Red in a Blue State

Come Visit My New Blog: The Truth Server

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:49:00 +0000

Come Visit My New Blog: The Truth Server, at http://www.thetruthserver.blogspot.com/

Columnist Frank Rich Shows Why Liberals will Lose Big in November

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:43:00 +0000

In what is one of the most revolting and pointless and wrong columns I have read in a while, celebrated Liberal wordsmith Frank Rich goes completely off the rails in an offensively ignorant rant about those who would deign oppose Obama.

Rich tells us in his typically even-keeled style that a frothing and filibustering Karl Rove all but lost it in a debate with the Obama strategist David Plouffe. Of course, in Rich's eyes, ardent opposition makes one "frothing and filibustering," but Plouffe only gets the respectful title of "strategist."

Rich does not let a paragraph go by without dropping an insulting remark about Obama's opponents as he regurgitates every lie and distortion about both the health care "reform" bill and anyone who should deign to disagree.

Rich refers to "goons (who) hurl venomous slurs at congressmen" outside the Capitol last week. That simply didn't happen. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support it. Andrew Brietbert offered to donate $10,000 if anyone comes forward with video or audio proof. None has come forth, but the Left continue with the lie.

Rich continues the misinformation citing the Congressman who shouted “baby killer” during last Sunday's session. Wrong again. Randy Neugebauer said -- not that he should have -- that the bill is a baby killer, not Bart Stupak. Neugebauer even apologized for the outburst, but Rich doesn't bother to mention this.

Between calling all Tea Partiers a "mob," and tossing out the typical suggestion that we all are racist because we don't care that Obama is black, like Rich, or that we don't count Congresspeople by race and gender, like Rich, the writer finally gets around to telling us why we are so angry with the current administration:

The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

Oh. Thanks Frank. I thought I opposed the health care "reform" because it was extra-Constitutional and would bankrupt the country.

I am glad Frank knows what I think better than I do. After all, if I opposed this bill because it extended the reach of government beyond what the Framers foresaw, it would be an argument framed in constitutional pieties. And, we certainly wouldn't want a piece of paper to get in the way of "progress," now would we.

In all, this column is an excellent example of why the Democrats are going to lose BIG in the elections this fall. They have no clue what it is the American people think and frankly don't care (pun intended). They are right, we are wrong, and that is that.

Keep it up, Liberals. Please.

The Health Care Vote Really Was Historic!!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:09:00 +0000

The Liberals like to tell us that Sunday's vote on health care "reform" was historic. They are right.

Never before has the U.S. Congress voted on a bill so massive, so intrusive, that affects every person in the United States, all the while showing absolute contempt for the will of the American people and a total disdain for the voices of opposition.

Never before has Congress been so blatantly corrupt, so nakedly unashamed (and even proud!) of the backroom deals, bribery, threats, and extortion that were all required to get this bill passed by the slimmest of margins.

It was an historic event.

Hurricane Katrina was historic, too. As was 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Nixon's resignation, Clinton's impeachment, and the Mura building bombing.

Historic does not necessarily mean good for America.

With the health care "reform" bill, we saw an historic abdication of responsibility, an historic display of hubris and political self-gratification, an historic corruption of the American political process, and an historic shift in the government/populace relationship that might be forever damaged.

John Boehner was right, Democrats; you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I know I am ashamed of you.

If Repubs Filibuster, Obama Will Pass Health Reform Through Reconciliation

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:01:00 +0000

According to the Plum Line blog, if the Congressional Republicans try to filibuster ObamaCare in an attempt to get Obama to start over with the goal of producing a more modest bill that tries to curb costs and helps small businesses and people with health problems secure coverage, the Democrats will use parliamentary procedures to ram the package through anyway.

Health insurance coverage and medical care in this country will be changed dramatically with no input from anyone who opposes the plans. Plans overwhelmingly opposed by the American people will be slipped through the cracks in the floor, the voters be damned.

Among Obama's recently announced "improvements" is a plan to let the federal government control how much your insurance company can charge you for insurance. A Federal panel will monitor and block exorbitant rate hikes and other unfair practices by the insurance industry.

This sounds good on the surface; but of course, there will be no definition of "exorbitant rate hikes," so Obama can block any rate increase for any reason, including political reasons.

Remember Humana insurance, who sent an e-mail to customers about potential changes to their service as a result of these "reforms"? Are they in line to have their every cost increase labeled "exorbitant"?

You will be forced by law to have health insurance whether you want to or not, and Obama will tell you how much it will cost you. One person in the federal government will get to determine what your health plan covers or doesn't include and it will be illegal for you to pay a doctor for a service on your own. Sounds like America to me, doesn't it?

According to Plum Line, Eric cantor (R-VA) sums up the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care juggernaut well:

The Obama plan costs a trillion dollars, puts government in control of personal health decisions, and allows the government to set prices in the private market. That mirrors the Pelosi/Reid plans that have already been soundly rejected by the bipartisan majority of Americans."

