in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird. Parker:

I certainly don`t think she, Sarah Palin, knows anything about Harper Lee or this deep history in the South, where you don`t position a white woman and a black male and pretend like there`s nothing happening there. There`s a deep, deep history. That`s why I mentioned, dropped the Harper Lee in there.

Parker soon bizarrely suggested that conservative positions on states rights and even gay marriage are in reality veiled attempts at inciting white racism. Parker:

There`s this subliminal level of communication that goes on. The Southern Strategy has always been -- well, since they stopped using the N-word and being explicit about what they`re trying to do with race and, you know, creating this “us versus them” dynamic, it became increasingly vague through the years. You started talking about states rights at a certain point. Then you started talking about, you know, these wedge issues like gay marriage and on and on.

Matthews tied Henry Gates, the "birther" conspiracy theorists, and Sarah Palin together as he suggested that all are linked to racial politics:

Is she connecting the dots, Joan, among Henry Louis Gates, the birther movement, the Sotomayor testimony and confirmation questioning, so tribalistic? There`s no doubt about it. All that stuff has become very tribalistic, something we thought we`d begun to crack in this country. Is Sarah the dog whistle that says, yeah, that`s what it`s about?

Finally, the Hardball host theorized that Palin would focus on visiting predominantly white rural areas, which he referred to as "cul de sacs of whitedom":

Palin has attacked New York, Washington and Los Angeles. She goes after the government, after the media, after Hollywood. Anything that`s on the coast is evil to her. She`s an Alaskan who, I bet you any money, is going to spend most of her time down in the middle parts of the country, the rural white parts. She`s going to find those cul de sacs of whitedom, and exploit the hell out of them, right?

Matthews has a history of finding racism in bizarre places, as evidenced by the March 11, 2008, edition of his Hardball show when he voiced agreement with New York Times columnist Orlando Patterson who declared that "I couldn't help but think of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, the racist movie epic that helped revive the Klu Klux Klan with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society," when he saw one of Hillary Clinton's campaign ads that questioned whether Barack Obama could effectively protect Americans while they sleep at night.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the segment from the Wednesday, August 5, Hardball on MSNBC:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: We`re back. Time for the politics fix with syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and Salon.com`s editor-in-chief, Joan Walsh. I`m not sure you two are going to argue much, but let me tell you, I`ve never seen a stronger column in the newspapers than what I read this morning when I got up. And the reason I`m so glad Kathleen is joining us, Joan, is that she wrote this column basically backing up Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, saying the Republican party, which has done pretty well over the last half century, has been basically getting destroyed by the right wingers in the South.

And we`ve talked a lot about the obsession with this birth movement down in, birther thing down in the South and all the rest of the ethnic potential here. Here`s a quote that really grabbed me: "That same rage was on display again in the fall of 2008, but this time the frenzy was stimulated by a pretty gal with a mocking little wink. Sarah Palin may not have realized what she was doing. But southerners, weaned on Harper Lee, heard the dog whistle."

Kathleen, "heard the dog whistle." Is Sarah Palin a poster girl for racism? Yes or no?

KATHLEEN PARKER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Not consciously.

MATTHEWS: Not consciously?

PARKER: Not consciously. I don`t think -- I certainly don`t think she, Sarah Palin, knows anything about Harper Lee or this deep history in the South, where you don`t position a white woman and a black male and pretend like there`s nothing happening there. There`s a deep, deep history. That`s why I mentioned, dropped the Harper Lee in there. You want to talk about the Southern Strategy?

MATTHEWS: Well, it’s like To Kill a Mockingbird. I just saw it again, one of the great movies ever, where the white woman claimed that she’d been, you know, molested by this totally innocent black guy.

PARKER: Right.

MATTHEWS: And she was believed for no reason, except she said so.

PARKER: Right. Look -- and please let me be really, really clear. I`m not saying Sarah Palin did that. I`m just saying that there`s this subliminal level, subliminal level of communication that goes on. The Southern Strategy has always been -- well, since they stopped using the N-word and being explicit about what they`re trying to do with race and, you know, creating this “us versus them” dynamic, it became increasingly vague through the years. You started talking about states rights at a certain point. Then you started talking about, you know, these wedge issues like gay marriage and on and on. But ultimately, it`s always about an "us and them" dynamic.

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Right.

PARKER: And Sarah Palin`s really very good at that. And she is, you know, when she plays her populist role, there`s no one better at it.

MATTHEWS: Is she connecting the dots, Joan, among Henry Louis Gates, the birther movement, the Sotomayor testimony and confirmation questioning, so tribalistic? There`s no doubt about it. All that stuff has become very tribalistic, something we thought we`d begun to crack in this country. Is Sarah the dog whistle that says, yeah, that`s what it`s about?

WALSH: I think Sarah Palin`s overall message is one of “us versus them.” I think that she took the lead on the campaign trail -- and you and I talked about it back in September and October, Chris -- in really making Obama the other. She would literally say things like, you know, we don`t know enough about him. We`re not sure where he`s from. She would talk about the regular America, you know, and palling around with terrorists. We`ve taken that apart. So she was the person, not John McCain -- maybe behind the scenes the McCain people were encouraging her. But she had a real zest for it, you know. She did it with a real zing and panache.

She really, you know, she had that visceral appearance of enjoying it when she was really saying some pretty hateful and not-founded things. Barack Obama is one of us. He`s very much so. The only thing different about him is he`s black. He`s our first black President. And, you know, I think we`ve made enormous racial progress. I don`t want to, and I know Kathleen doesn`t want to overstate what`s going on right now.

But we`re in a moment right now with the birthers, with the reaction to the Gates` affair, with the trashing of Sonia Sotomayor, and, you know, even John McCain saying he`s not going to vote for her, where the Republican party seems, seems to believe that its best route is tribalism and scaring people. Whether they`re scaring people about Obama is going to take away your health care or they`re scaring you about we don`t know what he`s about; he`s a Muslim, he`s a socialist, it`s fear. The tactic is fear and fear alone. And I loved Kathleen`s column. It was awesome.

PARKER: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: I`m struck by the numbers. This new poll that came out and showed that the southerners, a majority of them are not willing to commit - - a majority of southerners, including blacks -- obviously the blacks aren`t part of this, I assume -- don`t have any reason to believe he`s an American. They either don`t believe it or they`re --

WALSH: It`s stunning. They`re not sure.

MATTHEWS: A majority of them are not willing to say, yeah, he`s one of us. And the rest of the country is overwhelming. Nine out of 10 say sure, he`s one of us. So why is the South alone in this regard? Not Northeast, not Midwest, not West. But the South stands out there uniquely and regionally and racially opposed to this guy.

PARKER: One word, Chris, one word: Confederacy. I mean, you know, the South is very, I live there, okay? I want to make that clear, too, because I`m not bashing southerners. I love the South and I am a southerner. But-

MATTHEWS: But 40 percent of those states like yours are black.

PARKER: It’s part of the history.

MATTHEWS: So it`s the 60 percent that are white.

PARKER: It`s part of the culture to be secessionist.

MATTHEWS: Like Rick Perry effectively is?

PARKER: To always view the federal government as the enemy. And it`s very, yeah, yes, I can`t, I can`t-

MATTHEWS: How about Palin? Let`s talk about Palin. Palin has attacked New York, Washington and Los Angeles. She goes after the government, after the media, after Hollywood.

PARKER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Anything that`s on the coast is evil to her. She`s an Alaskan who, I bet you any money, is going to spend most of her time down in the middle parts of the country, the rural white parts. She`s going to find those cul de sacs of whitedom, and exploit the hell out of them, right?

WALSH: But wasn`t she in New York last night at Michael`s, the big media and celebrity-

MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because she`s got a lawyer who is smart enough, Robert Barnett, to take her to the one place she`s going to get a hell of a lot of publicity.

This might be the last one . . . for awhile

2009-08-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

Doggone it! I thought I was done, but I've just got to post a link to "Old Jarhead: Bob's Political Digest ..." It is too, too good.

http://tartanmarine.blogspot.com/2009/08/bobs-political-digest-for-august-6-2009.html

PULEEZE!!! Make it stop!!!!!

2009-08-06T10:10:00.000-07:00

Lanny Davis: Another Democratic Flip Flopper

Before:

Lanny Davis, Attorney and Democratic strategist:

The "shout downs" organized by the Republican right meet one of the classic definition of "fascist" tactics--defined as using shouting and disruption to deprive the civil and respectful debate of ideas. There is literally no defense to these tactics. I don't criticize those who feel genuine anger or fear and show up to meetings to express those emotions. But I do call out the tactic of screaming and disrupting a meeting and the fact that this is a systematic tactic by thugs who want to prevent civil discourse, not promote it.

Let's have the media name names, publish photographs, and do interviews of those responsible for approving, even organizing these techniues. And let's find an investigative journalist - are there many left - to prove these so-called grassroots shouters are, or are not, being paid.

It took a year or more to prove that the so-called grassroots protesters shouting and pounding on the windows of the vote counters in Dade County -- successfully stopping the vote -- were really paid Republican congressional staffers, many then on the public payroll, and from the Republican National Committee and the Bush 2000 presidential campaign staff.

