Red in a Blue State

Come Visit My New Blog: The Truth Server

2010-04-01T22:49:00.001-04:00

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

2010-03-28T23:43:00.006-04:00

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!!

2010-03-23T17:09:00.003-04:00

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

2010-02-22T11:01:00.004-05:00

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

2010-02-11T14:27:00.010-05:00

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

2010-02-09T23:29:00.009-05:00

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"

2010-02-04T17:09:00.004-05:00

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

2010-01-29T14:42:00.003-05:00

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?

2010-01-28T16:54:00.006-05:00

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

2010-01-26T09:20:00.009-05:00

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

2010-01-25T17:01:00.008-05:00

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

2010-01-20T00:04:00.005-05:00

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

2010-01-14T22:47:00.005-05:00

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"

2009-12-23T09:02:00.009-05:00

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

2009-12-19T10:49:00.006-05:00

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

2009-11-25T12:27:00.005-05:00

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!

2009-11-20T13:15:00.010-05:00

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

2009-11-18T21:39:00.011-05:00

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

2009-11-18T10:03:00.008-05:00

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?

2009-11-17T22:53:00.008-05:00

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

2009-11-05T09:43:00.003-05:00

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!

2009-10-27T12:15:00.007-04:00

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!

2009-10-16T14:38:00.003-04:00

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

2009-10-16T10:03:00.007-04:00

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?

2009-10-02T12:22:00.000-04:00

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.

Will Obama Actually Pass Health Care Reform as an Earmark on a TARP Bill??

2009-10-01T12:32:00.004-04:00

According to the Heritage Foundation, Obama and the Democrats plan to pass the health care overhaul as an "earmark" on an un-related piece of legislation: "... the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a ...TARP bill (on limiting executive pay) that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months."

I know what you are thinking: But haven't republicans ever done the same thing?

Certainly, it is a common trick on Capitol Hill to slip items into other legislation to ensure passage. It is a slimy trick that I thought Obama was going to rise above.

The outrage here is that the health care "reform" affects every single person in the United States.

I should think that something that will touch the lives in as basic and personal way as health care and health coverage would not be shuffled under the rug and slipped through without an actual vote on the issue.

Especially when every poll shows 60-70% of Americans are opposed to the plan they are trying to sneak through.

So much for change in Washington; so much for openness and transparency; so much for medical care in the U.S. if this thing actually passes.

Will You Need a State License for a Playdate?

2009-09-28T12:15:00.003-04:00

The state of Michigan is threatening legal action against a woman who help her neighbors by babysitting their kids and getting them on the school bus in the morning.

Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.

Her "crime?" Running an "unlicensed daycare facility."

The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors' kids, or face the consequences.

So, if you baby sit kids for any period of time, you need a license from the state?

What does this say about our country? Does the government really think we can no longer care for our own children? Or, does it mean that the government is truly out of control. I'll suggest the latter.

What does this mean for little Sally next door who watches your children so you and your spouse can go to a moive? Will Sally need to register as a child care provider?

Maybe Ms. Snyder should be glad she doesn't live in Massachusetts. She would have to submit a “curriculum” that provides “evidence that programs provide specific, planned learning experiences” and that supports “school-readiness.”

If my kids friends come over for a play-date, will I need to submit a written progress reports must be issued every three to six months that track the cognitive, social, emotional, language, motor and life skill developments of infants and preschoolers.

And you want the government to run healthcare....

Obama: Stopping Global Warming "Ahead" of Fixing the Economy

2009-09-23T12:22:00.006-04:00

In his first address to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, President Barack Obama seemed to indicate that fixing the economy should take a back seat to "address(ing) climate change."

Buried at the bottom of this AP story, Obama tells the U.N. that fixing one's national economy "must not be allowed" to take priority over stopping global warming:

On the warming planet, he said "the danger posed by climate change cannot be denied — and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred."
The president said "this is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over." He said he understood the temptation of nations to put economic recovery from recession ahead of work to address climate change, but said that must not be allowed to happen.

In his own words:

It's hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. I know that. It's even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together.

On one point, Obama is correct: fixing the economy is a very tempting idea, especially when the unemployment rate in the U.S. is fast approaching 10%, the highest it has been in nearly 3 decades!

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 6.9 million jobs, the department said.
Jobs have been lost across manufacturing and service industries.
Total unemployment stands at 14.9 million ...
Most cuts were seen in the construction industry, with 65,000 jobs lost in the month (of August).

I am sure that the 15 million people out of work will be pleased to know that Obama favors battling fictitious "climate change" is more important to him than fixing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression getting you back to work.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, and yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills.

If the president has his way, that struggle will get ever harder. Barack, it seems, would rather us get those toxic curly light bulbs than to get a job.

Obama: The change you can take to the unemployment office.

Did Obama Stage The "Terror Threats" in NYC and DC to Make Him Look Tough on Terror?

2009-09-22T17:11:00.005-04:00

Hmm. Set the Black Helicopter flying.

The day after the Washington Post breaks a story about Afghanistan being lost without increases to troop levels and Obama's inability to decide what to do, we are hit with the spectre of a massive terrorist plot, which, of course, Obama's crew is putting the kibosh on.

Federal counter-terrorism officials warned local police to patrol stadiums,
hotels and entertainment complexes for suspicious activity after the arrest of a
Colorado shuttle driver and others suspected in a potentially far-reaching
terror plot.

Extra officers wearing helmets and bulletproof vests were dispatched to spots like Grand Central Terminal in midtown Manhattan.

However, officials in New York City and Washington D.C. reported "no credible threat" that has sparked their actions.

"We have no specific information from intelligence sources that would lead us to believe there is a threat to our system at this time, yet MTPD (Metro Transit Police Department) officers remain vigilant," said Metro Police Chief Michael A. Taborn in a news release.

I know what you are thinking. I am nuts for even drawing the connection between Obama's Afghanistan dilemma and this threatening non-threat. I mean, no one would even accuse a sitting U.S. president of playing politics with our fear of terrorism, would he?

Humana Insurance Company Under Investigation for a Free Speech Violation

2009-09-22T10:50:00.004-04:00

The Insurance company Humana, it appears, has angered the Obama administration and faces "possible legal action" for having the temerity to inform its subscribers about possible changes to Medicare under the Liberals' health care plan:

(A mailer from Humana to subscribers) focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.

"While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," it said.

It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on the health care legislation, and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.

This information, so says Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, is false.

The health care reform bill we released ... strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits," said Baucus.

So, because Baucus says so, it must be true. And, if you disagree with the Liberals on their mission to over-haul health care, and have the nerve to inform your customers, you may face legal action.

HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana.

So, if you happen to have a contrary position to the Administration, you now face legal action? Beats being called a racist, I guess.

Seems to me that Obama misleads people everytime he opens his mouth about health care; the only person who gets in trouble for this is Joe Wilson.

Another victory for free speech under Barack Obama.

BREAKING!! Top Ten List for Tonight's Letterman Show with Obama

2009-09-21T12:14:00.005-04:00

REDINABLUESTATE NEWS FLASH!!!

I have managed to obtain the actual Top Ten List that I am told will be read on The Late Show with David Letterman in honor of President Obama's scheduled appearance. My sources tell me that Obama himself will read the list!!!

Tonight's Top Ten List -- The top ten Obama lies about the health care plan.

10 -- Anyone who opposes this plan is racist.
9 -- Adding 50 million people to the primary care system will have no impact on you.
8 -- This plan will require no additional funding, and will turn a profit in a few years!
7 -- This plan is not about a government takeover of health care.
6 -- This plan will not "add a dime" to the national debt or deficit.
5 -- There is $50 billion in waste and abuse in the Medicare system.
4 -- This plan will not increase costs paid by the middle class.
3 -- There will be no rationing of health care.
2 -- Illegal immigrants will not be covered.

And the #1 about Barack Obama lie about health care --

If you like your health insurance plan, nothing will change!!

The Top Ten Obama Lies About His Health Care Plans

2009-09-20T20:04:00.005-04:00

In honor of President Obama's scheduled appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, might I suggest a Top Ten List appropriate for the occasion.

Tonight's Top Ten List -- The top ten Obama lies about the health care plan. Read by the liar himself: President Obama!!

10 -- Anyone who opposes this plan is racist.
9 -- Adding 50 million people to the primary care system will have no impact on you.
8 -- This plan will require no additional funding, and will turn a profit in a few years!
7 -- This plan is not about a government takeover of health care.
6 -- This plan will not "add a dime" to the national debt or deficit.
5 -- There is $50 billion in waste and abuse in the Medicare system.
4 -- This plan will not increase costs paid by the middle class.
3 -- There will be no rationing of health care.
2 -- Illegal immigrants will not be covered.

And the #1 about Barack Obama lie about health care --

If you like your health insurance plan, nothing will change!!

My Kid Owes Nothing to Obama

2009-09-08T12:44:00.002-04:00

In his tepid and cliched speech to school kids today, President Obama summed up his message by implying that because he is trying to fix up the schools, our kids owe the president their best effort in school.

I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too.

So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you.

Who is this guy to expect anything from my kid? It is as appropriate as a neighbor seeing my son walk to school and saying I expect you to do well in school. After all, I am paying taxes to support your education.

Mr. President, you work for us; not the other way around. You do not have the authority to expect my kid to work hard. It is my kid's job, my job, and his teacher's job to demand excellence. It isn't your place to tell my son what to do.

Well, That Saves a Blog Entry

2009-09-06T09:22:00.003-04:00

Obama's choice for "Green Jobs Czar," Van Jones, gets the boot -- I mean resigns. Nice to hear some good news once in a while.

And, I had a headline all picked out: Obama Green Jobs "Czar" a Red.

Obama's latest pick for the Cuckoo's Nest is an avowed Communist/9-11 Truther who openly called congressional Republicans "assholes" in a recent speech.

But now, because people learned the truth about this cretin, he retreated to the typical "vicious smear campaign" canard and ran home crying. Why is it that when we tell the truth about Liberals they call it vicious smears?

Jones, who somehow missed the video of the airplanes actually hitting the buildings, signed a petition calling for an investigation into the cause of 9/11. Oh sure, he assures us:

That he did not agree with the petition's stand on the Sept. 11 attacks and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

He must not have read the petition before signing it. Perfect qualification to become a Democratic legislator.

But, there have been no denials about his involvement with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). From Wikipedia:

STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some struggle the anarchists left and STORM become more communist-oriented. The group considered Mao Zedong as their spiritual leader and as an atheist organization expressed deep dislike of religion.

Quite a loss for the country. Oh well, I am sure there are plenty of crackpots out there that Obama can pick from. He has no shortage of them so far.

Obama Czar Advocates Mandatory Organ Donation...

2009-09-06T00:01:00.005-04:00

...Unless You Can Prove Otherwise

According to CNS News, Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) wrote LAST YEAR that he favors requiring doctors to harvest the organs of deceased patients unless the patient has specifically designated otherwise.

Currently, after a patient passes, the medical staff is actually required to ask the family or other health care spokeperson(s) for permission to harvest organs for transplant. In their book, Nudge, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler argue that government should require that organs be harvested unless you can prove otherwise.

(Requiring patient consent) could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

Some might think it a good idea to increase the pool of available organs for transplant. However, think what could happen if you are unable to communicate when brought to the emergency room. How will you tell them not to take your liver, kidneys, heart, your skin? What if you are in a tragic accident and don't happen to have your driver's license that does not say Yes to donating; what if you die suddenly, far from home, and a family member cannot be located to advocate for you?

Oh well, you weren't using them eyes anyway. Yank them out.

Why stop there, Suss? Why not change the law to prevent people from saying No. Think of the good it would do for society. After all, gentlemen, your book's Web site tells us that we homo sapiens are incapable of making decisions on our own:

From the book's Web site (bolding in original):

Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion.