Is this really the Hope and Change you voted for America?

Obama Steals Credit for Success of Iraq War

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:27:00 +0000

In an interview with Larry King, Vice President Joe Biden delcared Iraq one of the great achievements of this administration.

Despite that President Obama campaigned as an opponent of the Iraq war, he bragged about not supporting the war from the beginning, and voted against the "surge" that apparently helped the U.S. "win" the Iraq war, President Obama seems poised to claim he is responsible for freedom in Iraq -- a victory for which he did nothing but continue the policy of the previous administration.

"You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer," Biden said. "You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Iraq is one of the great achievements of the U.S. Military.

Biden seems an odd ambassador for declaring Obama's victory in Iraq, as he has been a strident opponent of the conflict from the beginning.

On the day of the Democrats first rumble in South Carolina and a critical vote demanding the President begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Thursday that the troop surge plan in Iraq has failed.

As the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden called the surge a mistake.

...the (anti-surge) legislation is “not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq.”

Even the notoriously right-wing Time magazine is reluctant to give much credit to Obama for his efforts in Iraq:

By negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government shortly before leaving office, Bush made Obama's job a lot easier — because that agreement sets a cast-iron deadline for withdrawing all U.S. troops...

The moment in which the U.S. was able to significantly change the outcome in Iraq passed sometime before Bush left office; Obama is simply wrapping things up.

A couple of years ago, Biden himself agreed:

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: “Mr. President this is your war."

Obama's War on Child Obesity Shows What is Wrong with Government

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:29:00 +0000

Quick! What do you do if you want to lose weight? Take your time; I can wait.

Did you say: eat less, eat better, and exercise more? If you did, you are way ahead of Barack Obama, who today announced the he needs a "task force" to figure out what to do about the epedemic of childhood obesity.

Like everything Obama, it seems that obesity is yet another crisis that requires "a coordinated Federal response." When Obama was deciding about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial, he reportedly allowed one person to make the call. But fat kids? The Obama team will partner with public health professionals and private companies to solve the crisis.

While childhood obesity is no laughing matter (full disclosure, I suffered from childhood obesity and again adult obesity), the typical government hysteria is hilarious.

Get this. It is going to take the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Education; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady; the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and the heads of other executive departments, agencies, or offices as the Chair may designate 90 days to figure out how to get kids to lose weight.

How about this: Hey kid. Put down the Wii controller and get outside and play real baseball. And tonight, no Chinese food take-out. Print out a few thousand posters for schools to put up and run a PSA or two. Done.

Here lies the problem with government. No matter what the problem, it takes a massive effort to do the simplest thing. Countless personnel, endless funding, blue-ribbon panels all to solve a problem that is none of their damn business anyway.

Add to that, the condescending attitude of this particular administration, who promises to empower parents with information and tools to make good choices for themselves and their families.

Thanks, Barack, for your support in believing that I am screwing up my kids. Thank God you and Michelle are here to set things right. What have we done without ye?

"They feel like the deck is stacked against them. They feel guilty," (Michelle Obama) said. "We need to help them."

Ms. First Lady, we need your help like we need a shovel to the head. Speaking for myself, I do not need your help to make good choices for myself and my family, thank you very much.

What was it that we used to say when I was dealing with childhood obesity? Oh yeah. MYOB*!!

One last note, do you think that people will laugh at the ridiculously-titled Let's Move campaign the way they did for Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign? Yeah, me neither.

*mind you own business

Scott Brown and the Party of "No"

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:09:00 +0000

As Massacusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown prepares to be sworn-in to the U.S. Senate today, all the typical voices are full-throated with claims of staus quo and the party of no.

Well, if all that Scott Brown does in his time in the Senate is say "No" to every Barack Obama proposal, I am OK with that:

Obama: I want to destroy the medical care system in the country.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to tax people who happen to carry their own insurance by 40%.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to control what kind of medical services your doctor can provide.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to cause energy rates to 'necessarily skyrocket.'
Brown: No

Obama: I want to cripple industry through this dubious cap-and-trade program.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to give full Constitutional and legal rights -- including full legal disclosure of intelligence secrets -- to admitted terrorists."
Brown: No

Obama: I want to spend trillions of dollars on 'stimulus' programs that don't seem to be working.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to burden future generations with untold deficits.
Brown: No

Sounds good to me. After all, Paul Kirk was hand-picked to replace Ted Kennedy simply because he would say "Yes" to everything Obama/Reid/Pelosi. So, when the voters of Massachusetts decide to actually elect a candidate to carry a different message, I say:
Go Scott! No!

A Taxing Problem for President Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:42:00 +0000

An article from the Associated Press on last quarter's unexpected economic growth presents President Obama a problem. How to keep it going.

"The economy's faster-than-expected growth at the end of last year, fueled by companies boosting output to keep stockpiles up, is likely to weaken as consumers keep a lid on spending.

Many estimate the nation's gross domestic product will grow 2.5 percent to 3 percent in the current quarter and about 2.5 percent or less for the full year."