Will that story of paid people to disrupt and block discussion organized by the Republican Party or tacitly encouraged while Republican rightwing organizations organize them at least be investigated?

After:

From: Davis, Lanny J.
Sent: Wed Aug 05 22:21:11 2009

To readers of Michelle Malkin’s blog who responded to my post on Politico earlier in the morning:

I received a number of thoughtful emails and wanted to express my appreciation to those who communicated their sincere concerns. There was a misimpression that I was in favor of suppression or discouragement of dissent concerning Democratic positions on national health care issues at congressional town hall meetings. This was not my intent. I do not wish in any way investigate, photo, or suppress the opinions of people who show up to these meetings regarding concerns about Democratic health care proposals. Indeed, I welcome that because we need more debate on this important issue.

My post specifically criticized only those who shout down and prevent others from speaking. Indeed, I specifically expressed my respect in that post for those who are genuinely concerned about the health care proposals.

Finally, some sincere people who communicated with me asked whether I had or would condemn those on the left who disrupted meetings or shouted down speakers on the conservative side of the spectrum. The answer is: Yes I would and I have. Publicly.

I believe that thoughtful and civil people on the left and the right share a desire for debate and have respect for other people’s opinions. This is fundamental to a civil society and our great democracy. In my post, I only wished to protest strongly those who believe it is acceptable to attend a meeting for the purpose of disrupting and preventing honest and vigorous debate.

I take the same position if it is people on the left side of the spectrum who use such tactics as those on the right side.

Sincerely,

Lanny Davis

This is cute . . . really cute

2009-08-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

And for the Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Malkin haters, here's something you might enjoy from a liberal talk show host. Let's hear no more about the "hate mongering" of the aforementioned four, 'kay?

MALLOY (3:50): I have a good news to report; Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide - I'm hoping that he does it on camera; suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glen Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months.

Thank you, Ms. Anchoress!

2009-08-06T09:34:00.000-07:00

Yes, this is long, but PLEASE read. It is SO true of what is going on right now.

Obey-mian Representative Democracy
Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 1:56 PM
The_Anchoress

Source

I’ll say this for Life Under the Obama Regime, the inclusion of communist-inspired propaganda art has certainly upgraded and enlivened political expression. This is much more captivating (and substantive) than, for example, the played-out Bushian beheadings and vampires. (H/T)

Then there is the spreading Joker, which apparently has been collecting new captions

Art appreciation aside, does anyone remember the recent demonizing of corporate fellows who dared to take private jets to business meetings? Remember how they offended both the president and Maxine Waters, who was so overwhelmed by their evil she had to be calmed down during questioning? Remember how those private jets became emblematic of the larger problems of corporate greed and entitlement, how flying corporate jets was an earth-killer and a devilish misuse of revenue when bottom lines were going red and there were shareholders to answer to? Here we are, just a few months later, and Congress orders three earth-killing private jets, misusing revenue when bottom lines are red and there are taxpayers to answer to.

They don’t seem to care about that “answering to” part.

These elitists commissars are going to shame the rest of the country into mass transit and long lines, while they drive by us in their limos, making the power sign and telling us -between their bites of pate foie gras and sips of bubbly- to “keep it real” as they are driven to the airport to board their private jets. And there will be countless schlemiels who will stand there on the corner, applauding the elites as they ride by (or perhaps simply trying to keep their hands warm) before going home to write in their diaries (because their blogs are gone) “saw Emmanuel pass by in limo! He looked right at me and brought his thumb to his nose, like at the inauguration! The idiots around me gasped and grumbled, because they didn’t get it, but I got it, and I felt like such an insider!”

Speaking of blogs and computers, Linda Douglass, who used to be a reporter for ABC before she became an Obammunist Propagandist, tells us that there are some people out there “with a lot of time on their hands” who are using the President’s own words to spread lies and disinformation on the benevolent Health Care Solution currently being rhammed down our throats. She is urging the other people with a lot of time on their hands to report that first group of liars to the White House, so they can um…correct their thinking.

Anyone recall how, after 9/11 -after we’d been attacked in NYC and DC- the Bush Administration said: “If you see anything suspicious, you ought to report it,” causing conniptions on the left? How dare the Bushies ask people to snitch for security reasons! Now, for mere policy, that has become an acceptable, “if you see/hear anything disobedient, be the tattletale.”

Man, when they said “OBEY” they really meant it, didn’t they? (H/T)

Lots of double-standards, these days. Remember when Obama told his supporters to “get in the faces” of non-supporters? Remember when protests and demonstrations were patriotic and grass-roots efforts worthy of some notice and respect? Remember what fake, organized protests look like?

This morning the airwaves were all obediently echoing today’s DNC talking points: all the Town Hall protesters and Tea Party folk are “fake” protesters, who are “too well dressed” to be real protesters (no jeans or Che shirts, apparently) and all reminiscent of “those protesters back during Bush/Gore.”

They’re trying, of course, to hasten back memories of the bad-old-days when Bush did not steal the election (per the NY Times) and regular people would not countenance locked doors, closed shades and weird recounts. I think they should be careful about dredging up those days. Florida may have seen protests by Pale Men in Bermuda Shorts and Socks but Gore and the left did not exactly cover themselves in glory in 2000, either.

Here is a look at these well-dressed fake protesters.

It seems to me the Bushies handled dissent better than the Obamites. If you don’t believe me you might find this enlightening

A Study in Contrast

By Brian Faughnan | Aug. 5, 2009 10:49 a.m.

Given the debate over the legitimacy of protests against the Democratic agenda on health care, cap-and-trade, and the economy generally, I thought it might be instructive to look at how the last administration addressed protests against its policies.

White House officials meet with Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war protesters:

About 70 anti-war protesters shouted "bring the troops home" from Iraq near President Bush's ranch on Saturday, prompting two White House officials to come out to meet with mothers who lost children in combat in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin listened to the concerns of Cindy Sheehan and five or six other mothers in a meeting that lasted about 45 minutes, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. Duffy said Sheehan told the two officials she appreciated the meeting.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on Anti-war protesters:

I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known,"

White House Press Secretary Trent Duffy on anti-war protests:

The American people have a right to protest, and the right of free speech is something that we're fighting for in this war on terror, to preserve that right of free speech. So the President welcomes opinions from all Americans.

Rumsfeld stops security from removing protester:

Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of antiwar sentiment.

“Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?” asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

“I did not lie,” shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Iraq protests:

The President talked about some of this the other day in remarks at the Pentagon. He recognizes that there are differences of opinion on Iraq and our role in the broader Middle East. Some people want us to withdraw from Iraq and withdraw from the Middle East. They are well-intentioned.

Interesting. How does that compare with the Obama White House?

The Democratic National Committee addresses health care protests:

The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.

However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year where crowds were baited with cries of 'socialist,' 'communist,' and where the birthers movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.

These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington. Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes.

The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the President's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 – and it is bound to backfire again.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on health care protests:

"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astroturf nature of grass-roots lobbying," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during a morning off-camera session in his office with reporters.

"This is manufactured anger," he said.

Well, you can say one thing for the Obama administration: they have brought genuine change to the way the White House addresses dissent.

And as to charges of fakery and David-Axelrod-Invented “astroturfing” (projection, anyone?) at the townhall meetings, I have yet to see anything confirming or proving the allegation that “the evil insurance companies are bussing these people in,” but I do see that Americans are eager to attend these town halls, which rather belies the charge. The fact that I know ordinary people who have attended some of these meetings – not because they’ve been “organized” or “bussed in” like ACORN protesters, but simply because they heard about a meeting and got off their duffs to attend – belies the DNC-approved-Chris-Matthews-embraced narrative,too, but I wouldn’t expect anecdotals to convince.

Hmmmm…I wonder if I will be expected to Obey and Inform on them like a good citizen?

Forwarding an email of his own, Obama rallies the troops by crying – once again – “this is our moment!”. Sort of like astroturfing or umm..attempting to manufacture support. Allahpundit notes the hypocrisy/creepiness factor: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/05/cult-leader-to-followers-get-out-there-and-get-in-peoples-faces-on-health-care/

Meanwhile, Rep. Doggett is annoyed that the people who elected him to represent them dare be upset that he’s going to vote against their wishes. What do they think this is, after all? A representative democracy, or something?

Finally, I got a comment yesterday that I did not allow, since it broke the rules about threatening me with death. Let me just say that if you are desirous of “beating” me “to death,” you are not following the Obama Rules. You’re not supposed to flagellate me. You’re supposed to flag me, and my fishy facts, which are stubborn things.

Go. Inform. Obey.

Good grief.

2009-08-05T10:42:00.000-07:00

When you can’t stand the heat…
By Michelle Malkin • August 5, 2009 01:35 PM

…hold your congressional town hall in a children’s hospital to avoid tough questions.

It’s the Democrat human shield strategy at work again. Kenneth Wallis in Little Rock reports on Rep. Vic Snyder’s plan to evade constituent accountability:

Just called Arkansas Children’s Hospital 501-364-1100 to confirm and get details. Vic Snyder will have a townhall meeting at 1pm at the Chairman’s Hall in the Sturgis Building Wednesday 080509. I asked them about the radio announcement stating the meeting was at 2pm. Bonnie from Arkansas Children’s Hospital stated that it was a 2pm and that it has been changed to 1pm. I also confirmed that the event would be open to the public. It has been recommended that people not go to protest in anger due to the fact that there will be ill children and their families at the hospital. Snyder decided to hide in a hosptial when he realized that he would face angry constituents.