Unfortunately, we often choose poorly.
(The authors) show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society.

In other words, Sunstein beleives that you cannot make your own decisions and he wants to help you. And, what better position to help us all make better decisions than the Office of Information and Regulatory Affiars.

Among OIRA's responsibilites is the implementation of government-wide policies and standards with respect to Federal regulations and guidance documents.

So, Obama wants the government to take more (read: total) control of medical care decision-making, and the man who's job it is to advise Obama on policy is someone who thinks you make bad decisions.

Scary stuff indeed.

Yet another out-of-the-mainstream hack in the White House. Who would have thought Obama would surround himself with crackpots.

Massachusetts to Have Special Election to Decide Which Kennedy to Appoint

2009-08-31T11:25:00.005-04:00

Massachusetts is mired in a debate on how to fill the late Senator Kennedy's place in the U.S. Senate.

By the current law, the state is to have a special election to replace a senator who leaves his seat before his term expires. However, the good senator lobbied to have the law changed to allow the governor to appoint someone to the seat.

Ironically, Kennedy was one of the loudest voices to change the law in 2004 to prevent the governor from appointing someone to a vacated senate seat when a Republican governor might have a chance to replace Senator Kerry, should he have won the presidency.

Who gets that seat - and how he or she or perhaps they get it - became the week's unanswerable riddle. If you're a Massachusetts Democrat, it's pretty tough to vote against Ted Kennedy's deathbed wish, even when it's asking you to rewrite state law to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim senator for five months, even when you voted five years ago to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing an interim for the same period.

Well, here is a compromise position to consider, have a special election to decide which Kennedy should get the Kennedy seat in congress.

The ballot could look like this:

There is Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the second wife of the late Ted, whose primary qualification appears to be the ability to say I do.
There is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, some nature of relation, who proved to stupid and ill-informed to get Hillary's seat in New York (she would be prefect for MA, if that is the case)
Don't forget ol' Joe Kennedy, one time U.S. Rep, without whom we are all suffering.
And, the genius of Patrick "Patches" Kennedy, whose addictions and rehab visits make a perfect replacement for ol' Ted.
Or, Judy Flanagan Kennedy, a city councilor in Lynn, MA who is not related to Ted in any way, but is running under the slogan JFK for mayor.

This simple solution would solve the problem of changing the law to benefit one family by both allowing the special election and by ensuring some nature of Kennedy keeps the family seat. It is a lose-lose solution for the state of Kennedy-chusetts.

The U.S. Federal Government Wants YOUR Computer

2009-08-28T12:18:00.004-04:00

A bill in the U.S. Senate, written by Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), would -- says CNET.com -- "permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency"

Declan McCullagh writes that:

...the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Sounds innocuous, on the surface.

But, McCullagh quotes Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, this proposal is being pushed through "before the legal review is finished."

As most things from the Liberals these days, details are lacking and undefined.

"It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector," McCaullagh quoted Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance.

What constitutes an emergency is undefined; when they can seize which systems is undescribed. The bill is, apparently, a open offer for Obama to take over whichever systems he wants for whatever reason he deems "necessary for the national defense and security."

The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it," says Tein.

"Translation," summizes McCullagh, "if your company is deemed critical, a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

Pretty scary stuff, indeed.

Kennedy's funeral is being planned for the The Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

2009-08-26T14:21:00.004-04:00

"Kennedy's funeral is being planned for the The Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in the Mission Hill section of Boston. "

Boy, that's rich.

The man who built a career on developing government programs that never go away and don't solve the problems they are intended to help is being memorialized at a church called "Perpetual Help."

The nation's 30-year five trillion-dollar anti-poverty campaign should be evaluated primarily in terms of the extent to which it has facilitated the efforts of low-income people to achieve independence. Outcome-based analyses of the facts show that the current approach to poverty has been a dismal failure. Although welfare spending (in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars) has skyrocketed, there has been no significant reduction in America's poverty rate since the War on Poverty was launched.

Kennedy has been fighting his entire career for increasing dependency on government, whether it is expanding the welfare state, exponentially increasing illegal immigration, keeping kids trapped in failing public school (while sending his to private schools), and voting for higher taxes and against balanced budgets.

We, as a nation, are losing little with Kennedy's passing. He was just another silver-spoon Liberal pushing destructive policies. I am only saddened to not have the chance to vote against him again next year.

Obama: WIll Vacation Be Spoiled by Bill??

2009-08-21T23:49:00.000-04:00

President Obama plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

Wouldn't that be great if Hurricane Bill -- as in Bill Clinton -- ruined Obama's first presidential vacation. A delicious irony.

One would think that the president would stay in some fancy digs while on holiday. But, apparently, that is not the case, suggested White House spokeman PC Guy (aka Robert Gibbs):

But "there will be a certain point in which the president will largely be down enjoying his vacation, as well as I think the vacation that millions and millions of Americans hopefully will," the spokesman added.

Somehow, PC Guy, I don't think "millions and millions of Americans" will get to vacation at "a private 28-acre estate that rents for $35,000 a week."

Does anyone else find it odd that the same guy who bemoans "fat-cat" Wall Street tycoons decides to stay in a vacation home whose weekly rent is only slightly less than the average American makes in a year?

While on the Vineyard, rumor has it that Obama will visit the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound in near-by Hyannis, MA.

I wonder if -- in honor of good friend Kennedy -- Obama will pay a visit to Chappaquiddick, a mere 14 miles away.

Obama: Vacation to be Spoiled by Bill??

2009-08-21T23:00:00.007-04:00

But "there will be a certain point in which the president will largely be down enjoying his vacation, as well as I think the vacation that millions and millions of Americans hopefully will," the spokesman added.

Obama: Health Reform is Like "Belts and Suspenders"

2009-08-21T22:26:00.007-04:00

For the best speaker in the history of the World, President Obama has had more than his share of unintentional laughers in the past several days.

On a conference call and video forum to "200,000 of his most loyal supporters," Barack told the crowd that health care reform is like a "belt" and "suspenders."

"This is sort of like the belt-and-suspenders concept to keep up your pants," (Obama) said. "You know, the insurance reforms are the belt. The public option can be the suspenders.

Does that mean that the two are redundant? We can do with one and not the other, but don't need both? Does anybody know what that means?

Not that I am going to get all "wee-wee'd up" about a verbal gaffe or two. After all, maybe he's just "having problems" like the U.S. Postal Service.

Well, the one good thing is that it is the Jewish New Year, and maybe Obama can make a resolution to stop making these phonetic faux-pas.

...the Jewish New Year won’t take place until September 18th. In fact, today marks the beginning of the month of Elul, the last month before the New Year begins. And yet (during in his conference call with 1,000 rabbis) the president said “shanah tovah [happy new year] to all of you.” This is kind of like wishing people “Merry Christmas” on Thanksgiving.

Maybe, Obama just needs a vacation. He plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

I am sure that I will turn on Letterman tonight and hear ol' Dave start a new segment of Great Moments in Presidential Speeches, as he did for every minor blip in President Bush's verbiage.

Can't wait to get my Obama-isms calendar next year, too.

Boston Globe: At Least Obama's Health Care is Better than North Korea

2009-08-13T09:51:00.008-04:00

The Boston Globe's Metro newspaper, a freebie hand-out tabloid hawked on subway platforms, gives feint praise to President Obama and his health care "reform" plans:

Health care is far from the only issue driving critics to chide Obama for wanting to turn America into a socialist nation. Since the beginning of the 2008 election, Republicans have been warning that Obama plans to institute über-liberal policies. Here’s a look at the policies of some of the world’s countries most rooted in socialism. The United States is a far cry from them.

In short: We'll, it ain't Cuba!

Under one of the more ludicrous headlines of all time, the paper compares the United States favorably to such "Socialist" countries as Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea.

China: The Government oversees private business entities, mandating that they conform to the state's economic interests.

Setting aside that these countries are avowed Communist regimes, I am grateful that the Obama administration doesn't control any private entities in this country, or want to meddle in their business affairs or affect the course of any business in the U.S.

If the best thing you can say about Obama's health care plan is that it is better than North Korea's health care, you had better revisit your talking points.

You think Obama's policies are liberal? America, you haven’t even begun to taste true liberalism...

Perhaps that is true; but we don't want a taste of "true liberalism" (aka Communism). It tastes bitter going down and leaves a real sour aftertaste, from what I hear.

Obama's Aide: If You Are Not Adolescent or Middle Age, Forget About Getting Medical Care.

2009-08-09T23:00:00.017-04:00

As the Obama Administration works on details of the proposed health care overhaul, President Obama is getting advice from someone with some very unsettling views on who should be allowed to receive medical care.

After a nationwide search, Obama hired Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, as a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy.

Writing in the Lancet journal (free subscription required for article), Emanuel and two colleagues examined various means for the "allocation of scarce medical interventions." A cynic might call this an article on how to best ration health care.

This article on how to best ration health care contains some chilling conclusions on the part of Obama's right-hand man on health care policy.

Emanuel favors what he calls the Complete Lives System, which give priority to "younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid." Meaning, that young people between ages 15 and 40 will become the most likely to receive these "scarce medical interventions." Leaving children and the elderly to take a back seat.

Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.

The basic theory is, if a 25-year-old person and a 60-year-old person both require the same medical treatment at the same time, the 20 something will get the care long before his elder, simply because he -- in theory -- has longer to live.

...why give an extra year to a person who has lived for many when it could be given to someone who would otherwise die having had few?

As for giving the 25-year old preference over an infant, Emanuel speculates:

It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does...

Excuse me? This is a shocking and clearly ignorant piece of filth, coming -- I am certain -- from someone who has not lost a child. This is a grotesque insult, bred from pure ignorance; and to base an entire health care philosophy on this bit of hate is contemptible at best. Sick and disturbed at worst.

However, if you are a sickly or disabled young person, you might be out of luck, too:

A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.

Combine this notion with a finding in an Emanuel article from 10 years ago (PDF), and the future for the disabled seems even more in question:

(S)ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

If there is anyone out there with a disabled child, know that Obama's main man on health care does not want to give medical care to your child because he will never become a fully "participating citizen."

As for the elderly, it seems that they are no better off:

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance (at receiving medical treatment), whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...

But, these are just a few thoughts from the man whom Barack Obama has entrusted with YOUR medical care -- assuming you are among the select people who will be allowed to receive it.

And to think, we were afraid that Obama would limit medical care access to the elderly, shuttling them off to hospices instead. It seems his top adviser also wants to allow infants in children to die, rather than give them life saving treatment, even if that life is necessarily short.

This is some of the most twisted thinking from so-called respected ethicist I have ever heard. This is the stuff of bad science fiction movies. And if we don't act, it may become part-and-parcel of YOUR health care.

Click on Image to view larger size

President Obama: I Will Pass Health Care Overhaul Unilaterally

2009-08-07T19:29:00.006-04:00

President Obama plans to pass massive health care legislation that will affect every single American citizen without considering the opinions of legislators opposing the measure:

"Sometime in September we're going to have to make an assessment" about whether to keep trying to negotiate with Republicans, President Obama told MSNBC.

Well, so much for the new tone in Washington under Obama. Another broken campaign promise.

Like the planning and execution of the "stimulus" bill before, Republicans Need Not Apply.

We will just have to get him to break that promise about taking over the health care system.

I Turned Myself in to the White House Disinformation Line

2009-08-06T10:20:00.002-04:00

Feeling horribly guilty about trying to spread the truth about the Obama health care take-over plans, I turned myself in to the White House Health Reform Office.

Dear Leader --

I feel I must turn myself in. I have been trading in disinformation about President Obama's health care plans.