The economy felt a spurt, but the American people don't want to spend their money to keep it going. How to solve this dilemma?

"The economic recovery could falter if consumers, who account for 70 percent of economic activity, lack the income to ramp up spending."

With unemployment high and expected to "remain close to 10 percent through the end of the year," what can Washington do to spur consumer spending and confidence?

"...for all of last year, workers' compensation rose by the smallest amount on records going back more than a quarter-century."

How to put more money in people's pocket so they will spend the money and keep the economic engine revving up.

If only there were a way to CUT down on the TAXing nature of this problem. If only there were a way to REDUCE how much this problem TAXES our economy. We must LOWER the TAXATION this problem places on the economy in order to SPUR THE ECONOMY.

Obama: Not "Re-Litigating the Past" at State of Union Means Bashing Your Predecessor?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:54:00 +0000

Last night, during the State of the Union speech, President Obama told us in a matter-of-fact way: I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

I am not sure what he mean by re-litigating the past; did somebody sue the past and lose?

Whatever he meant, Obama certainly had no problem pointing back and tossing the blame for all our problems on the last administration. If you managed to slog though the 75-minute monologue, here are several examples of Obama not "relitigating the past":

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression.

One year ago is certainly not the past, is it?

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

Certainly no criticism of past presidential decisions here.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable.

Darn that last administration, why does the last administration have to be in past so Obama can't criticize how non-transparent and unaccountable they were?

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.

When I took office (a year ago) sounds like a reference to the past. Maybe Obama means by not re-litigating that he wants to move on without blaming the Bush administration for all our problems?

The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Well, that's not it.

That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online.

Not a swipe at the past, but a boring and meaningless self-aggrandizing plug. Wow, look how many times SEIU chief Andy "There are terrorist in the Senate" Stern has visited Obama! I wonder how many of his other visitors are completely insane?

Again, I have no idea how one re-litigates (or litigates) the past, but Obama sure spent a lot of time passing the buck backwards. Regardless of your opinion of President Bush, aren't you getting a little weary of Obama tossing out the "Blame Bush" mantra and carping about all the problems "he inherited"?

Come to think, if Bush hadn't created all the problems that Obama is whining about, odds are on that Obama would not be president today.

Obama Spending Freeze Another Phony Photo Op

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:20:00 +0000

President Obama is poised to initiate a spending freeze on "domestic spending."

The three-year plan will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal private details.

On the surface, which is how most people look at these things, it sounds good. Liberals are apoplectic about the plan, which has to be good. But, a quick look at the numbers shows that this -- yet again -- might be a Barack Obama phony photo-op.

The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings would add up to $250 billion.

Now, $15 billion off the annual budget is a lot of money, no doubt; but when you consider that the federal budget for 2009 was $3.5 trillion. You do the math; too many zeros for me.

The proposals (Obama) described won't create jobs, but he said they could "re-establish some of the security that's slipped away."

That's certainly good news for the more than 15 million people out of work. I am sure they all will feel more "secure" when the late fees on bills add up, the cancellation notices appear, the foreclosure warnings start; with the sheriff knocking on the door, take heart that Obama has taken out his scalpel, left the hatched behind, and plans to nick 0.004% off his spending next year. I think that is roughly equivalent to the average family clipping a coupon to get a free box of Cheerios.

Himalayan Glaciar Claim Melts Down Faster than the Glacier

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:01:00 +0000

More Stories from the Man-Made Global-Warming is Neither Department

In the past few months, we have seen much of the "science" behind anthropological-caused global warming to be riddled with errors, improperly or not peer-reviewed, and just plain wrong.

Now comes two new stories that we "deniers" can add to the growing cachet of evidence that man-made global-warming is neither.

It seems that a couple of years ago, a critically-acclaimed and Nobel prize winning article by the UN included a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years. Well, turns out that this claim -- like so much in the pro-global warming debate -- is both bogus and fraudulent.

The scientist behind the claim that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr. (Murari) Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'

In short, it sounded good so they threw it in just to scare people.

This bizzare charge came from an article by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) who wrote their article around two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which they took on faith. Dr. Lal spun the WWF article into an article of his own, without question.

Which is tragic, for had any of the scientists bothered to have someone take a second look, they may have noticed a tiny mathematical error.

The World Wildlife Fund article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

The time-line on the melting glaciers did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research, Dr Lal admitted. No kidding.

But, WWF did apologize on its Web site for the oversight saying the group regrets any confusion caused. {Note: The statement seems to have disappeared from the site, but ironically, one can find a piece called Separating Myth From Reality http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/act-for-our-future/myth-from-reality.html). No comment from Dr. Lal if he accepted WWF's apology for the inconvenience of having to apologize himself.

I made up a lie about global warming and I told two friends and they told two friends and so on...

Critics of the glacier claim seemed to have be aplenty before the UN study was published; however, Dr. Lal seems to have been more intent to scare people than inform:

...an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’. I couldn't agree more.