Grrrrrr.

2009-08-05T10:09:00.001-07:00

Okay. This is in my own words.

Is Barbara Boxer for real? What has she been drinking? Or smoking? She and her ilk are showing their paranoia of late!

I can't believe how much the left denigrates Senator Michelle Bachman when they have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer running loose!

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that only the left has the right to assemble and voice opinions on subjects? Where does it say that only the left can question the country's leaders?

The questions being asked at these town hall meetings by CONCERNED citizens are fair questions! They are concerned and HAVE THE RIGHT to ask these questions, to question the president and his motives. They HAVE THE RIGHT to face off with THEIR REPRESENTATIVES with disagreements! But hey! The left can't stand the fact that folks on the right have brains! They can't stand the thought that someone on the right might have a valid point! They can't stand the fact that, golly, common sense really DOES exist. No, they send out their Boxers, and their Gibbs', and their internet gestapo and accuse the right of planting these people at the town hall meetings to "hurt the president"! Whine some more, Babs. It's about the only thing you know how to do.

Barbara Boxer believes she is entitled to respect because she "earned" her position?? Uh, NEWS FLASH, Babs!! You didn't EARN your position; unfortunately, you were ELECTED to your position. YOU should be the one showing respect to the people of this nation! But by accusing the right of "planting" health care naysayers, you are showing yourself to be the pompous, conceited, self-absorbed woman that you are. You don't give a rat's patootie about anyone or anything outside of your own little space.

"The same Democrat Masters of Astroturf who encouraged their followers to use “in your face” tactics during the campaign season now balk at vocal opposition from their fiscally conservative neighbors and co-workers. Obama’s architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now, they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health care takeover legislation (which no one has read) of orchestrating “manufactured anger.”" MM

Manufactured anger. Cracks me up. I don't have to manufacture MY anger. People like Boxer, Pelosi, Linda Douglas, Chris Matthews, Keith Overblast do it for me.

People have genuine concern about the direction our country is headed. They have genuine concern about this health care proposal, which no one has read. They have genuine concern about our freedoms being chipped away. Why is that so hard for the left to accept? They had their concerns when Bush was in office, when Palin ran for VP, when the cow jumped over the moon! But when someone who disagrees with The Won steps up to the mic and asks valid questions, it's "manufactured anger"? That's what manufactures MY anger. The hypocrisy and double standard of the left is where the anger lies. And it's getting mighty old.

The Guffaw of The Day

2009-08-05T10:05:00.000-07:00

Boxer: Protesters too well dressed to be sincere

posted at 10:55 am on August 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) appeared on Hardball last night in support of the Left’s attempt to discredit the people showing up to townhalls in protest of ObamaCare. Boxer says she can tell that they’re fakes, because they’re too well dressed. How does she know that this is a problem? Because well-dressed people apparently told her to get the hell out of Florida in the Bush-Gore recount, too.

That explanation is a classic. If it’s true at all, she probably stunned the Floridians with the sheer stupidity of her non-sequitur. Ronald Reagan would not have gone into Florida to tell them how to conduct their recount; he had too much respect for state sovereignty in those issues. I almost laughed out loud when Boxer trotted that out on national TV.

On her main point, we’ve hosted the videos here at Hot Air. In my recollection, the people in the town halls are dressed in T-shirts, jeans, shorts, halter tops, and the like. Maybe the people need to strip down to their Boxers in order to be considered sincere.

Brian Walsh, communications director of the NRSC, responds to Boxer’s weird bout of sartorial paranoia:

“When you consider that Barbara Boxer considers Code Pink and MoveOn.org protestors to be ‘her base,’ it’s understandable that a Senator representing the left wing fringe would be confused when ordinary Americans engage in free speech. But the fact of the matter is that across the country, Americans of all backgrounds are standing up and saying ‘no’ to the Democrats spending and health-care takeover proposals.”

And Americans of all clothing tastes as well.

Damn straight it's to "change Congress", ma'am!

Shall we bow to the food nazis?

2009-08-04T07:28:00.001-07:00

My 200th post!! Thank you, Lori Borgman!

Frying squads aim at hot dogs – and you
Lori Borgman | Monday, Aug 03, 2009

It’s been a bad week for backyard cookouts and anyone who enjoys food in general. First the food police put a bounty on hot dogs.

Food vigilantes and their frying squads have targeted more than 100 foods with their scientific studies and attacks. They won’t relent until we’re all slurping seaweed and snacking on wheat berries.

If having hot dogs and brats disrespected at the peak of summer wasn’t bad enough, the Senate Finance Committee announced they were considering taxing soda. Like a three-cent tax per can is going to fund health care and create a stampede for broccoli flowerets.

The crusaders are gunning for curvy people -- the ample, the plump, the generous, the Rubenesque and the outright obese.

Now that the pool of smokers has shrunk, they need a new target. It is essential that the movers and shakers always have someone else to move and shake.

The only thing more annoying than a crazed anti-smoking crusader is a smug thin person.

As a nation, we are, well, round. We know we’re round. Every time we turn around – and give me a little space could you? – a headline tells us we’re round. And a headline beside that offers a recipe for rocky road double fudge brownies.

If the Feds want to control what the rest of us eat, they may want to clean out their own'fridge first. The new Surgeon General isn’t exactly willowy and Barney Frank would be the first to admit that’s not an all-wheel drive Goodyear tire wrapped around his middle.

It used to be it was a mother’s job to tell you what to eat, not a senator’s job. It’s only a matter of time before the president appoints a Calorie Czar. Paging Jenny Craig.

Feeding people isn’t new to the Feds. They’ve been menu planning for our children for some time. A teacher friend found it ironic that students who get breakfast at school had a donut in one hand and were touching their toes with the other as part of the school’s fitness program.

Eat. Exercise. Eat. Exercise. Bend there, done that.

We’re not the only ones whose government is nosing in on our eating habits. The Brits conducted a trial door-to-door campaign in January in which officials called on households asking residents what they were cooking, talked about portion size, dispensed dietary advice and offered tips on what to do with leftovers.

Our roundness, like every other social problem, is best addressed at a smaller and more intimate level like, say, the family. Or the community. Or even our churches. Once upon a time we solved problems ourselves without facing the Potomac and bowing to Washington.

It is an individual and family choice to make the time to cook at home, to make sweets, junk and eating out the occasional treat and not a staple. It is a personal choice to get off your duff and get outside, to bike, hike, shoot hoops, walk not drive, take the stairs and generally get the lead out.

You can’t coerce someone into losing weight – although that female trainer on the “Biggest Loser” sure comes close. You can’t tax someone into losing weight. The decisions on what to eat, when, where and if to exercise, are personal. At least they used to be. When government gets their nose in your cupboard, the scales are out of whack.

We may be pudgy, but we’re not stupid.

Posters, part II

2009-08-04T06:08:00.000-07:00

But again, my more rational pal, The Anchoress, makes sense with this:

For reasons that baffle me, a big deal is being made over someone photoshopping the president’s face into a representation of The Joker from the The Dark Knight. The LA Times, eager to play the racism card says “the only thing missing is the noose.”

Whaaa?

Now, I can see if someone had taken a picture of President Obama and photoshopped whiteface for spite and without context, (or, for that matter, blackface as done here to Michael Steele) then one might have a credible case for crying “racism.”

But this is making a clear reference to a known fictional character called The Joker, and there is clearly the word “Socialism” beneath the portrait. This is political commentary; whoever came up with it is using a familiar visual image, and giving us an actual word which delivers a two-point message: he or she thinks the president is a joke, and a socialist.

This -until very recently- used to be called “free speech.” It is protected in this country, and thought very highly of. And protest or dissent, we have been told, is the very highest form of patriotism.

For that matter, using The Joker for political commentary has been done before, and more menacingly: (insert Bush's joker face)

More reaction here:

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says [Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari] Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

Whaaa?

We just went through 8 years of President Bush being called Hitler and photoshopped as Hitler, as Mussolini, as Saturn Devouring One of His Own Children.

Obama’s predecessor endured 8 Years of Assassination Fascination. Actually, the “Assassinate Bush Chic” began even before the 2000 election, when Craig Kilborn flashed “snipers wanted” under a picture of Bush. So-called “newsmen” like Keith Olbermann repeatedly called the president “a fascist” and “a terrorist.” And Obama supporters can’t handle The Joker and the word “Socialism”?

Politics is ugly, and it is often over-the-top but that’s not new. Photoshop happens; it’s a free country. I myself have been photoshopped next to a dancing condom, a commentary on my annoying habit of being a Catholic.

Bob Owens amuses himself thusly:

Frankly, I don’t get it. One embraces terrorists and madmen, is dedicated to anarchy and the destruction of capitalist society, and sends the population fleeing in horror from his creations. The other is a fictional character played by the late Heath Ledger.