On a nearly daily basis, I have been posting things to my FaceBook account and to my blog when I can.

http://redboyinabluestate.blogspot.com/

I have used actual facts, direct quotes from the president, and opinions of experts in my missives. In short, I have been speaking the truth about how this plan will hurt nearly all Americans.

I know I should be toeing the Obama line about how he can add 50 million people to the health care rolls without causing any changes in the way I receive health care. I know that I should be saying that the president's plans will not just say money, but will actually earn a multi-billion dollar profit.

I am sorry. I will try to do better from now on, Amen.

Phew. I feel better. I turned myself in because I just know that Obama doesn't really want Americans to turn their fellow citizens for having an opinion and expressing their freedom of speech.

That would be un-American.

Boston Globe: All Health Care Opponents are Now "GOP Activists"

2009-08-06T09:35:00.008-04:00

The Democrats and Liberals have been out the past few days insulting an demeaning anyone who actually has opinions against the Obama health care plans. We have been called a mob, Brooks Brothers protesters, insurance company flunkies, and even astro-turf.

Now, the Boston Globe is calling us all "GOP activists."

Scenes like this are playing out across America. As Congress returns home for its summer break, conservative activists are packing community halls and school cafeterias to protest the healthcare legislation, hoping to derail President Obama’s top domestic priority. In Texas, Representative Lloyd Doggett was confronted by a crowd chanting “Just say no!’’

Shocking! A U.S. representative was "confronted" by people saying "No." I can see why this could be so traumatic. No one should say "No" to a legislator, unless he is a Republican, of course.

Strange that the Globe has changed the headline of the story to a use a less divisive term, from "GOP activists" to "Foes."

While I have yet to attend a town hall on health care, I have not been called by the GOP, any insurance company, Brooks Brothers, or any other organization purported to be "packing" these forums. Maybe, just maybe, these folks are just normal, everyday Americans who are angry; scared about losing control of one of the most basic services that they rely on every day.

Nah!

Keep it up, Libs. The more you insult and demean us, the angrier we will get and the stronger we will be.

No wonder why the Boston Globe is on the brink of going out of business.

**Thanks to WTKK-FMs Michael Graham for pointing out this story.

Study: Global Warming is Your Kids' Fault

2009-08-05T12:40:00.009-04:00

Tell me again how people in the global-warming crowd are not completely nuts.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Global warming is your fault for having the audacity to have children.

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent - about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But, have no fear, the study authors say, the length of a child's lifespan will directly affect his "overall impact on the global carbon equation."

The impact of having children differs between countries. While some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the United States, their overall impact on the global carbon equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption.

So, if your child dies young, you can take some solace in the fact that his negative impact on the environment will be so much less. A comforting thought, indeed.

And, implies the study, we should all be grateful for those kids in China that have been killed over the one-child-per-family rule and third world poverty that kills children across this fever-riddled globe of ours.

The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one-fifth the impact of a child born in the United States, the study found.

Who the heck thinks like this? Who could get a birth announcement in the mail and think "Oh my God! The environment!!"

The tax-payer supported professors at OSU, and their Liberal kook friends, that's who.

Well, thank goodness that someone is doing something about global warming. Even though it doesn't exist.

And You Want These People to Run Healthcare -- Part VII

2009-07-31T09:41:00.004-04:00

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

How hard would it be to administer a program where people bring their "clunkers" to a car dealer and get "cash" to buy a new one.

The goal was for one million cars to be traded in. Sounds simple, right? Auto companies do cash rebates all the time. How hard can it be?

Well:

The White House said Thursday it was assessing its options amid concerns the $1 billion budget for rebates for new car sales may have been depleted. The program officially began last week and has been heavily publicized by automakers and dealers.

Transportation Department officials called lawmakers earlier Thursday to alert them of plans to suspend the program as early as Friday.

The feds completely under-estimated the demand and cost of the program, and now are scrambling to "try to find additional funding for the program" after only a week.

Alan Helfman, general manager of River Oaks Chrysler Jeep in Houston, said he was worried that the government wouldn't pay for some of his clunker deals.

Think about this when you hear Obama and the Democrats talk about health care. If they can't administer a program for one million people, how will they handle 300 million people's health care? If they underestimated their ability to fund a $1 billion program, how can they deal with a $1.5 trillion health care system?

"There's no doubt I'm going to get hammered on a deal or two," Helfman said.

Alan, there is a lot more of that coming if Obama gets his health plan through.

No Victory in Afghanistan; Obama Shows His True Stripes Again

2009-07-24T18:13:00.007-04:00

Fresh off his Wednesday evening performance of insulting a police officer for doing his job while being verbally assaulted by a pretentious Harvard professor, Obama again shows his true colors in an interview with ABC news, where he shied away from using the term "Victory" when it comes to the war in Afghanistan.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

Well, have no fear, Barack. Our enemies in Afghanistan and the rest of the world will not worry about using your very words against our country and our troops.

How many times have these words been used against Private Bowe Bergdahl, who is in Taliban custody as Obama speaks. You can only imagine how his captors have taunted and tormented Bergdahl with the notion that Obama doesn't care if we achieve victory.

Before any Liberal detractors tell me how Obama assured us "our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States," take a few minutes to think about how Obama's words will be amplified throughout the region where hundred of our troops have been killed this year alone.

President Obama has no idea how to deal with a hostile enemy or foe of this country. From his weak-kneed dealings with known terrorist-supporting dictators, to his inability to respond to teenage pirates, to declaring the U.S. cannot win in Afghanistan, Obama has constantly sold out this country in ways no president in recent memory ever has -- or ever would.

Obama: Doctors Sacrifice Patient Care to Make Money

2009-07-23T11:51:00.004-04:00

Without using these exact words, President Obama signaled to the American people that he believes medical doctors routinely sacrifice proper medical care in favor of making more money for themselves.

When asked by Steve Koff of the Cleveland Plain Dealer if the American people would see a drop in service from doctors under the Obama plan, the president impugned all doctors by suggesting they make patient care decisions solely based on what they can charge.

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Does any serious, common-sense person out there truly believe that all doctors -- a majority of doctors, any number more than a couple of exceptions -- would intentionally look for the most expensive remedy for an ailment?

While I am certain that some may act this way, it is a tiny minority, not worth revamping 17% of the U.S. economy to stop.

Perhaps, too, there are some doctors who choose riskier, more "profitable" procedures out of hubris, to prove they can.

But, I highly doubt that the typical pediatrician has a price list on the wall and looks to super-size your care just so he can make that next payment on his new Hummer. If your doc does this, it is time to find a new doctor -- something allowed under 100% of health care plans.

Sorry Obama; just more lies, distortions, and rhetoric from the Hope and Change man himself.

Obama "Stupidly" Reveals His True Self

2009-07-23T10:03:00.009-04:00

In President Obama's "health care" press conference last night, Obama took the time -- actually stopping his answer to one question short -- to bungle through a question on the arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates. Jr.

I didn't want to comment on this, as the president was so obviously wrong to weigh in on this issue, but most of the commentary I have heard so far has not hit on this point.

Departing from his typically sprawling, incoherent answers, Obama matter-of-factly accused Sgt. James Crowley and the entire Cambridge, MA police department of acting "stupidly" in arresting Gates. That is, after he announced repeatedly that HE DIDN'T KNOW ALL OF THE FACTS!!

Obama was irresponsible on so many fronts with this charge it is hard to find where to start.

First off, he picked this question out specifically to answer, and to answer last. If, as he and Gates claim, the two are friends, Obama should never have fielded this question. It is a serious conflict of interest for a national public official of his position to comment on a matter involving a local police department and his friend.

Further, for him to levy such a blunt response to an issue for which he admittedly did not have all the information is a complete abdication of leadership. Any good leader would not take the question until he had all the facts. But, a leader, Obama is not.

Then, to aggravate the problem further, Obama rattled off a time line that was completely incorrect and devoid of many of the key facts in the event. Without my laboring over the well-documented facts, yet again, Obama uttered not one word about Gates' improper behavior, which he admits to himself.

For your edification, Mr. President, while it is possible that the initial 911 call was racially-motivated, the only time race truly entered this incident is when Gates started screaming Racism. From all accounts, the officer did nothing even slightly racial. It was Gates who acted racially the entire time.

Whether or not Gates should have been arrested is a matter for the police to sort out. But, the fact the our president would speak to the country -- to the entire world -- levying the charge of racism and incompetence about a police force that protected him while he was at Harvard University, is an utter embarrassment and a complete abdication of leadership.

I fear that Obama showed his true self last night. He is a man overly-conscious about race (remember his "typical white" grandmother) and racism who has serious issues with authority and anyone who might exert authority over him.

It is clear from his choosing to answer this question, his tone of voice, his willingness to dismiss relevant facts (ones that Gates himself acknowledges) in order to not just criticize the police, but insult them is telling. This is the true Obama, and he laid it out for all of us to see last night.

As the top law enforcement officer in the country, Obama should be ashamed this morning. I know I am.

Obama's Pledge to Cut $100m Is "One Day's Interest" On Stimulus Spending

2009-07-21T12:06:00.003-04:00

During the campaign, President Obama promised that he and his cabinet would go "line-by-line" through the federal budget, looking for ways to save money.

That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges.... We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.

In April, Obama boldly announced that his cost-cutting efforts would save $100 million, and in a mere 90-days (six months into his presidency), the administration would produce a report itemizing the results of these heroic efforts to guard our tax dollars.

"We've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."

Well, 90 days has come and there is no report in sight. Not the best way to earn our trust.

Another way to earn our trust is to stop aggrandizing your desire to cut costs. Obama is patting himself on the back for saving $100 million -- out of a $3.6 trillion budget! His campaign pledge to delve line-by-line saved a whopping 3%.

Obama increased federal spending by $500 billion over President Bush's last bloated budget, then brags about cutting a measly 3%.

As expected, the White House is always open to its critics.

"Only in Washington, D.C., is $100 million not a lot of money," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

In the context of a $3 trillion dollar budget, an $800 billion "stimulus" bill, a $90 billion "supplemental" budget, a $1.5 trillion health care proposal, and innumerable bailouts, $100 million dollars in cost-cutting is not a lot of money. But, it is a huge insult to the American taxpayer.

Senator Mitch McConnell said it best:

"Any amount of savings is obviously welcome," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in April. "But [$100 million is] about the average amount we'll spend every single day just covering the interest on the stimulus package that we passed earlier this year."

Obama's Stimulus Package Funds Pork -- Literally!!

2009-07-20T23:13:00.007-04:00

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is doing its part to help "stimulate" the economy:

(The USDA) purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound. In terms of the dairy purchase referenced, USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) purchased 837,936 pounds of mozzarella cheese and 4,039,200 pounds of processed cheese. The canned pork purchase was 8,424,000 pounds at a cost of $16,784,000, or approximately $1.99 per pound.

According to the Recovery.gov website (rounded up nicely by Matt Drudge), these purchases amounted to nearly $30 million of food stuffs.

The USDA reports that the food will be used for distribution to local organizations that assist the needy – including food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens. A noble goal to be sure.

But, isn't the "stimulus" money supposed to be going to help kick-start the economy? How does provid(ing) food to those hardest hit by these tough times help the economy?

Oh it does, assures the USDA:

...the purchases also provide a modest economic benefit of benefiting Americans working at food retailers, manufacturers and transportation companies as well as the farmers and ranchers who produce our food supply.

Thirty million dollars for a modest benefit to the economy? I hate to see what the Obama administration would want to evince a significant benefit. Oh yeah, $800 billion!

And you wonder why it's not working....