When reached for comment, Dr Lal reportedly said: "I am shocked, shocked to find that my claim is incorrect."

Part 2 tomorrow

United States Senator Scott Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:04:00 +0000

Congratulations, Mr. Brown on your exciting and convincing victory in the Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election.

It was a great pleasure to finally again cast a vote that counted, and that matters.

Now, please go to Washington D.C. and be the senator you promised to be throughout your campaign. Do not turn into a typical politician (or self-serving-son-of-a-bitch as my wife would say about most or all politicians). Fight for us, the voters; fight for the United States of America; fight for our Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Congratulations again, United States Senator Scott Brown.

BREAKING NEWS; Boston Globe Endoreses Martha Coakley for US Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:47:00 +0000

The Boston Globe, in a truly surprise move, actually endorsed the Democrat candidate in a Massachusetts election. This is the first time since the last election in Massachusetts that the Globe did not support the Republican. In fact, I can't recall the Globe ever endorsing a Republican.

In a bizzare two Internet-page endorsement, the Globe rolled out a host of lies and distortions in their effort to bolster the Coakley campaign (much the same way that Coakley has in her recent negative campaign ad blitz).

From the editorial:

"Coakley, for one, deeply opposes the restrictions on abortion coverage (in Washington health care plans), but would not block the whole reform effort to get her way."

Here, the Globe celebrates a person who abandons her principles, to support the party-line. We do need more of that in the U.S. Seante.

"Blocking bills is easy; finding a politically acceptable response to complicated problems is hard."

While true that Coakley has never found "a politically acceptable response to complicated problems;" that is because she has never held a position that would require her to. It is hard to compromise on legislation when when has never held a representative elected position.

Scott Brown has. In fact, one "compromise" he made regarding emergency contraception is at the heart of a cruel lie being perpetuated by Coakley.

"She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment. She has prosecuted hundreds of criminals and helped coordinate plans to protect the state from terrorist threats."

Exactly how does this qualify her to be a U.S. Senator? One could argue that state senate experience may not prepare someone for U.S. Senate, but to say experience being Attorney General does is ludicrous.

"But this year, a lot of people want to send a message. The message they should send is this: Massachusetts is fed up with Senate wrangling and wants clear answers on health care, climate change, and loose regulation of financial institutions. Coakley, with her hard work and proven skills, is well-qualified to carry this message to Washington."

Coakley supports measures opposed by the majority of MA voters; the current health care proposals, cap-and-trade, increased taxation. She will most certainly not carry the message to D.C. that the voters of Massachusetts want. She will certainly carry the voice of the special interests and lobbyists that she has been courting.

The true message that should be carried is that we are fed up with the way business is currently transacted in D.C. Sending a rubber-stamp vote to Senate is hardly the way to change this.

"Coakley wasn’t the most forceful or visionary candidate in the Democratic field"

Well, I can't argue with that. Nor is she the "most forceful or visionary candidate" in this race either.

"A cap-and-trade plan to reduce pollution is the cheapest and most efficient way to combat global warming"

First, there is no clear evidence that global warming even exists (and real evidence exists to suggest it is a ); and second, in Obama's own words, energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket" Doesn't sound like a cheap option to me.

"Brown hasn’t hidden his positions"

Again, true; but the editorial fails to mention how Coakley has hidden hers.

"It’s a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That’s what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate."

Wrong again. Having a 41st vote will make it harder for the Dems to force things through with no input from the opposition. The majority party can pass anything with only 51 votes (or 50 with the vice president breaking the tie). The 60-vote threshold is for cloture, which moves a bill towards a majority vote.

Failing to achieve cloture is a relatively rare occurrence and is generally a sign that the bill is truly partisan.

In this article, they mention some of the more positive outcomes of a potential Brown victory:

...(Brown)would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do.

And, conversely, Coakley would do anything that Obama wants to do, without question or hesitation.

Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly.

That is because, unlike Coakley, Brown actually listens to the voters.

In this bizarre endorsement, Coakley's name was mention 7 times; while Brown's name appears 14 times.

This is not an endorsement of Coakley as much as it is a screed against Brown. Which, knowing the Globe, is a backwards endorsement of Scott Brown, if you ask me.

CBO: Health Care Reform May "Reduce Access to Care"

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:02:00 +0000

According to a blog post on the Weekly Standard's Web site, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf has defined the "death panels" that have been alleged to be an integral part of the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" efforts.

In a letter to Sen Harry Reid, the Weekly Standard has discovered, the cuts to Medicare may well necessitate health care rationing:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Shouldn't we all slow down and figure out if these alleged Medicare savings could be achieve through "greater efficiencies" or by slashing care for our Seniors before we institute these reductions?

After all, the provisions in the health care "reform" won't kick in for four more years; it seems that such a waiting period would allow some further investigation.

But, even if the savings work, it seems that they aren't savings at all:

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Check this out from CBO top-dog Elmendorf:

..(the) government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

Say what?