Uh-oh. That sounds almost like a late-night talkshow sort of joke, doesn’t it? Are late-night comics yet making those sorts of jokes about Obama, or is he still Obama-the-Unmockable? To be fair, the “hands-off-Obama” thing seemed to come out of Hollywood’s own instinct to kneel, and not “by decree.” Just as Bush managed to roll with the non-stop punches throughout his presidency, I think Obama is cool enough to roll with this little picture.

This Obama/Joker portrait is actually heartening to me. I may not have liked the press’ incessant attacks on Bush, and some of the uglier media put out about him, but I never found any of that as worrying as I have found the unquestioning incuriosity of the Obama-press, or the inclination by some to treat him as something more than a mortal politician voted into office by the people. The self-censoring we have seen in media has been sad and a little chilling. More chilling than any of the pics used here.

Besides, Obama has his face plastered all over America. One of the newsweeklies has had him on the cover 12 times in 12 months. One little poster shouldn’t get his supporters so hot and bothered. In the end, they might prefer it to this.

As Hillary Clinton famously yelled, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”

Free speech. It might be the very best thing about America, even when it irks.

Posters

2009-08-04T05:57:00.000-07:00

My liberal friends will be happy to know that even I find this despicable:

But let's not forget this:

HELP!

2009-08-03T12:30:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Times on the President and the GI Bill;

Before a crowd of roughly 350 people, Mr. Obama recalled how President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the original GI Bill in 1944, which led to an education for 8 million service members, including the president’s grandfather who helped raise him.

“I wouldn’t be standing here today if it was not for the GI Bill,” he said, while flanked by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and retired Sen. John Warner, who worked on the legislation. “By 1947, half of the people enrolled in college were veterans.”

I don’t understand. Can someone explain that to me?

Sound familiar?

2009-08-03T07:00:00.001-07:00

November 26, 2008

Daschle-Obama Health Care Possibilities

By Tony Blankley

As President-elect Obama's apparent choice for health and human services secretary and as White House health care czar, it is a fair guess that Tom Daschle's view on health care legislation may be decisive.

So it is worth reading his book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," in which the gracious former Senate leader lays out without equivocation both the policy he recommends and the tactics for how to pass it.

He proposes setting up a board to establish standards for health care delivery in the United States that would be modeled on how the Federal Reserve Board and Securities and Exchange Commission oversee banks and corporations. Technically, it only would oversee the public health systems (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, etc.), which provide about 32 percent of health care nationwide.

On Page 179, he writes, "The Federal Health Board wouldn't be a regulatory agency, but its recommendations would have teeth because all federal health programs would have to abide by them." But here is the kicker: Although his board technically would have no say on the 68 percent of health care that is provided through the private sector, at the bottom of Page 179, Daschle modestly adds: "Congress could opt to go further with the Board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendation."

Those last 19 words would spell the end of independent private-sector health care in America. Obviously, no health insurance would be sold if it were denied the tax deduction. Thus, every policy, every standard decided by this board would be the law of the land for every drug company, every hospital, every doctor and every health insurance company.

Indeed, 20 pages later, in the section in which he identifies "losers" under his plan, Daschle is admirably candid. Among the explicit "losers," he includes: "Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to alternatives. Some insurers might object to new rules that restrict their coverage decisions. And the health-care industry would have to reconsider its business plan (emphasis added)." That is to say, they can stay in business and deliver their services, but only as the government bureaucrats say they may. They no longer would be genuinely independent.

One of the things that Daschle says will have to change is the "technology arms race" he claims hospitals are engaging in "to attract aging baby boomers with the latest diagnostic imaging machines." Imagine that, offering customers the latest technology, which, as Daschle admits on Page 125, "help(s) doctors estimate the spread of cancer or the extent of cardiac disease without surgery."

Of course, for Daschle, the problem with such high-tech diagnostics is that it leads to treatment. On pages 123-124, he cites a study approvingly for the proposition that there are too many angiograms being performed. By too many, he specifically cites a study of 828 angioplasties in which only a third were likely to benefit the patients. Another half might or might not, and 14 percent were not likely. Now I might conclude that if 85 percent of the patients receiving the treatment might benefit (the one-third who definitely would and the 50 percent who might) and if I were one of them, I might want the procedure. But for Daschle, that would be a waste of money, and "the imaging test that shows narrowing of the arteries was to blame (for the excessive treatment)."

What followed is my favorite line in the book: "When the test revealed a narrowing of the artery, however slight, cardiologists couldn't resist doing something about it." Imagine a doctor trying to cure his patient.

Cardiologists may have thought they were carrying out their responsibilities. But under the Daschle(/Obama?) plan, political hacks appointed to the Health board will decide whether your cardiologist is allowed to image your arteries and, if they find blockage, try to treat it successfully.

But that is not all he doesn't like about private-sector health care. On Page 174, he points out the dangers of letting drug companies advertise their products to the public: The public may want the drugs even if some Washington bureaucrat likes another drug instead.

He believes that Americans are not entitled to just any care that might do some good. Yep, Page 122: "Many patients with insurance want any care that might do some good, and plenty of doctors will oblige them."

Recognizing that some of these ideas may not be vastly popular, he recommends two basic legislative strategies. First, seek to pass the legislation early in the first year of the president's first term, when he is most popular and is least likely to be resisted. That is a valid analysis.

The other strategy, which is very smart, is to leave the nasty details out of the bill. He says that was one of Clinton's mistakes in 1993. Clinton put too many details in the bill, thus alerting those who disagreed to mount an opposition (pages 108-109). Daschle recommends passing a vague bill and then "a Federal Health Board should be charged with establishing the system's framework and filling in most of the details. This independent board would be insulated from political pressure."

By "political pressure," he means the democratic process of electing fellow citizens to Congress who then pass legislation about which the public is informed before final passage -- and about which they may wish to petition their government for redress of grievances. Apparently, we can end petty bickering and partisanship by not letting anyone know what the new laws will contain.

Egads.

2009-08-03T06:56:00.001-07:00

Too Poor to Pay

By The Prowler on 8.3.09 @ 6:09AM

Recently, high-profile visitors to the White House, including senior corporate executives, have found themselves paying for their own meals when sitting down with President Barack Obama, something unheard of in previous White Houses, according to former aides to President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton.

Thus far, there have been at least three instances -- the most recent coming last Friday -- where CEOs or other non-political guests were asked before arriving to the West Wing to provide credit card information so that their meals could be billed to them. According to one source, the meals cost between $20 and $40. "That's not including tip," the current White House aide quipped.

The White House has officially stated that reason to charge for the meals is to remove any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, according to a statement put out by White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki. But there are no rules barring the President from buying lunch for guests, whether through the White House budget or his own wallet.

In fact, those presidential employees with guest privileges at the White House dining room, known as the "mess," cannot charge their guests' lunch to White House accounts. With a few exceptions, all employees pay for their guests out of their own pocket.

So, with no ethics issue barring the President from buying his guests lunch, what are the reasons? According to another White House source, the Obama Administration in its first 200 days may have burned through much of its budgets for the Executive Residence and the White House's annual entertainment account.

"We've done a lot more entertaining than previous administrations have," says the White House aide. "The whispering here is that we're over budget and where we can, we're trying to save money."

However, when journalists were feted with other friends of the White House on the South Lawn last month, with dunk tanks, food and drink, they were not asked to pay for their entertainment.

Letter to the Editor

Comments

MissButterfly| 8.3.09 @ 6:30AM

Trying to solve the budget problem this way is like trying to get rid of raging flood waters with a teaspoon.
This whole adminstration is a joke!

Don L| 8.3.09 @ 6:49AM

So they can't manage a simple whitehouse food budget and they can't manage a simple Cash for CLunkers -- I just will love Obmacare when operations will come complete with a raincheck to get your sutures later -after Congress ups the budget.

What fools we are - Voting for our own suicide as a nation.

Robert Rosencrans| 8.3.09 @ 7:10AM

This article requires a historical update.

"Let them pay to eat cake!"

She is so funny -- and without filth, too!

2009-08-03T06:44:00.000-07:00

Government takeover-health care. YES THEY CAN!

2009-08-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

Cash for Clunkers, aka, Big Brother is Watching You!

2009-08-02T14:32:00.001-07:00

Even if you despise Glenn Beck and everything he stands for and think he's an insane, "cry baby" (via Newshounds), set aside the hate and vitriol and watch this video. It's an eye opener. I'd heard about this earlier today and it made me sick to my stomach. Sad part is, people will think this is okay, mostly because it's Obamanomics. Can you say, 1984???

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/31/glenn_beck_exposes_carsgov_privacy_agreement_that_taps_into_users_pc.html

Sing it, Ray!!! Listen, Obama and Congress!!

2009-08-02T14:12:00.000-07:00

Arrogance and Compassion -- a comparison

2009-08-01T05:46:00.000-07:00

as compared to

Comments, PLEASE!

2009-07-31T14:15:00.001-07:00

Come on, guys!!!! I need comments and feedback! Let me hear from you. Poor Jo is doing all the work! :)

10 Reasons Obamacare is Bad

2009-07-31T14:14:00.001-07:00

One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill: Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America

1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans—whether employer plans or individual plans—would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.