Media Bias is Bigger Issue than Racism in Boston

2009-07-20T17:48:00.007-04:00

In Boston, folks are often charged with being racist. The allegation comes from old misunderstandings and misrepresentations -- and from the Boston Globe!

Earlier today, esteemed (and whack-job) Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for apparently trying to break into his own home.

Police arrived at Gates’s Ware Street home near Harvard Square at 12:44 p.m. to question him. Gates... had trouble unlocking his door after it became jammed.
He was booked for disorderly conduct after “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior,” according to a police report. Gates accused the investigating officer of being a racist and told him he had "no idea who he was messing with,'' the report said.
Gates told the officer that he was being targeted because "I'm a black man in America.''

Sounds like a straight-forward case of Arrested for Being Black, right?

The arrest of such a prominent scholar under what some described as dubious circumstances shook some members of the black Harvard community.

Not so fast. It seems the Globe "neglected" to include some key facts from its story, as detailed in the Boston Herald:

An officer ordered the man to identify himself, and Gates refused, according to the report. Gates began calling the officer a racist and said repeatedly, "This is what happens to black men in America."
Officers said they tried to calm down the 58-year-old academic, who responded, "You don’t know who you’re messing with," according to the police report.

These sound like the actions of a stable, respected individual don't they?

Oddly, the Globe did link to a copy of the Boston Police Incident Report:

(The 911 caller) said she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpaks on the porch (of the house)...

Office James Crowley noted that he stood in plain view of the man... I asked him if he would step out on the porch and speak with me. He replied: "No, I will not."... I asked Gates to provide me photo identification so I could verify he resided (in the house). Gates initially refused...

I could hear Gates demanding my name (for a third time) I again told Gates that I would speak to him outside. His reply was: "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside."

For what reason could the Boston Globe have for omitting all these details about Gates' action leading up to his arrest? Gates wasn't arrested for breaking-and-entering, he was arrested for Disorderly Conduct. He wasn't arrested for being black, he was arrested for being a pain in the ass.

Why do I have the sense that Officer Crowley will face more of a reprimand than will Gates?

A man -- any man -- is trying to pry open the front door of a house with a crowbar, refuses to identify himself, refuses to provide proof that he lives in the house, and gets belligerent with the police; damn straight they better arrest him.

The Problem of Hate Crimes

2009-07-09T16:58:00.005-04:00

The Akron Beacon Journal of Ohio touted a story about a "teen mob" attack on a family.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the story continued, the mob "confronted" the family and started shouting racially-loaded statements at the Marshall, for no apparent reason.

The Marshalls...say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50.

'My thing is,'' Marshall said, ''I didn't want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything.
''I'm lucky. They didn't break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.''
Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.
''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''

A wandering gang of nearly fifty teenagers assaulted these 6 people, two of whom were young teenagers, taunting the family with racist speech. The response from the Akron police department?

Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime.

Here is the problem with hate crime legislation. It requires an immeasurable level of judgment for someone to come to the conclusion a crime is motivated by racial hate. It requires investigating and criminalizing thought. And, it allows for far too much political and societal pressure to slant law enforcement decisions.

You see, Marshall and his friends are white; the attackers are all African-American. It wasn't White Power slogans that the attackers were chanting; rather Black Power;

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world''...

Do you think for a second, were this a swarm of white kids assaulting a half-dozen black kids, all the while screaming This is our world or This is a white world that the Akron police department would say "they aren't ready to call it a hate crime."

Maybe, Marshall and his friends started screaming racists rants at the black kids first. We have only his side of the story. Would Marshall be guilty of a hate crime?

There is too much need for judgment and, yes, prejudice for racial hate crimes to be fair or effective. Call off the Thought Police and slam these kids in jail for assault, causing mayhem, public disturbance, or whatever else you can.

But, don't pretend you are doing anyone any favors by prosecuting ideas and opinions -- no matter how stupid and ignorant those ideas are.

Obama's Smoke and Mirrors Health Care Financing

2009-06-25T00:00:00.007-04:00

During ABC News' forum on President Obama's health care plans, a program called Prescription for America, Obama summarized his ambitions towards health care reform as "Build on what works, fix what's broken, and still save substantial money."

Fine and reasonable-sounding goals.

However, as he discussed financing his plans throughout the evening, the reasonableness started to fade quickly from what he was saying. In short, Obama believes he can finance the $1.6 billion to $3 billion estimated price tag by:

capping tax deductions on charitable deductions for people making over $250,000
"reallocating existing health care dollars that are not money that is not being spent wisely."
incorporating anticipated savings from changing the way health care is managed(such as "paying for quality instead of quantity and making sure we are investing in prevention").

Using these three methods, he assures us, will allow him to cover the alleged 46 million uninsured people. Color me skeptical.

The amount of money from capping tax deductions is unquantifiable. No one can predict the affect that changing the tax deduction for charitable deductions will affect the amount people donate. We know historically that charitable deductions are greatly affected by the economy. Why would one assume that changing tax deductability will not reduce the amount donated and, thus, the amount of taxes that can be put towards health care (not to mention the severe disconnect between charitable giving and health care funding). If revenue targets are not met, what next? Does he continue to lower the thresholds until revenue is satisfied or all charitable deductions are eliminated?

Next, Obama discussed this amorphous reallocation of unwisely spent funds without discussing now much this represents. He repeatedly mentioned that "all the experts" agree that 30% of health care spending is not being spent "wisely." Here again is a classic Obama trick -- what is "wisely" and who will determine which funds can be "reallocated" and to where.

And, of course, is the ridiculous notion of counting upon estimated future savings to pay for current programs. It is pure common sense that one should not include speculative future savings in the current budget. It is such a common sense measure that the politically independent Congressional Budget Office, whose entire function is to evaluate the costs of government programs, is not allowed to consider future savings.

Obama assured us that "only 2-3 % (of taxpayers) would see tax increase" in order to fund his health care initiatives.

If you believe that, I have a health insurance bridge plan to sell you.

Obama to Iran: Please Come to My July 4 Party. It Will Be Great Fun!

2009-06-24T11:51:00.007-04:00

What better way to celebrate United States' freedom and democracy than to invite to the barbecue representatives of a country that believes in neither? What better way to honor the lives of the hundreds of thousands who have died defending the notion that man is born to be free than by honoring a country that is today slaughtering demonstrators in cold blood.

Well, that is exactly what President Obama is STILL planning to do by keeping open invitations to Iranian diplomats to join the July 4th festivities at American embassies throughout the world.

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

This attitude might have made sense before the June 12 "election" in Iran. But, in the bloody aftermath of the election, not even considering dis-inviting Iranian diplomats is borderline insane.

The White House announced yesterday -- nearly two weeks into the protests of the Iran election, during which 17 protesters have been killed by government forces (so far) -- that it will not back down on its "gesture of goodwill" towards Iran.

How difficult would it be for Obama to actually take a stand on something and tell Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that in light of the current political and civil unrest in Iran, both of our countries might be better served by putting off this goodwill gesture until a more appropriate time.

Maybe Labor Day, Mr. Supreme Leader; would work for you?

And You Want These People to Run Healthcare -- part VII

2009-06-23T11:14:00.003-04:00

While I understand the debate between New York Governor David Paterson and New York senators involves state-level and not federal-level politicians, you can't read this story and not fret what might come if we allow politicians on any level to run the health care system in this country.

Since two dissident Democratic senators teamed up with Republicans to form a coalition government and oust Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, angry Democrats have refused to take part in Senate sessions and have hidden bills and agendas from the coalition.

These knuckleheads are so dysfunctional that the governor has to throw a hissy fit and send the senators to their rooms over the weekend and holidays if the senators don't get over their hissy fit.

"If the senators do not cooperate with this order (for a special legislative session), I will convene a special session everyday until they do," Paterson said. "That includes Saturdays and Sundays, that includes Fourth of July. There will be no excuses, and there will be no tolerance to non-compliance to this order."

While the governor can't force senators to vote on or debate bills, the New York Constitution grants him the power to call a special legislative session – and experts say he can even keep the senators in the state house with the help of state police.

Without comment on the merits of any side in this spitting match, do you really want people this narcissistic and self-involved to make decisions that will directly affect your ability to deal with illness or injury in yourself or your family?

Not me; I will stick with Blue Cross, thank you very much.

UN to NOKO: Can We Pretty Please Look for Contraband on Your Ship?

2009-06-22T12:20:00.006-04:00

I am far from the first to comment on this issue, and farther still from the last to.

But, this one line from the Associated Press cannot go without comment.

The Security Council resolution calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels on the high seas "if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo" contains banned weapons or material to make them, and if approval is given by the country whose flag the ship sails under.

If I am reading this right, we get intelligence that a country is illegally putting illegal materials on a ship and illegally transporting those materials to another country, where they could be sold to parties who would use them against us, we have to ask the country performing these illegal acts for permission to search the ship?

Are they serious?

Excuse me, Mr. Kim Jong-il, we have satellite photos of your people putting nuclear missiles on that boat of yours; we think they are being shipped to a country hostile to us, and could eventually be used against us. Can we pretty please, with sugar on top, take a look?
No?
Well, then, Supreme Leader sir, could you direct the ship to a friendly port, where they can inspect the contents, oh please, please, please?
No?
Well, OK then. Thanks anyway; smooth sailing!

No wonder why Mr Il is smiling.

Does anybody else find this U.N. decree a complete lunacy?

The Latest Obama Outrage -- Forced Relocation!

2009-06-13T13:01:00.009-04:00

According to the Telegraph newspaper in England, President Barack Obama has signed onto a plan to "shrink" cities in the U.S.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint (MI).

The plan is to focus on 50 U.S. cities "most" of which are in the Mid-West Rust Belt region of the country. In Flint alone, Kildee wants the city to buy more than 4,000 houses, level them, and return most of the land to nature.

Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.
He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful...

I am glad that Kildee is happy with this notion; who cares if the rest of us like the idea?

Does Obama plan to buy up thousands of homes in 50 cities across the nation and destroy them? Once again, the question begs, with what money, Barack? Even at fire-sale prices, buying tens of thousands of home and paying the labor to level the buildings and clear the land will not come cheap.

And, despite assurances by Kildee that no one would be forced to move, if there are holdouts, they will certainly be taken to court and required to relocate against their will. The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can toss out pretty much anyone from his house if it improves the community in someone's eyes.

Further, if people refuse to relocate, the planned savings from consolidating public services will be lost.

Think, too, about the political disaster that deciding what neighborhoods will be taken and who will be forced to move. This administration couldn't even close a few car dealerships without their political motives called into question (full-disclosure, yes I did too).

It might be interesting to study what effect these relocation will have on political districts and electoral populations.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish.

Here again comes the problem of who gets forced to sell and at how much of a loss? What happens to someone who lives in a "more affluent" area, but doesn't want to sell? Simple, the government buys around them, sub-divides the neighbor's houses and changes the quality of the neighborhood. The "more affluent" people would effectually be forced to sell their home at a greatly reduced price and leave their neighborhood or home town, should they want to maintain their lifestyle.

Call me cynical, but I see a direct parallel between this concept and the uber-liberal notion that we should all live in planned communities in urban centers. Could this be step one in a subversive mission to accomplish this?

It is all-too predictable what will happen in a few years when the economy comes back: these public-owned areas will be sold to friends and supporters who will re-develop the land, and again plant new, large, sprawling homes and mansions. Quite a scheme.

You just know this is not going to be pretty, effective, or cheap.

Is Obama Imitating Hugo Chavez?

2009-06-11T20:47:00.000-04:00

An intersting confluence of stories leaves me wondering about the motives and goals of President Obama.