Even after we find out if this works or grandma gets left out in the medical cold, the Liberals in the Senate are trying to make sure no one fixes -- I mean, changes -- the Medicare "reforms" later on.

In a questionably Constitutional, and definitely immoral, provision, Harry Reid et. al. want to block any changes to the Medicare "reforms" they are instituting:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

Once the Death Panels are firmly established, the Libs want no one to take them away.

One can only hope that the Republicans gain some traction with their charges that parts of the Senate bill are unconstitutional.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev said in a statement.

But, lest anyone think that the Liberals have no interest in the Constitution, Harry Reid calls the efforts to ensure Constitutionality as "a sign of desperation."

Yes, Harry, we are desperate. You must kill this bill before it kills the best medical system in the world.

Sen. Ben Nelson "Compromises" His Principles for Cash

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:49:00 +0000

Another great day in the U.S. political system.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise in the health care debate that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

The compromise? Nebraska DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson sold out his principles for a couple hundred million dollars that the U.S. doesn't have so that he can buy votes back home.

Democratic leaders offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid assistance Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

Is there any wonder why Congress' rating are in the tank and 60-70% of American don't want them screwing with the best medical care system in the world?

Thank gawd for political whores.

Health Care Control for All

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:27:00 +0000

For those who think that the health care plans being debated by Congress will not affect you if ObamaCare goes through, you are mistaken.

After all, we have all heard President Obama tell us that if like our health care plan, we can keep it. While this is true on a semantic level, on a paperwork level, the government will tell your health insurance company what all plans can and must include.

From the latest version of the health care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3926):

Sec. 201: On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
4 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

Sec. 221 A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 224 for the essential benefits package described in section 222 for the plan year involved.

This means that a health care plan will not be considered qualified unless it meets requirements that will be decided upon later. While we have no idea what will actually be covered by health insurance plans, we do know that your plan will be "average."

Sec. 222. In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 224, to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that—

(5) is equivalent in its scope of benefits, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage in Y1.

In order to carry out paragraph (5), the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the benefits typically covered by employers, including multiemployer plans, and provide a report on such survey to the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

After all, average is fair. We can't have people buying "cadillac" plans when others can only afford to buy, or their employers can only support, Kia plans. You won't mind sacrificing on medical care coverage for your family, will you?

Sec. 224 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary (of Health and Human Service) shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.

But, Obama told us we can keep our plan! Where does it say that it will change?

Right here:

Sec. 241 The Health Commissioner shall...promote accountability of Qualified Health Plan Benefits offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.

But, that just talks about "qualified" health plans. Can't my insurer come up with a scaled-down plan, like a catastrophic plan, that will cover my basic needs but not necessarily meet the "initial set of benefit standards"?

Well, they could, but:

Sec 241. In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may... (work) with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.

So you see folks, the federal government, through a agency of unelected, unaccountable people, including at least one practicing physician (Sec. 223), will be deciding what your health insurance plan can and will offer and what kind of medical care your doctor can provide to you -- and your children and your family -- whether you sign up for the plan "offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange."

And there ain't no other way to get a health insurance plan.

AP's Palin Investigation 52 Times Higher Than Health Care Bills. No Media Bias Here!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:15:00 +0000

A brilliant piece published in the Best of the Web Today column from the Wall Street Journal online highlights -- yet again! -- just how Liberally-biased the mainstream media are. This time, the Associated Press, whose stories run in papers across the country, gives the white-gloves treatment to the biography of Sarah Palin while giving passing glances at the U.S. House and Senate health care bills:

An Associated Press dispatch, written by Erica Werner and Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, compares the House and Senate ObamaCare bills. We'd like to compare this dispatch to the AP's dispatch earlier this week "fact checking" Sarah Palin's new book. Here goes:

Number of AP reporters assigned to story:
• ObamaCare bills: 2
• Palin book: 11

Number of pages in document being covered:
• ObamaCare bills: 4,064
• Palin book: 432

Number of pages per AP reporter:
• ObamaCare bill: 2,032
• Palin book: 39.3

On a per-page basis, that is, the AP devoted 52 times as much manpower to the memoir of a former Republican officeholder as to a piece of legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. That's what they call accountability journalism.

That's what I call Liberal bias.

The Obama Mammogram Scan Scam

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:39:00 +0000

When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced on Monday that women under 50 should not get mammograms, I was a puzzled and troubled as anyone else. Why would this government panel, under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, exhume 7 years old study data and reverse 20 years of thinking and medical care, and end a practice that has saved countless lives.

The right-wing blogosphere and talk radio were rife with suggestions that this represents the kind of rationing that we will see under ObamaCare.

However, after pondering this puzzling finding for awhile, I figured out the scheme behind this announcement. And, from the words of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, I may have my proof.

Someone parsed the old data (likely an HHS hack with no real work to do that day) and came up with this notion. The Obama Administration demanded these new recommendations be released, thinking that the mainstream media would not pick up on a story that would cast the administration in a bad light (I mean, why start now).