3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.

4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions

5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?

7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these exclusions do not exist.

9. It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.

10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before—with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours—without reading it—or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

Author: Rory Cooper

Disgust

2009-07-31T06:49:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most disgusting things I've read or seen in recent months. No big surprise, but appallingly disgusting.

Roseanne Barr Dressed as Hitler Bakes Burnt 'Jew Cookies'

By Noel Sheppard
July 30, 2009 - 13:25 ET

As NewsBusters has chronicled over the years, Roseanne Barr has a history of doing and saying some truly disgraceful things, but this one really takes the cake...or the cookie in this case.

Her most-recent tailspin into the gutter involved a photo shoot with Heeb magazine wherein she is seen wearing an Adolf Hitler moustache and swastika as she takes burnt gingerbread "Jew Cookies" out of an oven (pictured right).

In another, in same costume, she is shown about to take a bite out of one of these burnt cookies.

The article associated with these disgusting pictures claimed:

As the “Domestic Goddess” dons the famous moustache, transforming into “Domestic Goddess Hitler,” I notice that she’s beginning to have fun. She nails the Fuehrer’s facial expressions with twisted glee, and as she takes the burnt gingerbread “Jew Cookies” out of the oven it occurs to me that Barr may be the last celebrity utterly incapable of giving a f**k—a quality theoretically easy to embody until it’s time to face the practical repercussions. “Franklin Ajae, Paul Mooney, Mort Sahl and Dick Gregory’s passings will tear my kishkas out,” Barr laments. “They gave everything they had to just tell the truth, and they couldn’t make a decent living because of the choice they made—not selling out to Hollywood.”

Well, I'm not sure what I'd like to do with her kishkas, but I do have to wonder why a magazine targeting Jewish readers would find this appropriate. A quick look at Wikipedia provided some answers:

It has become known for its satire and sardonic approach to reaching Jewish readers of all streams. One phony ad campaign that was designed to make a point was an application for “new United Nations ambassadors”. It was a mail-in test that determined just how anti-Israel the test taker was, and the more against Israel you tested, the better the chance you had of being accepted. Heeb reported that they actually received hundreds of applicants. In a late 2006 edition, a live pig was photographed running across a traditional Sabbath dinner table. Heeb’s satirist, David Deutsch, who used his own table to stage the photos asked his rabbi if it were kosher to use a live pig on his table for this purpose, as pig meat is considered unkosher. His rabbi said that kashrus wasn't a problem, but recommended that he wash the table afterwards.

The magazine is decidedly anti-establishment and left-wing. It frequently criticizes mainstream American Jewish culture, most famously in an article entitled "Joe Lieberman is a Dickhead." The author of the piece took Lieberman to task for favoring an increase in military spending. Other writers who have contributed to Heeb include Allen Salkin, who wrote "Where Have You Gone Sandy Koufax?", an article about Jews obsessed with Jews in sports, and "Why are We So Guilty?".

Maybe I need to get a better sense of humor 'cause I'm not sure I'm getting the joke. Apparently, neither did one of the magazine's readers:

lobster says,

07.30.09 at 11:07 am

I think to top it off, she should go to a synagogue, grab her crotch and spit on the torah, then botch the opening canting lines to Bar Mitzvah rites..

I'm hoping lobster was being facetious.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Give Me a Tea Party Anytime -- good grief

2009-07-31T06:43:00.000-07:00

Providence Journal Buries the Lede in Pepper-Spray Assault on Conservatives
Photo of Matthew Balan.
By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
July 30, 2009 - 16:04 ET

Graphic from traditional marriage protest in Augusta, Maine (courtesy the American TFP) | NewsBusters.orgThe Providence Journal’s coverage of the assault on traditional marriage advocates in Warwick, Rhode Island on July 28 has consistently downplayed how pepper spray was used on the conservative protesters, in favor of how food was thrown at them.

ProJo.com’s Wednesday report on the attack ran with the headline, “Same-sex marriage protesters assaulted with food,” and didn’t mention the pepper spray until the second-to-last paragraph. The following morning, reporter Kate Branson used a more nuanced headline (“Update: 4 accused of hurling food at activists in Warwick”), but at least mentioned the pepper spray in the second paragraph.

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, also known as the American TFP, is a conservative Catholic group based in the central Pennsylvania town of Spring Grove, and supported by hundreds of thousands of donors all over the U.S. They are conducting a “traditional marriage crusade” in the northeastern states of New York, Rhode Island, and Maine. “Caravans” of their young volunteers are traveling across those three states, and stop at busy intersections, holding signs expressing their support of traditional marriage, which they believe to be a sacrament.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

One of their “caravans” stopped in Warwick on the 28th. According to their press release, the TFP volunteers were at a “busy intersection, getting strong support for traditional marriage.” Then the assault began: “Three women approached us -- one threw mayonnaise, while the other two grappled with our photographer. Then we were sprayed with mace. Finally, a burly woman got out of a car and punched our photographer in the face. They shouted obscenities the whole time.”

The Providence Journal’s two reports on the assault corroborate their account. Reporter Maria Armental filed the first one just before 5 pm on Wednesday. She did not mention the American TFP’s name during the report, and focused almost entirely on the “assaulted with food” component of her headline:

The police are investigating an assault Tuesday on Bald Hill Road.

The weapon of choice: soda, salsa, eggs ...

“Your basic garden variety of food condiments,” Capt. Robert Nelson said Wednesday.

It started as the four men stood at the median on Bald Hill Road and East Avenue around 2:40 p.m. protesting against same-sex marriage.

The location, Nelson noted, afforded them a roomy median and prime visibility.

They caught the attention of a group of women in one of the cars.

The women, who apparently objected to their message, flung a soda bottle at the men and vowed to return.

And back they were, about 15 minutes later, hurling at the men a mélange of food ingredients and drinks and a full repertoire of profanities, Nelson said.

One of the women swashed a protester with pepper spray.

No one was hurt and no arrests have been made, Nelson said.

“No one was hurt”? Pepper spray was used during the attack, and, according to the TFP’s press release, “the Catholic group was pepper sprayed, punched and sustained head injuries.”

Kate Branson’s report, which was posted just after noon on Thursday, gave additional details, as well as announcing that arrests had been made in the case. The American TFP’s corporate name, the Foundation for Christian Civilization, Inc., was used in the story:

The salsa and eggs stopped flying, but the police continued to investigate. Now four young women face charges of assault and disorderly conduct.

They’re accused of hurling food and drinks and spraying pepper spray at a group of men who stood in the median on Bald Hill Road and East Avenue Tuesday afternoon carrying signs supporting traditional marriage, Capt. Robert Nelson said Thursday morning....

Wearing suits and red sashes draped over their shoulders, the group also was in Providence earlier this week, and an account of that is posted on the group's site as well, with an author’s name listed as Richard Lyon. That’s the same name of a 43-year-old man who is listed on the Warwick police report as a witness to the apparent attack in that city.

The men told the police that women driving in a Honda Civic stopped near the median where the men carried a sign and banner, then hurled a bottle at the men once the light turned green.

The car pulled away. “We’ll be back!” the men said one of the car’s occupants yelled.

The men saw the car park nearby, according to the police report, and one told the police the women then “made a beeline to us, shouting at us with bottles in their hands.”

Thursday evening, the police arrested four women: Melissa Migliaccio, 22, of 506 Phoenix Ave. in Cranston; Amanda L. Zangrilli, 23, of 54 Curson St., No. 4, in West Warwick; Kristen A. Scungio, 19, also of the Curson Street address; and a 17-year-old female from Pontiac Street in Warwick, whom the police have not named because she is a juvenile.

All are charged with at least one charge of battery or simple assault, and with disorderly conduct. The 17-year-old faces a more serious charge as well -- felony assault with a dangerous weapon or substance, according to the police.

Now, imagine if the situation was reversed, and a bunch of same-sex “marriage” supporters were assaulted in Rhode Island by four young conservatives armed with pepper spray. Would the Providence Journal play up the airborne picnic items?

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

The Anchoress Does It Again!

2009-07-31T06:29:00.001-07:00

How does this woman get inside my head?? THANK YOU, Ms. Anchoress for so clearly saying what goes through the mind of a harried, old woman.

“Immoral Villains!” sez Nancy “Queeg” Pelosi
Friday, July 31, 2009, 12:47 AM
The_Anchoress

Okay, I’ve decided that Nancy Pelosi (whose Native American name might be “Stands With An Angry Little Fist” ala “Dancing With Wolves”) is beginning to sound like a paranoid lunatic who can find a convenient villain any time she needs one, as Tom Elia points out here.

Thus spaketh The Pelosi:

“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”

Well, and why should they, considering Barney Frank -in an unscripted moment- has admitted that the public option will mean a government take-over of health care. And that will be true, even if the “public plan” starts to be called “the co-ops” instead.

But I digress. More Pelosi:

“… It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” added Pelosi, who stood outside her office long after her press conference ended to continue speaking to reporters, even as aides tried in vain to usher her inside. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure with pre-existing conditions, you know, the litany of it all.”

“They’ve been immoral all along.” Gosh, it wasn’t so long ago we were being told that people in power had no business dictating morality to the rest of us. How quickly things change.