From Caracas, Venezuela:

The Venezuelan government of U.S.-critic President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday ordered Coca-Cola Co to withdraw its Coke Zero beverage from the South American nation, citing unspecified dangers to health. The decision follows a wave of nationalizations and increased scrutiny of businesses in South America's top oil exporter.

From Washington, D.C. USA (or, I think Obama is the president of the USA):

The Obama administration says executive compensation must be better managed to prevent the sort of risk-taking that jeopardizes the economy.
Gene Sperling, who advises Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said Thursday the administration does not want to impose caps on executive pay. But he also laid out for the House Financial Services Committee a list of guidelines calling on publicly-held companies to link compensation to long-term performance, not short-term gains.
Sperling said in prepared testimony that the administration believes compensation practices "must be better aligned with long-term value and prudent risk management at all firms, and not just for the financial services industry."

Call me a simpleton, if you will, but the government producing guidelines about how much a private company can pay its executives sounds like "increased scrutiny of business" to me.

"I can say with certainty that nobody in the Obama administration is proposing such a thing," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said.

Combine this with the U.S. government's unprecedented ownership stake in auto manufacturers, insurance companies, and banks.

CitiBank on Wednesday said it was moving forward with a plan to convert a large chunk of its preferred shares into common equity. The long-awaited move is expected to give the United States government a 34 percent ownership stake in the troubled bank.

When the president of the United States is making moves that parallel the murderous dictatorial Hugo Chavez, this country is going in the wrong direction.

Obama is Nothing if Not Inconsistent

2009-06-11T19:02:00.000-04:00

Back in March, President Obama assured us that terrorists would not be read their Miranda rights.

And two months after his Inauguration, President Obama reiterated, "Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."

Well, in the last two months, Obama seems to have changed his mind.

For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

And then, there is his hard line on spending:

"The 'pay-as-you-go' rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."
Last month Obama suggested a tougher plan that would prohibit Congress from swelling the deficit in one year by putting off until later years the tax increases or spending cuts to pay for it.

Except, of course, when it comes to his own priorities:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.

Why bother being consistent and keep your word if no one in the mainstream media will hold you to it.

Roughly twice as much of the (media) coverage of Obama (44%) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22%) or Clinton (26%). Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda.

Why bother commenting on Obama's proposals when you can gush about Michelle's arms?

One Reason Why Obama's Pick for Supreme Court Should be Blocked

2009-05-26T09:49:00.009-04:00

President Barack Obama has stunned no one by picking a double-quota buster to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court of the U.S., Sonia Sotomayor.

An Historic pick from our Historic president.

However, there is no doubt that Obama catered to the female and Latino voting blocks in picking one of each in one package.

This charge is not an indictment of her qualifications; by all accounts she is well-experienced enough to be on the SCOTUS.

However, one statement made by Sotomayor in 2001 should prevent her from receiving a lifetime appointment to the High Court, as her irrelevant personal prejudices will undoubtedly interfere with her ability to evaluate issues fairly for all.
l
In addition to her quotes supporting judicial activism from the bench (a decidedly anti-constitutional activity), her suggestion that a Hispanic woman would naturally make better judicial decisions than a "(rich) white man,' as a result of her genes is an outrage.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Can you imagine if Bush appointee John Roberts had suggested at any point in his life that a white male could make better decisions than any woman?

This statement alone makes her unqualified to be on the SCOTUS. This is a decidedly anti-Constitutional line of thinking that is sexist AND racist and shouldn't be tolerated from anyone by anyone.

In one of her few explosive cases, Sotomayor voted (without writing an opinion) to join two colleagues in upholding ... racial discrimination by New Haven, Conn. The city denied promotions to the firefighters who did best on a test of job-related skills because none was black.

Your Honor, the law is the law. If something goes against the Constitution it goes against the Constitution, regardless of the skin color and gender of the people involved in the case.

Obama: I Hope the Congress Doesn't Do What I Did

2009-05-26T09:25:00.000-04:00

In his introduction of Sonia Sotomayor, the president asked congress to act in a bipartisan fashion and support his nominee.

Unlike what Obama himself did in 2005:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

However:

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination.

Why:

I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power...

Obama voted against a "qualified" nominee solely for political reasons.

Sounds like a bipartisan decision to me.

Obama: US's Successful Prevention of Terror "Off Course"

2009-05-21T11:35:00.004-04:00

President Obama announced today that he believes that the Bush Administration went "off course" in their efforts to protect us from terrorism.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. ...

While he didn't call Bush by name, his inference was clear as he uttered his daily "problem I inherited" mantra. Sorry Obama, but President Bush also "inherited" the problem of terrorism; but, I don't recall his carping about it once.

By my rudimentary math, terrorist attacks on the U.S. soil, its territories, and interests before 9/12/01: dozens. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. soil, its territories, and interests after 9/12/01: zero.

Yeah, that is a direction I want to veer away from; we certainly don't want to maintain a record like that.

Do you still feel safer?

With New Fuel Economy Standards Obama Makes Us Less Safe --Again!

2009-05-20T12:37:00.008-04:00

President Obama has made this country less safe yesterday be announcing that auto-makers must meet stringent new mileage standards that experts believe will result in more highway deaths.

The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually.

These four disparate and non-partisan agencies have empirical evidence that increasing fuel-economy demands will result in more Americans dying on the roads. But, apparently, Obama doesn't care.

The government says no tradeoff (between fuel economy and auto safety) exists, because nothing in the new rules would force automakers to sell more small cars, which are more dangerous in crashes than larger ones. But some safety experts think otherwise.

Here again, Obama thinks himself smarter than the industry experts. I will side with the non-partisan experts over the word of a politician. Not that a politician would gloss over the facts to sell a program.

While it is true that nothing literally "forces automakers to sell more small cars," that result is inevitably, report many experts.

The concern is that the auto-makers, already in a tight financial situation, will short-sheet the changes to meet the shortened deadlines.

...(the) automakers' dire financial straits are forcing safety to a back burner. It raises the risk that cash-strapped automakers will take the fastest and cheapest route to building more fuel-efficient vehicles: Make them smaller and lighter.

"The deadlines are so tight that downsizing will be a tempting compliance strategy" for automakers, says John Graham, the former rulemaking chief in the Office of Management and Budget.

Another concern is that the "Big 3" auto-makers in the U.S. will no longer put up an aggressive posture in opposition to these changes by arguing the reduction in safety, because of the bailout money the companies have been receiving.

In comments to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last June, GM vigorously protested higher fuel-economy standards, saying they would be too costly and would force it to adopt technologies that impair performance and reliability. But in December, when it submitted its restructuring plan to Congress, GM said it erred by not moving more quickly on such vehicles.

This plan also doesn't seem to consider the current cars on the road. If the national average of most people having 10-year old cars maintains, then in 2016 the fuel-efficient cars will compete against cars from 2006 to 2015 in emissions.

Further, these changes might not work. CBS Correspondent Bill Plante told CBS Early Show's Harry Smith that "critics say there's no evidence that new standards will clean up the environment. And they charge the White House is pushing the move on struggling automakers who can't afford to fight the plan."

The major automakers are "working as hard as we can to make each dollar count as much as possible — especially with limited resources," says Wade Newton, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "We'll try our best to make $10 billion go as far as $15 billion — not always easy, but a necessity in this economic climate."

Perhaps these costs will not be as arduous as some think. According to Edmunds.com:

(M)ost (automakers) believe they can meet the (2008 fuel-efficiency) goal by applying a lot of existing technologies that have been considered too expensive in the past but will become more affordable as they are applied to greater numbers of vehicles — and as the price of gasoline and diesel fuel continues to rise.

Whatever the cost to automakers, know that those costs will be passed on to you, and the costs will far exceed the $1300 that the administration is pitching.

To me, it is too high a cost to pay for a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.

Media Bias on the Menu at Ray's Hell Burger

2009-05-06T12:23:00.009-04:00

This just in:
There is a significant Democrat-leaning bias in the media.

Do we need more proof than this bit of hard-hitting journalism from the even-keeled Andrea Mitchell?

It is a nice human-interest type story whenever the president visits the common-folk, but do you break into regular programming to show the president sorting through his choice of condiments?

As we watch the president decide what he wants to order.

Besides, this is hardly a common-folk restaurant, despite the news media's attempts to label it a "burger joint." I mean, they don't even have french fries.

Choose Your Burger Style: Grilled, Au Poivre-Seared with a Black Peppercorn Crust, Blackened-With Spicy Cajun Seasonings, Diablo-Grilled and Brushed with Our Spicy Chipotle Marinade......Choose Your Temperature: Recommended-Warm Red Center, Medium-Pink.

White Castle this is not.

But, have no fear. He will have a satisfying thick, juicy burger, MSNBC's Kelly O'Donnell assures us. Oh good, I frequently find myself worrying that the president is eating well.

It's a wonder he didn't order the Seared Foie Gras With Truffle Oil, since he can't get it back home.

I suppose I have to give Obama a nod for ordering the fries in the first place. We all remember Clinton's obsession with McDonald's fries.

How long before PETA lash out at Obama for not ordering the Soy Burger?

Supreme Court Justice David Souter to Retire

2009-05-01T10:23:00.006-04:00

Holy Crap. We are in REAL trouble now!

If Justice Souter retires, Obama may have a chance to place a mild liberal judge with a whack-job liberal judge. The 5-4 conservative/liberal split won't change, but I fear for who or what Obama will try to foist on us.

Or, will he replace Souter with another mild liberal-type to appease the moderates, and wait for Justice Ginsberg to retire and replace her with another far-far-left activist judge.

This assessment from the AP is really scary:
Men who have been mentioned as potential nominees include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

We really are doomed now....

Joe "Do Not Fly" Biden Shows The Leadership Vacuum in the White House

2009-04-30T11:01:00.012-04:00

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush stood tall and told the country not to fold in the face of the enemy.

People are going about their daily lives, working and shopping and playing, worshipping at churches and synagogues and mosques, going to movies and to baseball games.

Life in America is going forward, and as the fourth grader who wrote me knew, that is the ultimate repudiation of terrorism."

Contrast that sentiment with our genius Vice President Joe Biden, who seems to be urging us to curl into cocoons in the face of the flu.

I would tell members of my family — and I have — I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft.

If you’re in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it’s a different thing.

According to Biden, Americans should not go anywhere on planes, cars, subways, or buses. Americans, then, should not take vacations that require travel; should not go to work if it requires public transportation; and should not go to school. All of this in response to the flu.

Bush urged us to stand tall in the face of active terrorism and anthrax attacks. Biden, in the face of a nasty cold, tells us to stay home and hide.

Leadership vs. Lack thereof. Yet again.

When is the last time we had a presidential administration that has shown a total inability to lead. LBJ? Carter? Reagan was a leader, Bush I tried to lead, Clinton was a leader.

Obama and his subordinates are not.

Obama: One Hundred Days, One Hundred Blunders

2009-04-29T13:20:00.013-04:00

As most good pundits are today generating their reviews of President Obama's first 100 days as president, I guess this lousy pundit must follow suit.

My grade for Obama? I say D- at best. Some are giving him an "I" for incomplete; I would give him an I for idiot; incompetent; impeachable.