Sooner than later, they hoped, insurance companies across the U.S. would take these findings as justification to change their policies towards mammograms. Gotcha!

Obama would then come out and lambaste the insurance companies for restricting care to women in need. If we had passed my health care reforms, he would assure, this would never have happened. I would never allow mammograms to women under 50 to be curtailed in any way. This just shows that the evil health insurance companies are only out for profit! EVIL!

But the story caught fire, not just in the right-wing realm, but in mainstream media outlets too. This forced Obama to distance himself from this ludicrous policy sooner than he wanted to.

Sebelius said the task force's conclusions have "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country" and noted that "they do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government.

Sebelius' statement is aimed at "making it clear these recommendations are not ours," a White House source said.

Um, the Agency falls under your jurisdiction, Ms. Sebelius (who was directly appointed by Obama) therefore the recommendations are yours.

"Indeed," said Sebelius, "I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

Sure you are, Madame Secretary. You are now that you got caught putting the cookies into the cookie jar that you hoped someone would take.

Obama Admits His Deficit Spending May Backfire

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:03:00 +0000

In an interview with FoxNews' Major Garrett, President Obama announced that deficit spending "could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

And yet, keep spending he does.

One analysis from the Heritage Foundation projects:

President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016... Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Here's a thought, Obama. Stop spending money you don't have. Stop spending money you don't have on programs we don't want, like "stimulus" that doesn't stimulate, health care "reform" that doesn't reform, and Cap and Trade that trades reasonable energy costs for "skyrocketing" energy costs to consumers to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Stop spending this country into oblivion. Please.

Can Anyone Help Make Sense of the Era of Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:53:00 +0000

Can somebody please help me make sense of all this.

In the 10 months that Barack Obama has been president, we have been treated to some of the most outrageous policy moves and politics in the history of this country.

In his very first act as president -- on his way home from the inauguration -- Obama swore that he would close Guantanamo Bay; even though he had no plans for what to do with the terrorists there.

He told us that we could not use the word "terror" any more. No more terrorism. No more War on Terror. Instead, we have "man caused disasters" and "overseas contingency operations.

We had an $800 billion dollar "stimulus" package that stimulated nothing but some pet Liberal projects. We pledged to borrow nearly a trillion dollars to fund programs that are 90% Liberal special interest projects. Where are the "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects? He told us that under this plan, unemployment would not go higher than 8%; if we did nothing it would climb to 9%. Well, unemployment is at least 10.2% and rising. Where are the jobs he promised?

In March, we got a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan, which was shown to be not working a few months later. It is now November, and we still have no new plan. Americans are being killed in Afghanistan and Obama has met with the general there once.

Then, we had the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- which was poorly run. This program took cars off the streets that had nothing wrong with them and "gave" people money to buy new cars they likely would have bought anyway. Cars that are no better for the environment than what folks had before. The minor economic blip from the program was more than offset by a huge drop-off in car sales in September. And just wait until you see what happens to used car prices when the supply is reduced because of this debacle.

We have thousands of people turning out for free handouts from the government, described by one in the crowd as "Obama Money," whose source no one knew nor seemed to care about.

We have working people being asked to return hundreds of dollars in "stimulus" funds that were given to them in error, all because of an IRS error. Forcing them to pay back the bailout while the major corporations getting billions in bail outs do not.

We have politicians in Washington killing themselves to pass a health care takeover that poll after poll indicate the American people do not want and know we cannot afford. Thousand of pages of proposals with no details of what the plan would do. Other than raise taxes and put people in jail if they don't buy health insurance.

We had an avowed Muslim extremist shoot up an Army base killing 13 or 14 people and wounding dozens of others; all the while he screamed the Muslim praise "Allah Akbar." But, our president assures us, it had nothing to do with Muslim extremism or terrorism.

We now have the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks being brought to New York City, blocks from the World Trade Center for a civilian trial. Despite the fact that almost everyone knows that American covert secrets will be revealed or requested to be revealed. We will see demands for our intelligence, how we got that intelligence, and who got it.

We have an administration that pledged to prosecute CIA agents for "torturing" known terrorists, even though they were just following orders. Obama wants to persecute the very people who pledged their lives to protect ours.

And today, the agency that sets guidelines and recommendations for our medical professionals tell women that they need not bother with breast self-exams for cancer, and that they should wait 10 more years before being checked, despite the fact that we know countless women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s, 30s, and 20s.

We have self-avowed Communists and fans of Chinese Communist revolutionary Mao Tse Tung in the White House, direct advisers to the president. We have health care advisers who openly advocate for limiting or restricting medical care for the young and elderly, saving "scarce resources" for those 15 to 40. The same adviser believes that the death of a three-year-old is not nearly as bad as the death of a twenty-something because society has not invested in the child.

We have a president who has taken every opportunity to speak ill of the United States and insult her people while in other countries. He has openly mocked and demeaned any voices of opposition, calling tax protesters by a homo-phobic slur and dismissing the #1 cable TV news network as tabloid.

