The Obama administration is being accused of not being exactly honest about jobs “stimu-less” has saved or created:
You know it’s getting bad for the most highly esteemed potentate and savior of the world and his horde of Chicago-style thugonomists when state-controlled media can’t even say anything nice about Obamanomics.
I guess McCain-style liberal Republicanism doesn’t even sell in upstate New York:
Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence parties candidate, announced Saturday that she is suspending her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District and releasing all her supporters.
The state Assemblywoman has not thrown her support to either Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, or Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate.
One wonders if those that want the GOP to become just a watered-down version of the Democrats will learn the lesson.
Here is a copy of all 1990 pages of H.R. 3962 – Affordable Health Care for America Act for your reading pleasure, providing you want to read the whole thing, which I’m sure would be more than most members of the U.S. House of Representatives have done:
What I gather from all of the talk about the legislation, it is basically the H.R. 3200 – America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 on steroids, including more convoluted and vague legal speak in an effort to mask the establishment of a government-run health care system.
Again, cost estimates on the legislation are incomplete and contrary to what House Speaker Pelosi thinks, each present (and future) American citizen could be facing a bill that is worth over 1 trillion dollars (that’s $1,000,000,000,000.00), instead of the less than 900 billion dollars Speaker Pelosi would like us to believe the cost to be. This will hardly give a majority of Americans the “choice” on whether or not to pay for something they don’t want in the first place [Article - CBO: House Bill Costs $1.055 Trillion].
Such is the claim of two of the members of the board who recommended him:
City officials seeking a new police chief passed up the former director of the Florida Highway Patrol, who formerly was a top commander of the Illinois State Police, because he is white, two former members of a city board claim.
Wyatt Frazer and Della Murphy allege in a federal lawsuit that they were forced off the Police, Fire and Civil Service Board for their advocacy of a white candidate when the chief’s job was open in 2007.
The suit, filed Oct. 1 in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, claims, “Shortly after Parks became Mayor in May 2007, Frazer became aware of Parks’ bias against hiring white persons.” It continues, “When the city was searching for a new Chief of Police, on or about August 2007, Frazer and Murphy felt that the most qualified candidate was a white male with extensive law enforcement experience and no criminal history. However, Parks told Frazer at that time that he would not recommend the Board’s candidate for the position because he was white. At Parks’ recommendation, the City then hired Michael Baxton, Sr., an African-American male, as Chief of Police, even though he was less qualified than the Board’s candidate … .”
I guess East St. Louis isn’t quite ready to follow the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
No word yet on whether President Obama will invite any of these people to the White House for a beer, either.
I am of two minds about this use of technology:
The “Little Buddy Child Tracker” retails for $100 (far less than other devices that sell for $200 to $500). It combines global satellite positioning and cellular technology to signal the child’s whereabouts to a computer or smartphone.
Parents can program the device to set up specific times and locations where the child is supposed to be — in school or at home, for example — and the device sends a text message if the child leaves the site in that time.
It seems a bit Big-Brother-ish to me, but then again, with all the stories of child abductions out there, something like this might be a very good tool in keeping kids safe.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has really lost touch with his conservative principles:
Gingrich called Scozzafava a “liberal Republican” for her support of gay marriage and abortion rights. But he defended those positions as in-step with her district and her predecessor, former Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), who was tapped to be President Barack Obama’s Army Secretary.
Now, follow the logic here:
- Scozzafava is, according to Gingrich, “in-step” with her predecessor.
- Said predecessor was so liberal that he was hand-picked for an administration post by a man who is arguably the most liberal President in modern history.
- Therefore, Scozzafava is also liberal enough to be adored by Barack.
And Gingrich wonders why conservatives not only aren’t rallying around her, but are actively lambasting him for his support of this Democrat-in-Republican-clothing?
One wonders if this isn’t primarily Newt’s ego talking, attacking rather than “lose face” by admitting he goofed when he first endorsed her. Memo to Mr. Gingrich: Admitting you’re wrong is the honorable thing to do; attacking the base isn’t gonna get you anywhere.
And, believe it or not, it’s the AP that explains it:
Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry.
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
One thing to watch for is politicians and pundits talking about insurers’ profit in absolute dollars, not as a percentage of revenues. This is highly misleading, bordering on outright dishonesty, because in order to stay in business health insurers have to have extremely large cash reserves; these are required by most states, and even if not required, the money to pay for all those procedures have to come from somewhere. Since most states also have laws that require payment of medical insurance claims within a set time frame (30 days is usual), it’s not like the company can sit around and wait for next months’ premiums to roll in.
The more we learn about the Obamacrats and their push to take over the health care of all Americans, the more questionable claims and dishonest statements we find.
If the headline has you confused, just bear with me for a bit.
A lot of us probably remember the “New Coke” debacle of the 1980s, and its aftermath. Somewhat surprisingly (or maybe not), there are a number of parallels with the current and recent past of the GOP moving to the left. Here’s just a few of the lesser parallels before I get to the big one:
- Both were attempts to be more like the competition instead of working to make a clear separation from the primary competitor: New Coke was much sweeter, like Pepsi; liberal Republicans are much closer in political ideology to Democrats.
- Both were imposed largely (though not completely) from “on high.” New Coke was pushed hard by the CEO, and many of the more liberal Republican candidates are being nominated and supported by those claiming to lead the party, whether it be at the county, state, or national level.
- Both are facing strong grassroots resistance. New Coke led to the formation of “Old Coke Drinkers of America,” and many liberal Republicans are facing lots of criticism from the conservative base of the party.
However, the most important parallel is one that hasn’t quite been fully realized yet. It’s simple, yet profound.
And the unraveling of ObamaCare continues apace:
A group of Democrats joined all Republicans in blocking a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors’ Medicare payments, legislation that was considered important to getting a broader healthcare bill through later this year.