Why? Let me count the ways:

$6.5 billion a day of new debt;and we haven't even started talking Social Security and health care "reforms."
Using fear and threat of "catastrophe" to push through a $800 billion dollar "stimulus" package that will stimulate nothing but Liberal special interest groups;
forcing solvent banks to take federal bailout money they don't need or want;
refusing to take federal bailout money back from banks that don't need or want it;
signing into law a provision allowing AIG execs to get bonuses, then chastising them when they did;
proposing his first budget with a deficit double the previous year's budget;
spending more in 2 weeks than ALL US presidents combined;
asking his cabinet too cut costs by $100 million, only 0.0027% of the annual budget;
ordering the Navy to fire at the Somali pirates only if the hostage is threatened, not at first opportunity. If the US Navy hadn't outsmarted the pirates on their own, they might still be a sea;
releasing details of terrorist interrogation methods for the terrorists to read and learn from;
promising to release Gitmo detainees with no plan on where they will go;
telling the terrorists that we will not press them in anyway to release information to us;
not using the word terrorist or terrorism (man-caused disasters, my arse) to avoid offending Muslims;
refusing to do thing 1 about the swine flu outbreak, such as restricting flights to Mexico or checking people at the airport like Canada and most of Europe are doing;
allowing the government ownership of private business;
pressuring the firing of the CEO of a private business;
issuing massive bailouts for companies that won't change the problems that caused the failure to avoid offending the unions;
trashing the US and its people at every opportunity in Europe and Asia;
listening to South American leaders trash the US and saying nothing or making jokes;
giving a best-buddy handshake to America-hating Hugo Chavez;
accepting a patently anti-American book from Chavez and not saying a thing;
agreeing to meet with Iran president Ahmadinejad without precondition, despite the fact that he is still advocating the destruction on Israel, as recent as last week;
doing nothing to get an American journalist imprisoned in Iran freed, like refusing to meet with Ahmadinejad;
blocking a lawsuit against Iran by the Americans who were held hostage in Iran in 1979
hiring countless tax cheats and frauds;
deciding to pull troops out of Iraq on the same timetable established by Bush -- after telling us he was going to pull troops out "on Day 1;"
giving the British prime minister, a man nearly blind, a set of DVDs that won't work in European players;
giving the British queen an iPod with Obama speeches;
bowing to the Saudi king (the first US president to bow before royalty);
pulling the country sharply towards a European-style socialism;
creating the largest tax hike in US history -- during a recession!;
promising tax cuts to the "middle class" but gaving out advances on Social Security of a paltry $13 a week, not nearly enough to stimulate spending or consumer confidence;
executing financial decisions that drove wall street from well over 9,000 to 6,000 in a few weeks;
doing nothing to stifle talk of prosecuting CIA interrogators who did what they were told to do and that it was legal
suggesting that key decision-makers might face prosecution for allowing interrogation of terrorists that was called legal at the time, and later deemed illegal by a different administration.
issuing a Homeland Security report that suggests returning US military are potential terror threats;
pretending that he was unaware of the scores of thousands of people at hundreds of "Tea Party" protests;
stating that there are "wrong" radio stations and that people who listen to them should be marginalized and treated as such;
sending surrogates to call out by name people in the "wrong television shows" who oppose Obama and his policies;
shutting down the school voucher program in Washington D.C. that allowed students to attend private schools -- despite the fact that he enrolled his kids in a D.C. private school.

OK. So I don't have 100 blunders in 100 days. The New York Post does.

Fox Will Not Air Obama Conference, Airing Instead a Show About Liars. Who Can Tell the Difference?

2009-04-28T13:24:00.006-04:00

In a delicious irony, the Fox television network will not be broadcasting President Obama's prime-time press conference on Wednesday evening. Instead, Fox will be airing an episode of it's series Lie to Me.

The news conference comes at the start of a ratings "sweeps" months, where viewership is watched closely to set local advertising rates. Not only will Fox keep its advertising for the hour, it will offer the only broadcast entertainment program, potentially giving a boost to the new series "Lie to Me," about a crime-fighting expert who can spot liars. "American Idol" follows "Lie to Me" on the schedule.

Seems like no matter which of the major networks you tune into on Wednesday at 9, you're going to spot somebody lying.

Obama Buzzes NYC with an Air Force One Joy-Ride

2009-04-27T23:39:00.009-04:00

And the hits just keep on coming.

The administration that has brought you unusable gifts to prime ministers, hugging of queens, bowing to kings, and insults towards special needs kids, has now decided that flying a 747 low over Manhattan would be a fine idea.

A jumbo jet being chased by a F-16 fighter jets buzzed Lower Manhattan this morning, panicking New Yorkers, many of whom were forced to evacuate their office buildings.

Louis Caldera, the director of the White House military office claimed responsibility for the gaffe that sent thousands of New Yorkers fleeing from their offices and into the streets, expecting the worse.

[T]o onlookers Monday all across downtown Manhattan -- where the World Trade Center once stood -- the photo shoot looked like a terrorist attack. People watched in horror as a massive aircraft, trailed closely by an F-16 fighter jet, banked and roared low near the city, in a frightening echo of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

And why did the White House deem it necessary to panic an entire city?

They wanted a nice picture of Air Force One.

A group of financial services workers, who were gathered outside the same building but declined to give their names, described their reactions. “I saw the landing gear and I was out of here,” one said. Another said: “There were people in my elevator, sweating and shaking. There were women crying. It was not an experience to be taken lightly.”

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was rightly incensed:

"Had I known about it I would have called them right away and asked them not to," he said. "The good news is it was nothing more than an ill considered, badly conceived, insensitive photo op - with the taxpayers' money."

Oh, but Obama knew nothing about the photo op. The ever-clueless White House spokesman Robert Gibbs needed to look into the matter and promised he would try to get back to reporters with some answers.

Which is worse? That Obama would approve of such a hair-brained scheme, or his administration is so inept that someone could take a joy-ride in the "back up" Air Force One, with two F-18s in tow, without anyone knowing.

This truly is the most clueless administration ever; and we are only been 100 days into this thing. I can't imagine what might come next.

This leaves only one question: Hey, Barack, haven't you heard of Photoshop?

Obama: Free the Terrorists; Punish CIA Agents

2009-04-21T16:01:00.003-04:00

President Obama has once again turned his back on America and the safety of its citizens by suggesting that CIA agents who interrogated known terrorist killers might be prosecuted.

A Newsweek article over the weekend reported that Holder had already discussed naming a special prosecutor to review whether interrogators operated outside the legal guidelines or Bush officials broke the law by drafting those guidelines.

These CIA agents were performing activities they were told were legal, and more importantly, saved American lives.

Throw the bastard in jail and toss the key Obama. There will be plenty of room in Guantanamo to lock the good guys up after you free all the bad guys.

Feel safer yet?

Waterboarding Saved American Lives -- Now Stop It!

2009-04-21T15:12:00.012-04:00

President Obama has put an end to waterboarding and other "excessive" means of interrogating al-Qaeda terrorists. In making this decision, Obama is putting American lives at risk. Period.

According to memos from the CIA, waterboarding known terrorist thugs and killers saved American lives by thwarting an other 9/11-style attack, this time on Los Angeles.

In the time that Guantanamo Bay has been in the business of keeping terrorist isolated from the world, waterboarding has been used on only 3 people. Three. All three of whom provided information that prevented another 9/11-style attack on the U.S.

After Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. ...

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, (Mohammed) became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles

Had Mohammed not been waterboarded, as Obama would have done were the decision his, this nation may have been attacked yet again by the Muslim terrorists, suffering untold loss of life and experiencing uncountable financial disaster.

There may be more examples of lives saved and information gained from interrogating the terrorists, but Obama apparently does not want them released. Much to the dismay of former V.P. Dick Cheney.

One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.

Let's face it folks, love him or hate him, Cheney is far more competent to discuss policies that aim to keep America safe than Obama. It's just a fact.

Cheney was part of a team that prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil for 7 1/2 years after 9/11. Obama wants to shut down interrogation methods that work.

Obama values the life of known terrorist thugs over the lives of the American people. Obama is more concerned with how the rest of the world views the U.S. than keeping your family members from being killed.

He would rather you be killed by this cretin in the picture than to have the cretin be uncomfortable.

Feel safer now?

Obama Says "Belief in Transparency" More Important Than American Lives

2009-04-17T09:47:00.014-04:00

In releasing CIA interrogation techniques, is President Obama is telling us that his keeping of the campaign promise of unprecedented levels of openness in Government is more important than the lives of American citizens?

“He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely, because there were two principles at stake,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said . “One is … the sanctity of covert operations … and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency.”

Homeland Security queen Janet Napolitano won't answer questions about a pamphlet DHS issued, but the administration will tell terrorists around the world about our interrogation techniques. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

According to one "former top official" in the Bush administration said of the release:

“It's damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama's action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official said. “… Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again — even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake."

Well, we need not worry that exposing these techniques will prevent the U.S. from using them again, Obama wasn't going to use these "extreme interrogation" techniques anyway

Here again, Obama puts the interests of the terrorists and the opinion of the world over the lives of American citizens, stopping methods that appear to have worked.

It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the "second wave" to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.

Terror plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a "dirty bomb" spreading nuclear radiation.

What are these extreme measures that have saved American lives? If you are squeamish, be prepared:

Slapping prisoners on the face or abdomen was allowed. Ooooh! Say it ain't so. My wife has tortured me so many times.
Standing naked or wearing a diaper. Oh no! I torture my kids!
Sleep deprivation. Well, my kids got me back.
Clothes and food could be used as rewards for cooperation. Not food! Say it ain't so!
Prisoners were put into one of three in "stress positions," such as sitting on the floor with legs out straight and arms raised in the air to cause discomfort. Sounds like the aerobics classes I used to take.
Placing terrorists in a cramped confinement box and fill it box with caterpillars (that tactic ultimately was not used). Egad. Not an icky caterpillar! The horror! I placed a worm in my 3-year-old's hand, will Obama come after me too?
Dousing the terrorist with water from a pitcher. Oh, but it was soooo cold!

All practices, ABC's Charlie Gibson tell us, "stay just within what the Administration says the law might allow." Which is journalism-speak for LEGAL! After September 11, the CIA asked for legal authority to use these methods, which the Justice Department authorized. Again in 2005, the Justice Department ruled them legal. LEGAL.

But, it is illegal, puffs the ACLU. I think I would take the word of the Justice Department in this matter, over that of this criminal-loving enterprise.

Obama took this opportunity to once again insult our country before the world, calling the use of these legal interrogations to stop killings, "a dark and painful chapter." Barack, September 11, 2001 was dark and painful, not spraying Khalid Sheihk Mohammed with a hose.

Obama would rather see dead Americans than make the terrorists wet.

Do you feel safer now?

Napolitano Answers One Question on Extremist Report

2009-04-16T10:43:00.005-04:00

The administration that promised to be the most open and accessible administration showed how open and accessible they are.

For an interview with MSNBC, hardly hostile to the administration, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano demanded that host Joe Scarborough ask only one question about the controversial report calling right-wingers and returning soldiers a national threat.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski: “Now, we should be clear, they only wanted one question.”

Scarborough: “Yeah. So this morning, I got a call that she [Janet Napolitano] was going to be on the show and they said we could only ask one question …”

Brzezinski: “That was the agreement.”

It's a sad state off affairs that ducking questions is not a partisan issue. Politicians of all stripes are all-too-often remiss to discuss their actions. But, Obama told us he would be different.

It's a good thing that we elected Mr. Hope and Change so that he could deliver on his promise of unprecedented level of openness in Government. Ms. Napolitano apparently, didn't get that memo.

Just Call Me Lone Wolf

2009-04-14T15:45:00.007-04:00

Well, I guess I am an official "right-wing extremist" now!

A report from the Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremists as the following:

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Columnist Michelle Malkin described the report as one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.

According to this document, if you are concerned about the economic downturn, economic hardship, illegal immigration, threats from other countries, or restrictions on the Second Amendment, you might be a right-wing extremist!

If you are a Christian -- or worse -- a returning military veteran, you might be a right-wing extremist!

Why, the report cites 10 people who have been arrested over the past 10 to 15 years for plotting in the name of right-wing extremism. Save for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the report cites not one actual incident.