This country is spinning out of control and we are all so busy with our daily lives, trying to earn enough money to get by, trying to get the kids to soccer practice or worrying about who is being voted off Dancing with the Stars to notice.

Does any one of these items make sense? How about all of them in totality. And, I know I didn't get them all.

We have got to wake up, people, and pay attention. We need to face the reality that the President of the United States is not doing what is in the best interests of the country. He is trying to dismantle our way of life, change the way this country is run, and ceding authority over this country to world governing bodies.

This is real and it is happening. Wake up before Obama's "transformation" of this country has gone too far. If you don't want to wake up for yourself, do it for your children. Make sure there is something left of this country to pass onto them.

If not, you might open your eyes one day soon and have no idea where you are anymore.

Obama Does Not Care About 2010 and 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:43:00 +0000

It struck me yesterday, as I heard the reports that Obama was not watching the election results Tuesday night that Obama truly doesn't care.

Obama is a true idealogue who only wants to push as much of his spreawling, big-government, Liberal, socialistic agenda on the U.S. If he can get that done in the first year, he doesn't care about what comes next.

This is why he wanted the "stimulus" bill done in a matter of days; this is why he wanted the health care "reform" done in a few weeks; this is why he started to push Cap and Trade before the healthcare debate was settled.

Obama is committed to expanding the reach of government into as many venues as possible while he has the congressional majorities and before the American people wake up to what he is doing.

If all he could accomplish is socializing America, he would not care. If he is a one-term president, he would not care as long as he grew governement control as much as possible. If he goes down in history as a lousy president, he doesn't care.

For, even if Obama is declared by Americans as the worst president ever, his friends and associates at the Harvard dinner galas will laud his "transformation" of America. World organizations like the European Union and the United Nations will applaud his work to lower the standard of living in the U.S. to match the rest of the world. He will be cheered back in Chicago by his academic buddies for having taken the wheels off the capitalism train.

For that's all that matters to him. The rest of us are people to be looked down upon, to be lorded over. We aren't as smart as he; we aren't as sophisticated as he. We are just "mostly decent," "typical white" people who "cling to our bibles and our guns." He has no regard for us or our opinions.

This man must be stopped and the time is now.

Dear President Obama: It's the economy, stupid!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:15:00 +0000

An open letter to President Obama:

Dear President Obama:

Back in 1992, then candidate Bill Clinton ran to the White House by telling us "It's the economy, stupid."

Well, Mr. Obama, he was right then and his sentiment is correct now. It's the economy you should be fixing.

In your nine-months in office, you have yet to do Thing One to help the failing economy that you claim to have inherited. You, sir, did not "inherit" these problems; you asked for them. You knew full well the state of the economy last fall and assured us that you were the person who could fix these problems. So far, you have not.

We now see consumer confidence at dangerously low-levels, with an increasing number of people believing the economy is in bad shape and shockingly low numbers of people thinking otherwise:

"Consumers' assessment of current conditions worsened in October. Those claiming business conditions are "bad" increased to 47.1 percent from 46.3 percent, while those claiming conditions are "good" decreased to 7.7 percent from 8.6 percent."

Business confidence is likewise flailing. The Wall Street Journal brings us an article today that codifies the dangerous state of business in our country under your "leadership:"

"But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses' energy costs. Meanwhile, a bill aimed at increasing transportation spending is stalled.

Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans."

Your "stimulus" plan that has all but petered out; your Liberal colleague's talk of additional "stimulus" that will likewise fail; your plans to stifle industry and the economy through the "cap and trade" plans to address a problem that doesn't exist; your designs to re-engineer a health care industry that few are complaining about; the massive spending that will inevitable lead to tax increases; your refusal to extend the "Bush tax cuts" that actually worked to stimulate the economy. All these pit-falls are freezing business, preventing them from hiring workers and keeping them shy towards spending the money that will help other companies hire.

It is time to scrap your grandiose visions and nirvana dreams of recasting this country, Mr. Obama, and time to find a way to reduce the rising unemployment rate, to create an environment where business will expand, to find a way to repair consumer confidence in this economy (and in your presidency).

However, the Consumer Reports Index, which tracks consumer financial and employment numbers to obtain an overall sense of consumer health, indicates that U.S. consumers are continuing to feel less secure about their financial situation. Recent government data supports this finding, as consumer credit and borrowing rates have been dropping sharply, spending and earning rates have been remaining almost flat while saving plummets, and the official unemployment rate (which only counts a fraction of the actual number of people out of work) has been creeping toward double digits.

You told us in August that giving people cash incentive to buy cars will help the economy as a whole. The oddly-titled Cash for Clunkers program resulted in a small positive blip that predictably leveled-out and even fell off as soon as the program ended.

I have a sense, through my limited economic understanding, my common-sense, and through historical perspective, that providing "cash incentive" through real tax cuts and a signigicant reduction in spending will be a far better panacea for the econony than record budget-deficits and increasing national debt.