You know what might REALLY be immoral? Putting the health care of the nation in the hands of people who can’t manage a car buy-back program for ten days without going broke.

The Obama administration is telling lawmakers that its much-touted “cash-for-clunkers” program is already running out of money, according to three Senate aides familiar with the discussions. . .in the one week since it took effect, it appears to have run dry of the $1 billion allocated to it, aides said Thursday.

In simple English:

“Note that the program started on July 1, they only published the actual rules Friday and they’re still working out how to get the dealers their money. . .what’s essentially happening here is that car dealerships are giving $4,500 interest-free, unguaranteed loans to the federal government… and the determination of whether or not those loans get paid off is more or less going to be at the discretion of mid-level bureaucrats at the NHTSA.”

MMMhhmmmm, that’s just the sort of incompetent, inefficient nightmare bureaucracy I want managing my health care! The billion-dollar program is already broke, even though the dealers haven’t been paid. And the White House is considering asking for “more money”?

Let’s take another look at that handy budget chart, and pity these poor dealers who are just trying to stay in business and keep people employed and have no idea when they’ll ever see a dime of their $4,500 advances paid back.

Please note: Pelosi is not the only one running around pointing the finger and shrieking “villain!” The Democrats are scolding their obedient-monkey-press. Bad, bad mediamonkies!

Senate Democratic leaders on Thursday blamed Capitol Hill media for setting an August deadline for health reform and Republicans for blocking the bill’s progress. . . . [Sen Harry] Reid said reporters created a fictitious deadline of a successful vote by the August recess, and downplayed the fact that the chamber won’t meet that mark.

“That is a deadline that you created,” Reid told a group of about 75 reporters. “It’s not like we don’t have a product. Significant progress has been made …

The White House, meanwhile, is pointing at poor Jake Tapper -one of the few newsmen willing to do more than drool in the presence of Obama- and crying “villain, damned scaring villain” for bringing up the possible unintended consequences of government-run health care. Never mind that the White House has used the rhetoric of panic, emergency, crisis and dire-circumstances for pretty much every new policy they’ve rammed on us for the past seven months.

Ah, well, we’re told that America likes the political theater of healing, and maybe cynics are cynics because they’ve been proven right so often.

After all, Senator Dianne Feinstein can have some annoyingly determined senior citizens arrested without much notice.

Senator Barbara Boxer can haughtily tell a Brigadier General to “call me Senator”, like an insecure kid playing dress-up, and then she can advise an accomplished African American businessman and veteran that another African American “would be proud,” to be testifying at her tea party, and still be called “senator.”

President Obama can spend years denouncing his predecessor for pushing legislation through without adequate review and then do a much more dramatic job of it, himself, with nary a raised eyebrow from the press.

President Obama can also win an election by saying noble stuff like this:

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States.” — Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

…and then spend his first 6 months in office maintaining every one of Bush’s extensions of executive power while bringing over 30 Czars (with more on the way) who are unaccountable-to-Congress (or to you and me) into his inner circle -one of whom is quite a creepy ghoul- and there is no carrying on about the immorality of it all, not in the press and -to their shame- not by many of the loyal opposition, either.

The president and his Secretary of State can put the weight of America behind their support of a power-grabbing socialist despot, over the constitution of a sovereign nation like Honduras, very few people are asking about it.

And the President’s Right-Hand Man? Aw, he’s got a doctor-brother, named Ezekiel, who is also an Obama adviser and Ezekiel says:

“communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. . . medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ‘96).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” (Lancet, Jan. 31).

Remember when the people who thought such things were, like, nazis, and stuff? Big inhale here: I love the smell of re-worked morality in the morning papers!

But that does raise a really good question, though: Who is going to tell ill-but-beloved celebrities that they should go ahead and die, before anyone notices that some patients are more valuable than others in this “carefully crafted piece of legislation” – one that the legislators can’t even be bothered to read before they cast their “ayes”.

Oh, morality. Redefined.

Oh, villains, everywhere you look.

Oh, poor, paranoid Pelosi, just trying to protect us from the villains, the damned smiling villains! Frankly, I don’t think we need her help finding villains.

Quick question: Can Congress declare a mutiny? If so, could someone please impinge on some of Pelosi’s protective strawberry-scented air and expose her, once and for all?

By Ed Morrissey

2009-07-30T14:26:00.001-07:00

Tort reform the key to cutting health-care costs?
posted at 10:12 am on July 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

So argues IBD Editorials, and they claim they have the data to prove it. According to data from a study performed by the accounting group Pricewaterhouse Cooper, malpractice actions account for at least 10% of all medical costs — 2% by jacking up legal insurance and as much as 9% from the defensive medicine lawsuits create. Instead of looking at overhauling the nation’s health-care system, we should pursue tort reform, and points the finger at a rather well-known former candidate for President:

Trial lawyers helped create a medical crisis through malpractice suits that raise costs while driving doctors from their practices.

Old Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards won $175 million in judgments over a 12-year period suing doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, everyone but the candy stripers, over infant cerebral palsy cases allegedly caused by mishandled deliveries.

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in a study in 2003, cerebral palsy could not be blamed in the “vast majority” of cases on delivery trouble. Edwards enriched himself by using bad science to bankrupt innocent physicians. …

The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers says about 10% of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5% to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.

I’ve heard this claim made a number of times, but have not seen much data in support of it. Certainly it costs providers something, and the explosion in lawsuits have made it a lot more expensive in recent years. Edwards is a good example of attorneys who latch onto particular specialties in malpractice actions and exploit them for all they’re worth — usually socking it to the insurers who cover the providers. Afterward, everyone wonders why insurers have to keep hiking their rates for coverage and reassessing the risks for new applicants.

However, that doesn’t fully explain the ongoing increases in care or in premiums. The rapid development of technology and therapies also means higher costs as we succeed in curing disease or allowing people to cope with them. The Washington Post noted that over forty years the likelihood of dying from a heart attack went from around 50-50 to 6% — but that the costs of treating that heart attack had increased rapidly during that period. It costs a lot of money to rescue people from death, and usually those rescued don’t gripe about the bill when it comes. Also, the 44% of people whose lives are saved will live long enough to use more medical care, raising the overall costs of care over their lifetimes.

However, the biggest driver of health-care cost increases come from our inefficient insurance model, and ObamaCare only makes it worse. In our present model, consumers are disconnected from costs by third party intervention, either insurers or the government in the case of Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Because consumers do not deal with prices, they do not efficiently use the medical system and their resources. In markets without third-party intervention, such as Lasik and plastic surgery, we see much more efficient pricing through competition, which also promotes an expansion of providers from the incentives of market payment.

IBD-E’s argument works across the entirety of the American economy, which is too vulnerable to predatory lawsuits. If Congress passed sensible tort reform that creates substantial penalties for plaintiffs and their attorneys for filing nuisance suits and baseless claims — in other words, make them bear the costs of abuse rather than the defendants — we could lift a serious burden from the entire economy, not just the health-care industry. However, as long as Democrats remain married to the trial lawyers, the chances of that kind of reform approach zero.

From DailyKos. Isn't it lovely? Such intellect and maturity.

2009-07-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

I'm a Republican: F*** you
by Sue in NH
Digg this! Share this on Twitter - I'm a Republican: F*** youTweet this submit to reddit Share This
Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:02:54 PM PDT
I'm a republican. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I have my own pile of money. F*** you.

I'm a republican. My kids go to private school. I don't care about your kids, or public schools. When my kids are better educated than yours, they will get better jobs and make more money than your kids. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I have a job with health insurance. If you were not so lazy or stupid, you would have a good job with health insurance too. It sure is sad when you go bankrupt after a catastrophic health crisis, but its probably your own damn fault anyway. F*** you.

* Sue in NH's diary :: ::
*

I'm a republican. I'm a Christian. You are either a heathen, a raghead Muslim, or the wrong kind of Christian. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell. F*** you.

I'm a republican. It is not only my right, it's my duty to spread freedom and democracy around the world. If you don't understand that, F*** you.

I'm a republican. I have a condo in Vail, a summer home in Maine, and a beach house in Florida. We don't need any National Parks or protected forests. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I'm white. I'm perfect, and I'm not like all those brown, yellow and black people. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I live in a gated community. It's too bad about all the crime out there on the city streets, but that's your problem. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I hate taxes. Its my money. I earned it. I don't want to pay to support all you lazy, uneducated, pathetic poor people, least of all you teenage mothers (whores), you drug addicts and all you black boys. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I hate homosexuals. When I think of gay people, I think of of man-on-dog, horse on woman, threesomes, and other sexual fantasies, and that frightens me. If you are queer, or have a queer friend, F*** you.

I'm a republican. I was born rich, and I've become more rich, and damn it, since I can't take it all with me, I'm going to make sure my kids are just as stinking rich. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I'm never wrong. I know everything, never make a mistake, and can't learn anything from you, you damn ignorant pussy democrats. F*** you.

I'm a republican. My rights and civil liberties should be protected, but not yours, you terrorist loving, America hating, pansy liberal. F*** you.

I'm a republican. I hate you and everything you Democrats stand for, you fucking communists. F*** you.