Unlike the left-wing extremist groups in this country who for decades have been actively involved in domestic terror, violence and being a general pain in the ass. Such as the Animal Liberation Front; the Earth Liberation Front (sorry about the color); PETA; among others.

Many of us warned long ago that the Obama Administration and it's allies on the left and in the news media would paint any opposition to Obama and his policies and racist and hate-mongering.

But now, it appears, we are threats to national security!

Huzzah for me!

Obama; Socialism, the Dream of Our Forefathers

2009-04-14T12:30:00.004-04:00

Without having the time -- or the intestinal stability -- to fully digest President Obama speech on the economy just yet, his closing line is one for the ages.

He claims that his economic spending proposals are the rock upon which the new economy will be built, and will create an America that our forefathers envisioned. Or something like that.

Trillion dollar deficits, multi-billion dollar bailouts, government ownership of private businesses, government encroachment or takeover of the health care industry.

A huge, socialist-leaning government that solves all its problems by spending money it doesn't have to solve problems that don't exist.

Exactly what the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they sat down with pen and paper more than 200 years ago.

The Good News Continues

2009-04-09T15:47:00.001-04:00

Maersk Alabama: Time to Send in the Seals!!

2009-04-09T12:24:00.008-04:00

It is time for America to act and dispense with this nuisance of the radical Muslim pirates who took an American hostage.

Send in the Navy Seals to sneak up on the 28-foot lifeboat the pirates and their hostage are on and take care of business.

Would this be risky to the Alabama's captain? Yes. But if the French can do it, I should think the U.S, can too:

The French government has sent in their forces to free hostages:

— In September 2008, France dispatched elite commandos on a night operation to free two French hostages from their captured sailboat. The 30-some soldiers, wearing night-vision goggles, boarded the ship and in about 10 minutes killed one pirate, captured six others and pulled the French Polynesian couple to safety.

— The first such rescue by French troops was in April 2008. The helicopter-borne French troops swooped in on Somali pirates, capturing six of them, after the hijackers released dozens of hostages who had been held on a yacht.

Or is Obama too concerned -- yet again -- with what the "world" might think of us to do something that could end this standoff, potentially rescue an American, and perhaps make these people think twice before attacking another U.S.-flagged ship.

It is appalling that there appears to be no plan for dealing with a situation that has been going on for months, and getting worse.

Since January, pirates have staged 66 attacks, and they are still holding 14 ships and 260 crew members as hostages, according to the International Maritime Bureau, a watchdog group based in Kuala Lumpur.

If this is how Obama deals with a relatively minor crisis, how will he handle a major catastrophe inside this country?

The time for action is now, Barack. The longer this goes on, the weaker we look to our enemies. DO SOMETHING!!

Maersk Alabama Has Lessons For Obama

2009-04-09T08:01:00.009-04:00

I'll Tell You Where the Buck Stops After the Security Council Meets Next Month just doesn't have the same ring, does it?.
The capture of the cargo ship Maersk Alabama by Isamist terrorists off the coast of Somalia can provide lessons that the Obama Administration should heed.

1. You can't negotiate with terrorists.
Obama has frequently touted his plans to negotiate with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear weapons programs and to tak with "moderate" Taliban members to sway the away from the Dark Side.

Problem is, these people are murderers and criminals. They has no regard for laws or for human life. Their ends are worth any means. The leaders of Iran and No Ko are not as interested in how the world views them as Obama. These are not people for whom a hearty handshake means much. Case in point, the Alabama:

The ship's second mate, Ken Quinn, later told CNN that the crew thought it had negotiated an exchange _ Phillips for the captured pirate. But when the Americans released their captive after 12 hours, the Somalis failed to release the captain, he said.

The sailors made an agreement with the pirates; the sailors kept their end of the bargain, the pirates did not.

A template that can be applied to any situation involving Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and terrorists anywhere in the world.

Their word is not worth very much.

2. The "world" can't do anything without a leader

Another of Obama's visions seems to be that the U.S. should be equal with all other countries in the world. We are just one of twenty, I believe he told the world at the G20 summit last week.

The Somali Islamist pirates have been trolling the waters for victims for a couple of years now. No one in the world has stood up to them. No country has taken the intiative to stop the scourge of piracy. (More efforts are paid to piracy when it involves the X-Men Wolverine movie.)

If the world were such an potent force for good, this piracy would have been stopped long ago.

The world needs a leader; the world needs someone to echo those famous words: "The Buck Stops Here." Take leadership, President Obama; don't sit back and wait for the slow diplomacy of the U.N. or the E.U. After all, I'll Tell You Where the Buck Stops After the Security Council Meets Next Month doesn't have the same power.

Take leadership in the world, President Obama, as so many of your predecessors have. The world will be amuch safer place if we do.

Biden: U.S. Safer Under Obama; Tell That To The Crew of the Maersk Alabama

2009-04-08T14:28:00.017-04:00

Vice President Biden assures us that we are safer now than we were under President Bush.

"[O]ur interests are more secure today than they were any time during the eight years," Biden said. "Not just at home, but around the world."

Well Joe, tell that to the crew of the Maersk Alabama, a 17,000 ton U.S. container ship that was seized by Somali pirates off the coast of that African country. 21 Merchant Marines are being held hostage by radical Islamist pirates.This is the first time in 200 years that a U.S. ship has been seized by pirates. Clearly, the pirates didn't get the message that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Or maybe they heard the apology-ridden speeches and were emboldened.

We can only hope and pray that this does not become a repeat of the Pueblo Incident, when North Korea captured a U.S. Navy ship and held the sailors hostage for 11 months. Then-President Lyndon Johnson did nothing, electing to negotiate with the NoKo's for the return of the sailors.

President Lyndon Johnson resisted (bombing North Korea), noting that bombing North Korea would not bring our hostages home. So the U.S. tried full-bore diplomacy. It was frustrating, slow and not wholly successful...

An understatement to be sure.

There was a time when no one wouldn't dare take a U.S. ship hostage; those times are over. Change has come, indeed.

We have "cyberspies" from China, Russia, and other countries hacking into our national electricity grid.

Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

Authorities investigating the intrusions have found software tools left behind that could be used to destroy infrastructure components, the senior intelligence official said. He added, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."

Likely can't blame Obama for this one, but do you feel safer knowing this?

We have North Korea launching test missiles that can reach the U.S. West Coast; Iran continuing to build its nuclear capabilities, increased fighting in Pakistan/Afghanistan; the Russians telling us to take down our missile shields; Al-Qaida laughing at Obama's plan to court "moderate" Taliban.

We have an Administration that wants to forget terrorism exists by changing its name to man-made-disasters. No mentions of terrorism anymore. No more enemy combatants.

We have Obama pitching a defense budget that will slash spending, including some very weapons we may now need more than ever:

Programs under review also include Boeing’s ground-based and airborne-laser missile defense programs...

But, brighter days are ahead as we get to await the possibility of terrorist inmates at Guantanamo Bay being released right here in the U.S.. That can only make us safer having a real-live terrorist living in the three-decker next door.

Biden told us months ago that Obama would be tested. Are these the tests he was alluding to? Or is there worse to come?

Feel safer yet?

Iowa: Is Opposite-Sex Marriage Wrong Because Gay People Don't Like It?

2009-04-08T07:57:00.010-04:00

If I am reading this finding correctly, the Iowa Supreme Court seems to be saying that Iowa's opposite-sex marriage law is unconstitutional because a gay person would find marrying someone of the opposite sex unappealing.

Before I get too far into this, let me announce that I am a supporter of same-sex marriage, for myriad reasons. I am pleased to see that the Vermont legislature voted same-sex marriage into law. I am uncomfortable with state courts, comprised of a handful of people, making the decision for everyone. To me these findings are activist judicial maneuvers to skirt the legislative process.

I read the Iowa decision closely, and can only infer that the justices are striking down the requirement that married couples be of the opposite sex because a gay or lesbian person does not want to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Looking past the fact that this case was in the bag for gay marriage supporters from the start. The drafter(s) of the decision start with a pollyannish description of each person who filed the initial legal action:

Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities... Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto.

The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa. (page 7)

While I cannot dispute a word, to me, this loaded introduction would be as appropriate as a criminal court judge starting a finding by saying: But, he's a nice boy from a good family.

As I read it, this finding comes down to precedent based on an 1894 case, which established that a civil marriage includes the comfort and happiness of the parties to the marriage contract (page 28 of the finding). And because a gay or lesbian person could not be "comfortable and happy" marrying someone of the opposite gender, the person's civil rights are being violated.

By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. (page 33)

Here, I presume, outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals means that they wouldn't like being married under the current Iowa definition of marriage.

To reach this conclusion, the justices placed as high a threshold on the county as possible.

...the issue presented by this lawsuit is whether the state has “exceedingly persuasive” reasons for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples, not whether state sanctioned, heterosexual marriage is constitutional. (page 51)

The justices took into account what they perceived as a History of discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

The long and painful history of discrimination against gay and lesbian
persons is epitomized by the criminalization of homosexual conduct in many parts of this country until very recently. (page 37)

While this assessment is likely true, it smacks of a bias on the part of the justices before this case was even heard to base their decision on laws created in the other states.

In sum, this history of discrimination suggests any legislative burdens placed on lesbian and gay people as a class “are more likely than others to reflect deep-seated prejudice rather than legislative rationality in pursuit of some legitimate objective.” (Pages 38/39)

Again, a likely true sentiment, but it is exactly that, sentiment, opinion, conjecture, not established legal fact.

In addition, the court decided that a person's sexual orientation does not bear on his ability to contribute to society. First off, who said it did; and second what does it have to do with marriage? A brother and sister can each contribute to society, but they cannot get married.

The justices also decided that the immutability of homosexuality should be considered, meaning that because homosexuality is an accident of birth, and sexual orientation is highly resistant to change, extra consideration should be paid to this factor. Again, a brother and a sister are related through accident of birth and involved a relationship resistant to change. No one is working to hard to see that siblings can get married.

In sum, the finding by the Iowa Supreme Court that opposite-sex marriage rules are discriminatory because gay and lesbian people don't want to participate is specious at best. Further the argument that civil marriage inherently includes the comfort and happiness of the participants is simply wrong.

By this definition, simply stating that one's no longer takes comfort and happiness from the marriage should invalidate the compact instantly. But this is not the case. Dissolving a marriage is a difficult and lengthy process.

It is quite legal to marry someone who does not make you comfortable and happy: pre-arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, "shot-gun" weddings, and marriages for money are all legal marriages in this country. Love has nothing to do with civil marriage.

With similar decisions in Massachusetts and Connecticut, more states are likely to overturn "traditional" marriage laws as unconstitutional. This is unfortunate, as the logic behind these cases is flawed and wrong.

My hope is that state legislatures thoughough the country finally tackle this issue directly by introducing legislation that explicitly permits same-sex marriage, as did Vermont. To me, the fact that a legislature debated and considered the issue would give far more legitimacy to same-sex marriage in the eyes of the general public than judicial fiats.

Same-sex marriage should be legalized because it is the right thing to do, not because a couple of judges twist logic enough to satisfy themselves.

G-20: We Will Determine How Much You Get Paid at Your Job

2009-04-03T11:01:00.001-04:00

As I previously noted, President Obama wants to cap the salaries of executives in the financial industry.

It gets worse!

Now we learn that Obama has agreed to allow the rest of the world to decide how much "bankers" can make!

The Group of 20 also agreed on new global rules to cap the pay and bonuses of bankers...

Assuming the decision-making power to set these salaries and bonuses stays within the G20 nations, representatives of the following countries will be able to control what a private company in the United States pays to its own employees:

Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Britain
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Turkey
United States
European Union

I know you lefties don't care how much those evil rich bankers make, but in a moment of honesty, don't you think it a bit dangerous to allow someone form Indonesia, Turkey or South Korea set anybody's salary here in the U.S.?