Says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center:

Consumers' assessment of present-day conditions has grown less favorable, with labor market conditions playing a major role in this grimmer assessment. In fact, the Present Situation Index is now at its lowest reading in 26 years (Index 17.5, Feb. 1983). The short-term outlook has also grown more negative, as a greater proportion of consumers anticipate business and labor market conditions will worsen in the months ahead. Consumers also remain quite pessimistic about their future earnings, a sentiment that will likely constrain spending during the holidays.

With all due respect, Mr. Obama, it is time for you and your party to stop acting "stupidly," and make some serious and significant moves towards actually helping the economy before engaging in utopian plans of health-care access and climate change cessation.

Mr. President, it is the economy that needs fixing. It is far past time for you to get to work on it.

Lawrence Summers: "We Created 30,000 New Jobs with Stimulus" Whoopie!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:38:00 +0000

National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers told CNBC Television that Barack Obama's $787 billion "stimulus" package has created 30,000 jobs so far.

President Barack Obama signed a US$787 billion stimulus package into law earlier this year, and Mr Summers said the first US$16 billion spent created more than 30,000 jobs.

Sixteen billion dollars spent results in ONLY 30,000 jobs, and the administration is bragging about it! This spending works out to more than a half-a-million dollars per job created! And it took more than six months to do it!

At that rate, the full $787 billion will gin up a whopping 1.5 million jobs! Who says that massive government spending won't pull a country out of recession.

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed
persons has increased by 7.6 million to 15.1 million, and the unemployment
rate has doubled to 9.8 percent.

Well, thank goodness Obama spent that $16 billion we don't have. Otherwise, we would have had 15.1 million and 30,000 people unemployed.

How is Hope and Change working for you?

Is Chairman Mao in the White House

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:03:00 +0000

On last night's program, Fox News' Glenn Beck aired a stunning video of interim White House Communications Director Anita Dunn seeming to praise Mao Tse Tung (Zedong), the first Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.

Dunn called Chairman Mao one of her two favorite political philosophers (along with Mother Theresa, oddly enough). During a speech to a group of high school kids in June 2009, she offered advice based on the teachings of Mao:

...(this) tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers - Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, ... the two people that I turn to most...

...In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said how can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you, and Mao Tse Tung said, you know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine, and think about that for a second.”

According to a well-sourced quote from Wikipedia, Mao's policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. Mao also extensively used forced starvation and re-education camps to control and punish his people.

Think about that for a second, Ms. Dunn.

Do we really want someone this close to the President of the United States to worship a murderous, Communist dictator? I know I don't.

As peace activist John Lennon sang:

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...

Amen, Mr. Lennon.

Did Obama's Speech Blow the Chicago 2016 Olympic Bid?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:22:00 +0000

The International Olympic Committee just voted the city of Chicago out of the running to host the 2016 Olympics.

President Obama, depsite his words to the contrary just two weeks ago, flew over to Copenhagen to make a final pitch for his city.

Could it be that Obama's speech was the spoiler? Or, was Chi-town never really in the running?

In his speech, which ran over 1,100 words, Obama said "I" more than 20 times. However, when it came to convinving the IOC that Chicago could handle the massive impact of the games, he could only muster two sentences that are short on convincing rhetoric:

It's a city that works -- from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup we hosted in the nineties, we know how to put on big events. And scores of visitors and spectators will tell you that we do it well.

Obama's evidence that the Chicago area can create an appropriate environment for the Olympics is how well the city ran the World's Fair in 1893 and the World's Cup in 1994?

Not one word on the city's ability to build the infrastructure needed for the games. Not one word on the abiltiy to pay for the games. Not one word that would convince anybody in his right mind that Chicago could hold the 2016 Olympics.

Instead, Obama spun stories of his childhood and sang about the diversity of his hometown.

Chicago is a place where we strive to celebrate what makes us different just as we celebrate what we have in common. It's a place where our unity is on colorful display at so many festivals and parades, and especially sporting events, where perfect strangers become fast friends just because they're wearing the same jersey.

What?

So I've come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reason I chose Chicago nearly 25 years ago -- the reason I fell in love with the city I still call home...

You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. I was born in Hawaii. I lived in Indonesia for a time. I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. And then I came to Chicago.

Ahhh. That is a nice story, but no reason to site an event that hosts thousands of athletes and hundreds of thousands of spectators from around the world.

Chicago is a city where the practical and the inspirational exist in harmony; where visionaries who made no small plans rebuilt after a great fire and taught the world to reach new heights.

That Great Chicago Fire was in 1871. Why would this convince the IOC that the city can make "no small plans" nearly 150 years after?

But, this is Barack Obama; as such, he couldn't get by without a reference to inherited problems.

...the United States of America has a responsibility...to forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.

And we all know who broke down those partnerships, don't we?

In the end, it was just another Obama speech; full of flowers and flourish, but completely absent any substance. And in the end, Obama loses again.

Thank goodness.