Prior to the 47-53 procedural vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blamed the American Medical Association (AMA) for giving him bad information on the number of Republicans expected to support the measure.
Reid had offered the doctors group a deal to pass the “doctors’ fix” in return for support from the doctors on President Barack Obama’s broader healthcare initiative, which is slated for the Senate floor later this year.
Reid told colleagues that the AMA said it could deliver 27 Republican votes for the legislation, according to two Senate Democratic lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Reid needs the GOP votes because at least five members of his party have vowed to vote against the doctors’ fix.
It’s indicative enough when Reid can’t even get all of his own party–which is, of course, in the majority–to vote for this, but then to blame one of his most ardent supporters for “giving him bad information,” (in other words, lying to him) is a sure sign of an implosion either to come or already in progress.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) seems to have caught Speaker Pelosi in a bit of a double-standard:
Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda.
The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS.
In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were ‘underhanded tactics’ and that these tactics ‘are not worthy of our great democracy.’”
It seems that these tactics are perfectly acceptable to the Speaker when it’s in an effort she supports, but “underhanded” when done to support something she doesn’t agree with.
I’m happy to be proven wrong… can anyone show me where Speaker Pelosi has denounced this part of the HHS website prior to this time? (Denouncements after people start talking about it don’t count, as she might have just been bowing to public pressure.) Post it in the comments, if you can find it.
Obama “czar” of manufacturing, Ron Bloom says that the free market is “nonsense” and “kinda” agrees with communist China’s late (but no so great) Chairman Mao Tse Tung:
What a coincidence—another Obama staffer who “kinda” agrees with communist boss and mass murderer Mao. Which point does Mr. Bloom agree with Mao on? That it is not really necessary to use force or coercion to achieve political objectives or that one only needs to bluff a person or group of people into thinking the “gun” is not loaded? How well received would the words that Mr. Bloom uttered be, if he took his speech to town hall meetings? So how is the free market not working in communist China today? Would China be on the rise economically without free market capitalism? I wonder how Mao would feel about his precious China if he could see it today. I dare say that if Mao Tse Tung was still living and currently in power, China would still be 20 to 30 years behind the United States, economically and technologically.
Van Jones, Anita Dunn and now Ron Bloom. Is there a pattern here? Why are more of Obama’s staffers and so-called “czars” being exposed embracing the philosophies of a totalitarian communist dictator or Marxist philosophy in general? How long of a laundry list do we have to compile before we see that the current administration in place is anti-capitalist and Marxist? We should not get to the point where it is too late to find out.
Video of Ron Bloom’s full speech can be viewed below (four-part series): Read More…
I just ran across a small charity whose name sort of explains it all: Books for Soldiers. It makes sense, soldiers do have their share of down-time, and a good book is probably a good way for them to relax, especially in the Middle East, where local governments or just the overall security situation may restrict soldiers’ options for their off hours.
Right now, they’re running their 2009 fundraising campaign, in order to cover their costs, which are going up as their program becomes more popular. Please help them if you can.
Hmmm… I have a lot of books I haven’t read in a while, perhaps a soldier would like to read them…
Gotta love a man with this sort of honesty and integrity. Robert Bernstein writes:
AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.
At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.
That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.
When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.
Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.
It’s a shame that Bernstein stepped down from leading HRW in 1998, otherwise they might not be having the problems he writes about.
Kudos to Mr. Bernstein for his intestinal fortitude, and kudos to the New York Times for printing it.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn explains how the Obama campaign controlled the media before and up through last year’s presidential election:
The Obama administration still dictates the direction the so-called “main stream” media takes in reporting on President Obama and his cohorts [Article - Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign].
This explains why Anita Dunn, as a representative of the Obama administration, has attacked Fox News. This is why attacks have been launched against those who dare challenge the most highly esteemed potentate and savior of the world Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist horde. Obama and his lackeys are on the warpath and they are increasing their attacks on those who disagree with him and his systematic destroying of the United States of America. Attacks are not limited to just Fox News, but include Internet blogs, magazine and book publishers, conservative-leaning newspapers, radio commentary and yes, even private citizens.
Censorship and suppression of free speech? Violation of First Amendment rights? That will never happen in the United States, right? News flash: It’s happening now!
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute, issued this stern warning:
Right on queue, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently issued this statement in reference to the upcoming Copenhagen climate change summit:
What would be the most convenient way to oppress the world of mankind for decades to come? What would be the best way to destroy western civilization and/or capitalism once and for all? What would be the most efficacious method of bringing about a one-world government? Global climate change.
A group of global elitists could easily control who and what they want, all in the name of saving the planet or averting a global “crisis”. Remember what Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said: Read More…
Now a Democratic governor is speaking out against the Baucus bill:
Legislation is making its way through Congress to reform the nation’s health-care system, but the questions Tennessee’s governor and U.S. senators are raising about its cost to the states might reshape the debate’s final outcome.
In a break with most of the governors in his own party, Democrat Phil Bredesen is saying publicly that the legislation that currently serves as the framework for reform shifts too much of the financial burden to state governments.
Bredesen estimates that the Senate Finance Committee bill that passed last week would cost Tennessee $735 million over five years once the plan is in place — and possibly more than $1 billion. Covering that cost would mean taking money from the budgets for education, the state pension and other aspects of state government that have been battered by the recession, Bredesen says.
As more details come out, I’d not be surprised to see more Democratic governors expressing concerns like the above. That, in turn, will make it a lot harder for Democratic Senators in those states to vote for whatever bill comes out of the smoke-filled rooms in the Capitol; the voters will be asking why Democrat Senator so-and-so voted for the bill after Democrat Governor what’s-his-name said it would be bad for the state.