Rage, rage, rage against the lying right.
Damn that felt good! Do you have anything to add?
Poll

How I really feel today is:
I hate republicans
8% 79 votes
I despise republicans
5% 52 votes
I loath republicans
8% 84 votes
all of the above
76% 719 votes

| 934 votes | Vote | Results

Are you kidding me . . . again??

2009-07-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

I am so glad this is my son's last year in high school. This is absolutely ridiculous. Our children are no longer taught (you can tell by the low scores on national tests), they are indoctrinated.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=7510421&referralPlaylistId=playlist

(I tried to embed the video itself, but could not get it to cooperate)

Addendum

2009-07-29T14:23:00.001-07:00

I meant to add this on my previous blog: What will happen to the urgency of stem cell research that The Won promised during his campaign in this new health care program? I'd just about bet it would die. What about children and adults with disabilities? What will happen to them? What about autistic children? Children with A.D.D.? Children with Spina Bifida? Babies in the womb with operable heart problems? Will they become "burdens" to society? How about adults with Alzheimer's? Children and adults with Down's Syndrome? Cancer patients? Research and development of drugs and treatments for all of the above? How far around the corner is euthanasia? I haven't heard of anything in The Won's health care program that provides much "hope" for a lot of folks.

My friend Ernie is anxiously awaiting a bone marrow transplant to prolong her life. Under Obamacare, would they even consider such a thing? Would they pick up the tabs for the testing necessary to find a compatible donor? All of this is very expensive! I worry about such things because it's all about saving money, not giving compassionate, necessary treatment. It's not about the people. It's all about the all-mighty dollar, which sickens me. Let a person die; save a buck.

As I said, we need health care reform, but HIS plan is NOT the right reform. Matter of fact, it reeks!

This is very interesting

2009-07-29T14:05:00.000-07:00

I know that Clinton gets SOOO much credit for his "balanced budget", but notice he had a Republican Congress. It makes a difference. All others, with the exception of GW, had Democratic Congresses and the spending and debt was out of control! The Repubs in the GW administration were trying too hard to please all the people all the time, instead of sticking to their convictions. Plus, we were fighting several wars.

I just find it astonishing that the left can find complain about budgets being out of balance under Republican presidents when Congress writes the bills to find ways to spend the money. This administration is different only in that Obama tells Congress what he wants and tells them to write whatever kind of bill they want so long as they put in what HE wants. Consequently, we have soaring deficits, and we're brinking on unsustainable debt. But, who cares?? He's The Won!

I'm struggling to understand the amount of tax we'll be paying, one way or another, to pay for this monster of a health care bill, should it pass. The Won says it won't add one dime to the deficits. How can it not??? We need health care reform, but not dictated or constructed by the government. We do not need Canadian or British health care. There are much better ideas that have been shared, but The Won won't listen to those ideas because they're NOT HIS! His pompous, arrogant self would be damned to hear of anything other than his own ideas. Just look at the people with which he surrounds himself.

I'm

A Little Ben Franklin

2009-07-29T14:01:00.000-07:00

Over the years, Franklin had been developing a social outlook that, in its mixture of liberal, populist and conservative ideas, would become one archetype of American middle-class philosophy. He exalted hard work, individual enterprise, frugality and self-reliance. On the other hand, he also pushed for civic cooperation, social compassion, and voluntary community improvement schemes. He was equally distrustful of the elite and the rabble, of ceding power to the well-born establishment or to an unruly mob. With his shopkeepers values, he cringed at class warfare. Bred into his bones was a belief in social mobility and the bootstrap values of rising through hard work.
…
[Welfare] laws were compassionate. But he warned that they could have unintended consequences and promote laziness. . . Not only did [Franklin] warn against welfare dependency, but he offered his own version of the trickle-down theory of economics. The more money made by the rich and by all of society, the more money that would make its way down to the poor. “The rich do not work for one another. . . Everything that they or their families use and consume is the produce of the laboring poor.” The rich spend their money in ways that enrich the laboring poor: clothing and furniture and dwellings. “Our laboring poor receive annually the whole of the clear revenues of the nation.” He also debunked the idea of imposing a higher minimum wage: “A law might be made to raise their wages; but if our manufactures are too dear, they might not vend abroad.”
– Chapter Eleven, Walter Isaacson’s Benjamin Franklin, An American Life

“I am . . . a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; and the least appearance of an encroachment on those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil exceedingly.”
– Franklin, writing as “Silence DoGood”

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom. . . and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”
– Franklin, writing as “Mrs. DoGood”

“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.”
– Franklin, on rationalizations

Smile!

2009-07-29T09:21:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhL

you gotta see this!!! (i'm typing one handed due to baby in my other arm -- i love it!)

Another gem from Lori Borgman

2009-07-29T07:29:00.000-07:00

http://www.loriborgman.com/

It’s enough to make your wig spin
Lori Borgman | Monday, June 29, 2009

Since we’ll be commemorating the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence this week, it seems a fitting time to update you Founders on a few things that have happened since you began this nation.

No, Ben, we’re not going to open the meeting in prayer. Yes, we know that at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia you moved that sessions be opened with prayer, but there wasn’t enough money to hire a chaplain.

Yes, sir, we have the money. Yes, sir, it is rumored you can still find a few people of faith in our nation’s capital; it’s just that praying in public is discouraged these days.

We can however, pause for a moment of silence. Heads bowed, please. One one-thousand, two one-thousand. All righty, thanks fellas.

What’s that, George? You’re wondering about the stature of the office of the presidency? Yes, we are aware you had concerns that office not be treated like royalty.

Well, and I think you’re going to get a kick out of this, sir, -- the editor of Newsweek said that our president, Barack Obama, stands above the country and the world, “he’s sort of God.”

George? Could someone get George the smelling salts? Clear a path, please. Thank you.

Mr. Madison, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jay, you will appreciate knowing that the Constitution is still with us. It is treated like soft clay, but the frame is still there. A few changes of note:

We no longer fear the federal government or seek to limit it one iota.

Is Ben’s wig spinning? Could someone calm that man down?

What’s that, George? Government is like fire? It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master?

We’re embracing the “master” phase right now, sir. The federal government has taken over banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and automobile companies. The feds are racking up trillions of dollars in debt it will take generations to pay and selling our notes to the Chinese.

Mr. Hamilton, please quit moaning! Others can’t hear.

Just a few more things. Security, could you move down front? The Randolph contingency is getting restless. The federal government is about to provide health care for every man, woman and child. Government bureaucrats will tell people what procedures they can have done and which doctors they can see.

I knew you’d be excited! Calm down, gentlemen! Big government is our friend now.

No, there wasn’t any bloodshed. No battle. We just handed omnipotence to the feds on a silver platter.

America’s enemies? There’s no shortage, gentlemen. They’ve sworn to kill us. We had a number of them locked up in a prison called Guantanamo, but we’re setting them free. We sent a few to a beautiful tropical island and the rest we may bring up here to the States. We fight our battles with words these days – adverbs, adjectives, prepositional phrases, alliteration.

No, Mr. Jefferson, I’m not joking.

What’s that Mr. Jay? Doesn’t anyone read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers?

It’s such dry reading, sir. All those big words and no pictures. If you could get someone to do a music video about them, you might gain some interest. We’re just not that into reading anymore -- we do Twitter though.

It’s not a bird, Mr. Hancock. Twitter is a -- oh never mind.

What’s that, Ben? Have we never heard of liberty?

Of course we have. It’s a bar over on Broadway.

And the hypocrisy continues -- BIG TIME!

2009-07-28T14:53:00.001-07:00

Gee! Thank you, CNN!

2009-07-28T14:40:00.000-07:00

Biden does it again

2009-07-28T14:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701154_pf.html

We are destroying ourselves from the inside out, thanks to the likes of Obama and Biden. They are both totally irresponsible. Obama's inexperience is blatantly obvious whereas Biden's experience has done him no good. He's truly the court jester ... and Obama thinks HE'S king!

Excellent article

2009-07-27T05:09:00.001-07:00

Obama's Accidental Gift on Race
By Andrew Breitbart

Less than a month after being confirmed as the nation's attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr. called out the American people as "essentially a nation of cowards" for refusing to talk openly about race.

So, thank you, professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and President Obama, for starting the long-awaited national discussion on black and white identity - while averting our attention from the cockamamie scheme to nationalize health care.

And kudos to the professor and the president for choosing Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department as the representative of the Caucasian-American side of this difficult and much-needed historic debate.

Poetry was at work as the archetypal racist white cop who, according to the admittedly fact-challenged president, "stupidly" arrested his "friend." Sgt. Crowley waged a swift and effective public relations campaign that quashed the racism meme that Mr. Gates was recklessly pushing.

Sgt. Crowley, as it happens, is the Cambridge police force's hand-picked racial profiling expert and was selected by a former black police commissioner. He also performed CPR on black basketball star Reggie Lewis, whose widow praised the public servant for doing everything he could to save her husband. Sgt. Crowley's own police department immediately jumped to his defense in a picture-perfect multiracial photo op and press conference.

Even though Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley are poised to put their individual grievances to rest - over a beer negotiated by the president of the United States - the scope of the problem that brought them international attention lingers, underscoring the need for continued robust public dialogue.