I do.

And what will happen if the International Monetary Fund gets involved in setting salaries.

Guess what? Your salary will be next. Mark my words, and Barney Frank's:

(Frank) said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

...the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government.

So, the world will set the pay for executives at banks; the rules that apply to executives at banks could apply to all employees of the banks; the rules for bank employees could apply to ALL employees in ALL companies.

You do the math....

Do You Really Trust These People to Spend YOUR Money??

2009-04-02T11:09:00.010-04:00

One of the major premises of the Obama "stimulus" plan is that the government can spend your money more wisely than you.

One of the arguments behind massive government spending vs. across-the-board tax cuts to pull out of a recession is that our elected leaders will do a better job spending the money than the regular citizens of the country.

But, can you really trust these people to spend tax dollars wisely?

Here are two cases that show you cannot. One story involves a governor spending precious tax dollars to hire friends and supporters into high-paying hack jobs; the second involves a mayor who won't spend money to protect an event that will draw a million tourists into his city.

(Massachusetts) Gov. Deval Patrick has stashed four staffers in big-bucks jobs at several of the quasi-public agencies he is now vowing to reform - including one post worth a jaw-dropping $190,000 a year, the Herald has learned.
These appointments come just days after the uber-Liberal Patrick tried to stuff a long-time supporter into a $175,000-a-year job that had been vacant for 12 years.
Outrage is sweeping Beacon Hill after Gov. Deval Patrick quietly slipped a $175,000 plum job to a political pal while squeezing taxpayers to pay more for less from the debt-ridden state government.

...(the state) while bracing for cuts of cops and teachers, Patrick awarded supporter Marian Walsh the pricey plum as assistant executive director of the state’s Health and Educational Facilities Authority.

MHEFA is an organization that 99.5% of Mass residents had never heard of until last week.

While we are talking Massachusetts hack-o-rama, consider the following:

Robert Rooney, a former $123,000-a-year deputy secretary of public works in the transportation office, is still working at the (Massachusetts Turnpike Authority) as a $122,000-a-year assistant chief engineer, Flagg confirmed last night. Rooney’s job was to help bring down the tolls on the Western Turnpike, a job that is no longer part of Gov. Deval Patrick’s transportation reform plans.

From this article, we can assume that Rooney is getting paid big bucks to engineer a project that won't happen?

On the other side of the tax coin is "esteemed" Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who is apparently refusing to pay for any city services to support the visit by the Tall Ships, an event destined to attract more than a million visitors to his city.

Menino is the guy in the middle in this photo, in case you don't know him.
Sail Boston officials said Wednesday the event that attracts millions of visitors to see the windjammers parade through the harbor will go ahead, even though they missed a deadline to give the city $2 million.

That angered Mayor Tom Menino, who told The Boston Globe that holding the event without city services could cause a "public safety crisis." He says he may ask the Coast Guard to bar the 50 ships from the harbor.

The notion that the mayor would actively consider preventing an event that will attract tourist into his city in July is mind-boggling.

(Menino) said he would withhold all city services for the nautical extravaganza - no police officers, no cleanup crews - even though nearly 1 million people are projected to descend on the city...

This (PDF) report indicates that Sail Boston 2000 would have a massive positive impact on revenues in Boston:

The results .... show that total economic activity in the Greater Boston region of the Sail Boston event will be $88.96 million (in year 2000 dollars). The majority of that activity - $64.66 million or 73% - will be in the city of Boston where the event takes place.

This report indicates that the city might lose money, as the expenses outstrip the tax revenues. But, in 2000, the small investment by the city was worth the significant business in Boston and surrounding communities received.

Why not this year? This is a year when businesses need the help, and most experts believe that fewer people will be going away for vacation, leaving a huge pool of people looking for something to do on a July weekend.

The one question that remains is whether Menino will try to get Ol' Ironsides to protect Boston Harbor once again from an incursion by an enemy fleet.

These are the people who Barack Obama considers better guardians of YOUR money than YOU, and know better how to spend YOUR money to repair this economy.

Forgive me, Deval, if I am a skeptic.

White House: Republicans' Budget Proposal is a "Joke"

2009-04-01T14:52:00.006-04:00

So much for the bipartisanship and working together that Obama promised during his campaign and early in his administration.

The Obama administration's official response a Republican budget proposal: It's a joke.

After FoxNews anchor Jon Scott suggested that the GOP budget is simply smaller. Let's spend less. We just can't afford all of the things in the president's budget.

Rob Neighbors, the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued Obama's "fair and balanced" response by excoriating the Republican's plan:

It's ironic that this budget came out today, on April Fool's Day. Because this is a joke; it's a joke on the American people.

Whatever one thinks of the Republican proposal (and I know nothing about it), it is highly inappropriate for the president to treat our elected officials with such contempt and disregard, dismissing a legitimate proposal idea with a school yard taunt.

Not to mention, that if one agrees with the Repub's ideas, the Obama administration is calling you a joke by association.

Yet one more example of how Obama is no leader, and is totally clueless about how to run the country.

Just plan sad.

House Dems -- Geithner to Set Your Salary!

2009-03-31T12:30:00.006-04:00

In another jaw-dropping move, the Democrats in the U.S. House Of Representatives voted to require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to set the salaries of ALL EMPLOYEES at ALL "financial institutions" receiving government bailout funds:

(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary (of the Treasury).

So one person will be able to determine if that raise you got last November because of your great performance as a Customer Service representative or member of accounts payable team is excessive? As a member of the janitorial staff, one person can determine if you have to pay back some of your salary because the company did perform up to HIS standards?

This is truly getting surreal.

While my examples might be pure partisan rhetorical bluster, this bill allows Geithner to do all these things. He will have the right -- the obligation -- to consider these very situations.

Is this why Obama launched the Getting Through Tough Economic Times web site? I know when I read these stories, I get depressed, anxious, and irritable.

It is enough to argue that the people directly responsible for the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States should have their salaries monitored; it is a far different issue when the government will be monitoring the salaries of employees who have nothing to do with the success or failure of the company.

Alice on the cafeteria staff, pay back that money we gave you. Timmy said you are earning too much.

Will the next step be government monitoring of salaries at companies who get federal tax breaks?

A week ago, Obama cautioned us that he will not govern out of anger. Too bad the representatives won't follow this lead and not legislate out of stupidity.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, (said) its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure."

Oh, why not Rep. Greyson; you are...

Obama: Towards Socialism Swiftly

2009-03-30T16:18:00.006-04:00

I, and many others, have posited that Barack Obama's ultimate goal is to turn the United States into a socialist country.

A friend, and reader of this blog, scoffed that Obama was not "pushing for state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Therefore he is not a socialist.

Well, since that late February posting, we have seen Obama making major strides towards just that:

The United States now owns nearly all of one of the largest insurance companies in the country, AIG.
The US owns 40% of CitiCorp, one of the largest full service banks in the world.

Today, we hear of the next outrage from the Obama administration and another giant leap toward government ownership of a private company by practically ordering the firing of the CEO of General Motors, despite the fact that GM's board supported Rick Wagoner.

Time and time again, General Motors Corp.'s board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.

Here, we have the case of the president of the United States telling a private corporation to fire its CEO. I don't care who the president is or what the purpose of the firing might be, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE A PRIVATE CITIZEN AT A PRIVATE COMPANY. EVER!

If the CEO is doing something illegal, and it comes to the prez' attention, he would call for the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute, if needed. Even then, the president would not fire the CEO.

Further, Obama required that GM further consolidate its brands in exchange for 60 days of working capital.

So now we have the president of the United States telling a private corporation how it should operate? Now Obama is an expert in auto manufacture and sales?

After all, Obama knows best.

Obama turned to Chrysler and demanded the company merge with another company.

The president's auto task force said Chrysler needs to partner with the Italian car company Fiat, which has "committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines right here in the United States," Obama said in a speech at the White House.

"Fiat is prepared to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler," Obama said.

Fiat? Will Chrysler's collaborating with Fiat drive you to purchase that PT Cruiser anytime soon?

32 Review Centre Fiat Brava 1.4SX Reviews
Good Points: When it works its nice and easy to drive.
Bad Points: had constant problem witn starting and idling many repairs done at different garages but problem always comes back. I'll never never buy a Fiat Bravo again.
Looks nice, spacious and comfortable but mechanics and clutch with gear box are very unreliable. Not reliable in terms of parts. Electric faults come up every week.

These are two cases where the federal government is using its powers to extort private companies to engage in business operations of which the government approves.

And this comes barely a week after Obama made moves to control salaries of private citizens in private companies:

From the outset of the Obama administration, officials and European leaders have disagreed over how much to limit pay. And Mr. Geithner has discouraged the administration from imposing across-the-board limits on compensation of all employees at troubled companies receiving federal assistance and more burdensome pay restrictions at healthy institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money so they can increase lending.

Obama wanted to have the power to set salaries for ALL employees at companies he decides are "troubled."

If these aren't giant leaps towards European-style socialism, I don't know what is.

President Obama: Just Call Me Mr. Goodwrench

2009-03-30T12:16:00.014-04:00

President Obama always seems to go at least one step to far.

We need the economic stimulus package immediately or countless people will lose their jobs, he told us. But then went on vacation and sign the passed bill when he got back.
We'll bailout AIG; the security of the nation depends upon it, he said. But, dammit, what's with their honoring legally binding contracts??
We will send more troops into Afghanistan in order to step up efforts to defeat the terrorists, he steamed. But, only after we try to make nice with the "good" Taliban.

Now, he wants to play Mr. Goodwrench when it comes to bailing out Chrysler and General Motors.

In remarks today, President Obama outlined his plan to save GM and Chrysler through a number of measures that on the surface make sense. I found myself thinking that he finally got something right. Then:

If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty.

Isn't that what the local muffler shop writes on the sign out front to draw your business? We honor all warranties?

So, if I buy a Chrysler (and god only know why I would) and Chrysler goes belly up, if I bring my car to Sam's repair shop on Elm Street, the government will pick up the tab? That won't lead to too much fraud.

Customer: I think I need some gas.

Sam: Yeah, I'll get to it after I replace your entire exhaust system, set you up with some new brakes, and that O2 sensor has got to go.

Customer: But, I just need gas...

Sam:...and a new fuel pump and fuel injection system too, from the looks.

Customer: But my car is brand new -- still under warranty.

Sam: Exactly!

I predict a marked increase in the warranty work done on GM and Chrysler cars, if this happens.

I understand the motive behind the move, but can't imagine the move swaying too many people. If you were considering a Chrysler (after getting your head examined), knowing that Obama will change your oil for you might get you down to the showroom; but if you were looking at that Honda, thinking that Raum Emmanuel will check the pressure in your tires won't move you an inch.

Obama: Making the Ultimate Sacrifice -- Buying New Fed Cars Early!

2009-03-30T11:56:00.001-04:00

In prepared remarks today, President Obama outlined his plans to save Chrysler and General Motors.

Mixed in with some interesting and reasonable ideas is this gem:

Therefore, to support demand for auto sales during this period, I'm directing my team to take several steps. First, we will ensure that Recovery Act funds to purchase government cars go out as quickly as possible and work through the budget process to accelerate other federal fleet purchases as well.

In other words, Obama will make sure that federal government fleet cars are replaced more quickly that originally planned. So those government workers will get new cars, whether they are needed or not, as a way of spurring demand for cars; despite the fact that most of us can't get financing to get a car even if we need one.

If Washington artificially spikes demand by buying cars it doesn't need, won't that increase prices, reduce deals, and restrict financing even further?

And, who says Obama's not looking out for you...