We're finally talking, Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama. Why stop now?

Of course, the attorney general is essentially right in his assessment. Much of America is petrified to bring up race, especially in public forums - the media, in particular. But for exactly the opposite reasons Mr. Holder, the Obama administration and the brain trust of modern liberalism assert.

Americans, especially nonblacks, are deeply fearful that the dynamic is predicated on an un-American premise: presumed guilt. Innocence, under the extra-constitutional reign of political correctness, liberalism's brand of soft Shariah law, must be proved ex post facto.

Think not? Ask the Duke lacrosse team, which had 88 of the school's professors sign a petition that presumed their guilt before their side of the story was known. Even though the white athletes were exonerated and the liberal district attorney who pushed the case was dethroned, disbarred and disgraced, the professoriate that assigned guilt to its own students still refuses to apologize.

Those signatories constituted 90 percent of Duke's African and African-American Studies Department, the subject-matter domain of Mr. Gates, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West and other tenure-wielding, highfalutin, iambic-pentameter-filibustering race baiters, and 60 percent of Duke's women's studies department, another hotbed of victimology posing as intellectualism.

While the media was front and center in preparing for the public executions of the three Duke lacrosse players, they scurried away when they were proved innocent. The Democratic Media Complex, in its pursuit of Orwellian hate-crime legislation, reparations and sundry non-ameliorative resolutions to America's troubled racial past, pursues its victims with blood lust. But it cannot act in good faith to redeem those it has destroyed in countless rushes to judgment. (Richard Jewell, R.I.P.)

The mainstream media choose to flaunt story lines that make white America appear guilty of continued institutional racism, while black racism against whites is ignored as an acceptable disposition given our nation's history. This double standard provides a game board on which the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can thrive in perpetuity and ensures racial progress is slowed.

And that is why the Case of Sergeant Crowley vs. Professor Gates is so important. As is expected from professional race baiters, Mr. Gates instigated a public brouhaha over race. And Mr. Obama, a man who attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons for 20 years, used the bully pulpit to grant his friend a national platform to condemn a man for doing his job.

Sgt. Crowley, a proud and defiant public professional, played the moment perfectly and stopped his own assassination by media. Talk about a postmodern hero. Whether he likes it or not, Sgt. Crowley is a potent symbol of how the union has managed to become more perfect, a Rosa Parks of rush-to-judgment "reverse racism."

Now that the facts of the case show that his friend the professor was the man doing the racial profiling, the president wants to end the discussion.

Now we see what the attorney general meant when he spoke of cowards.

Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site breitbart.com and is co-author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon - the Case Against Celebrity."

So this is what the left wants??? Not me!

2009-07-25T15:47:00.001-07:00

Following the mad recommendations of Peter Singer made in NYT's Sunday magazine, it pays to take a look at what is actually in the healthcare bill.

It's worse than you can possibly imagine. Somehow, it manages to be Singer on steroids. Who wrote this bill. It has Singer's footprints all over it.

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

Here's the full Health Care bill that sits in the House.

From Charles Krauthammer

2009-07-25T06:55:00.000-07:00

I love Charles Krauthammer!

The cop and the jerk(s)

2009-07-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

"Obama regrets remark . . ." but doesn't apologize.

"Calls white policeman who arrested scholar . . ." says he wants to have a beer with the cop and scholar, but doesn't apologize.

"White House claims politics: Police endorsed McCain . . ." OMG. Are you kidding me? They make everything political (or racial) because they aren't responsible/accountable for doing anything wrong. Blame, blame, blame. That's all this administration knows how to do. Give me a break.

Why didn't the "scholar" just thank the police for checking out his residence (for his own safety), show his ID and LET IT GO!! Talk about politics! No! He had to scream "raaaaaaaaaaacism". This disgusts me beyond words. The officer was doing his job. How was he to know that the man with the "scholar" wasn't armed? How was he to know that there wasn't someone inside the house who might be armed? How was he to know that Gates was who he said he was? I'm not surprised that Obama would have such a pompous rear-end as a friend. They're both just alike.

I guess from now on officers should ask the perps if they're friends of The Won before arresting them.

And by the way, Mr. The Won. That house you live in? It's not yours. It belongs to the people of this nation. We've just lent it to you for a SHORT period of time.

From the NY Post

2009-07-24T14:37:00.001-07:00

And THIS from the NY Post: (It just keeps getting better, doesn't it?) And people want this universal health care WHY??

DEADLY DOCTORS

O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

"Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.");
July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 am
July 24, 2009

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

You kidding me?

2009-07-24T14:25:00.001-07:00

And this from Michelle Malkin: (I heard about this last night and it made me sick to think that another woman would say such a STUPID thing) I agree with MM that Christine Brennan can join the ranks of Bonnie Erbe -- at the bottom of the barrell!!

USA Today columnist blames Peeping Tom victim

By Michelle Malkin • July 24, 2009 01:31 PM

Erin Andrews is an ESPN reporter. Some sick person planted hidden cameras in her hotel room and splashed video of her while she was dressing all over the Internet.

Andrews happens to be young, beautiful, and a stylish dresser — prompting USA Today columnist Christine Brennan to write on Twitter that Andrews is essentially to blame for the appalling invasion of her privacy.

Yes, she did:

Women sports journalists need to be smart and not play to the frat house. There are tons of nuts out there.

Erin Andrews incident is bad, but to add perspective: there are 100s of women sports journalists who have never had this happen to them.

Brennan repeated the same sentiments on a talk radio program.

I have a feeling Ms. Brennan would get along swimmingly with Bonnie “You deserve to be on a rape list” Erbe.

From The New Editor

2009-07-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

Proposed Health Care Reforms Bad for Our Health

By Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph.D.

I worked in Washington, D. C. with Congress every day for 10 years. Not once was I ever remotely fearful of any government proposal or legislation.

But for the first time in my long life, I am genuinely afraid. Current proposals for health care reform are frightening -- not so much because of stratospheric costs but because of the reduction of the quality of health care that these proposals will mandate.

The effort to gain public support is phrased in euphemisms: "comparative effectiveness," "best practices," "Health Choices czar," "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research," or "Federal Health Board."

These euphemisms have one thing in common: they will, by definition, place distant third parties in Washington between you and your doctor. And they will diminish the quality of health care and create unavoidable rationing.

Medical treatments, as in England or Canada, will be denied or limited because countless numbers of us are too young, too old, too sick, or not careful enough about lifestyle choices -- that is, we're too thin, too heavy, too sedentary, eat too many Big Mac's or imbibe too many Bud Lites.

The portentous signs are already present:

The Congressional Budget Office urges reduction of Medicare reimbursement rates for "over valued physician services" -- such as diagnostic imaging -- while requiring doctors to get prior clearance. How long will such paper exchanges take, with a distant third party driving a wedge between patient and doctor?

White House budget director Peter Orszag urges that hospitals treat patients less expensively "through health information technology" -- that is, by a technocrat rather than a doctor.

"Off-label" drugs, prescribed by physician for uses other than those for which they have been specifically approved, will likely be curtailed because they are officially "unapproved." Oncologists working in the trenches frequently prescribe off-label drugs because, well, they work. Nature reports that between 50 and 70 percent of the drugs used to treat cancer are off-label medications.

With this narrowing of drug availability comes the restriction of a one-size-fits-all treatment. But as Drs. Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband of the Harvard Medical School report, "... rigid and punitive rules to broadly standardize care for all patients often break down. Human beings are not uniform in their biology." So-called "best practices" may not fit you; in fact, they might harm you.

Arthur Garson, M. D., at the University of Texas School of Public Health, wrote recently: "There are currently 800,000 physicians in America. . . . This is a drop in the bucket in providing access to care." There are also critical shortages of nurses and skilled lab technicians. How would we deal with the addition of 46 million patients who would exacerbate these shortages? By rationing, that's how; and by denying or limiting treatment to patients too old, too sick, too heavy, or too careless in lifestyle choices.

If 46 million Americans without health insurance are suddenly provided national health care, rationing must inevitably follow. If doctors are limited by national health care to Medicare reimbursement rates, they will make up for lost private-sector revenue by increasing patient volume, which means that patients will have to wait longer for shorter appointments. The medical field is not ready for this influx.

A final harbinger: On April 28, 2009, I received from Medicare a letter canceling my wife's Medicare insurance because of her death. She died on March 7, 2006. Do you want these bureaucrats managing your health care?

I am afraid because I fear for my health care. You should, too.

Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph. D. is a resident of The Woodlands and a Visiting Research Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Dr. Trowbridge formerly served as vice president of Hillsdale College in Michiga

Quote for the day

2009-07-24T07:29:00.001-07:00

"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution -- or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement." -- Ayn Rand

The joke of the day by the master jokester

2009-07-24T07:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/23/obama_gop_should_have_shame_for_creating_fiscal_mess.html

Are you freakin' kidding me??? Who does this man think held Congress for two + years??? He is one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever heard!! He just keeps on with his bi-partisan encouragement, doesn't he?? And he's doing what to fix the "fiscal mess"? He's creating a humongous fiscal mess. What a tool.