Maybe even the Left has a limit to how much mean-spirited bile they can tolerate from one angry man...the favorite show of the mainstream media and Obama-ites of all stripes, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann is crashing in the ratings:
Comparing Q3 2009 with Q3 2008, the show has lost 21% of its cable news target adults 25-54 demo , and 12% of its average viewership.
How about that other outlet of radical opinionated wackos...CNN? Anderson Cooper, the one-time fresh face of the franchise, is stinking up the joint as well:
Comparing Q3 2009 with Q3 2008, AC 360 has lost 23% of its cable news target adults 25-54 demo , and 17% of its average viewership. Likely because of the lack of an election year, but I’d have thought that Cooper’s ratings would be less effected by the lack of an election than Olbermann’s, not more.
Right, because Cooper is allegedly a straight newsman. But truthfully, Mr. "Teabagger" is as far to the left as Olbermann, and perhaps even more poisonous as both he and CNN try to portray his show as news, rather than opinion. But all he's offering here is opinionated news, and the ratings show it.
And where does the feared and dreaded FOX News stand amongts these two faves of the Left? It towers over them, like a huge conservative giant among mere flawed liberal mortals:
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,515,000viewers
CNN— 595,000 viewers
MSNBC –613,000 viewers
CNBC – 203,000 viewers
HLN – 577,000viewers
So every other news outlet combined is barely 2/3rds of FOX's primetime audience. And yet, they and their viewers are the "fringe" (if you were to believe the TV gurus of the MSM). Note how CNN barely outpulls Headline News, the Reader's Digest of informative reporting...
Check out the gap with older viewers - aka "voters":
35-64 Prime Time
FNC –1,161,000 viewers
CNN – 255,000 viewers
MSNBC –337,000 viewers
CNBC –106,000 viewers
HLN –332,000 viewers
Head to head, hour by hour, it looks even worse:
8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 3,353,000 viewers (873,000) (1,501,000)
Campbell Brown – 655,000 viewers (157,000) (223,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 726,000 viewers (198,000) (424,000)
Dirty Money– 190,000 viewers (83,000) (96,000)
Nancy Grace – 782,000 viewers (259,000) (427,000)
10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren —1,975,000 viewers (540,000) (926,000)
Anderson Cooper 360 —526,000 viewers (205,000) (277,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 509,000 viewers (198,000) (262,000)
Nancy Grace –513,000 viewers (267,000) (309,000)
Interesting that Cooper, Olbermann, and their ilk get so much press and praise, while FOX, the huge #1 in viewership (and ratings are the ultimate democracy) get nothing but brickbats and criticism....
Wonder why that is?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Barack Obama: Not Sweating The "Little Things"
In response to the revelation that our commander on the ground in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has only spoken to Barack Obama once in the 70+ days he's been there, White House flak Robert Gibbs offers up the following defense:
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs in a briefing Tuesday dispelled speculations that the President isn’t consulting with the general.
“The president receives a memo every week from General McChrystal,” Gibbs said.
As anyone who's ever been told to "put it in a memo" knows, that is tantamount to having one's issue ignored. But just out of curiosity - who does Barack Obama speak to on a regular basis?
Ah. Here we go :
[SEIU head Andy] Stern estimates he visits the White House once a week.
SEIU officials talk to senior Obama advisor Nancy-Ann DeParle about healthcare -- a top priority for Stern -- and to Obama aide Cecilia Munoz about immigration, Stern said.
Union leaders - unfettered access to the president. Military leaders, with the responsibility of winning a war while trying to protect the lives of the tens of thousands of soldiers under their command - one teleconference a quarter, apparently. Hey, flying to Copenhagen for a 24 hour jaunt is important too, and we've got to cut back somewhere to afford those critical "his and her" plane rides, right?
Realistically, most people shy away from stuff that doesn't interest them. It explains the rise of the internet as a news portal, actually - read only the news that fits your worldview, without glancing at opposing argument!
But when you take a job - any job - you are just as responsible for the parts of the job you don't enjoy as the once that bring you pleasure. Teaching is great fun, but you need to draw up lesson plans and grade papers. You can be a great salesmen, but if you don't send out invoices and write up reports, you'll never get paid.
I get that this president still is enraptured with what he perceives as his roots - trying to free the oppressed American worker from the shackles of capitalistic tyranny, and all that. But when you take the job (beg for it, actually) of president, you need to fulfill all of its requirements, not just the ones you like. Otherwise the whole thing just falls apart, and even your dreams of creating a socialist utopia in America can be derailed by refusing to pay attention to the details - in this case, the details being a winnable war that's being allowed to die on the vine due to indifference.
And what happens when one does not pay attention to the minutia of their job? Just ask some of the folks on the unemployment line...
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs in a briefing Tuesday dispelled speculations that the President isn’t consulting with the general.
“The president receives a memo every week from General McChrystal,” Gibbs said.
As anyone who's ever been told to "put it in a memo" knows, that is tantamount to having one's issue ignored. But just out of curiosity - who does Barack Obama speak to on a regular basis?
Ah. Here we go :
[SEIU head Andy] Stern estimates he visits the White House once a week.
SEIU officials talk to senior Obama advisor Nancy-Ann DeParle about healthcare -- a top priority for Stern -- and to Obama aide Cecilia Munoz about immigration, Stern said.
Union leaders - unfettered access to the president. Military leaders, with the responsibility of winning a war while trying to protect the lives of the tens of thousands of soldiers under their command - one teleconference a quarter, apparently. Hey, flying to Copenhagen for a 24 hour jaunt is important too, and we've got to cut back somewhere to afford those critical "his and her" plane rides, right?
Realistically, most people shy away from stuff that doesn't interest them. It explains the rise of the internet as a news portal, actually - read only the news that fits your worldview, without glancing at opposing argument!
But when you take a job - any job - you are just as responsible for the parts of the job you don't enjoy as the once that bring you pleasure. Teaching is great fun, but you need to draw up lesson plans and grade papers. You can be a great salesmen, but if you don't send out invoices and write up reports, you'll never get paid.
I get that this president still is enraptured with what he perceives as his roots - trying to free the oppressed American worker from the shackles of capitalistic tyranny, and all that. But when you take the job (beg for it, actually) of president, you need to fulfill all of its requirements, not just the ones you like. Otherwise the whole thing just falls apart, and even your dreams of creating a socialist utopia in America can be derailed by refusing to pay attention to the details - in this case, the details being a winnable war that's being allowed to die on the vine due to indifference.
And what happens when one does not pay attention to the minutia of their job? Just ask some of the folks on the unemployment line...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
That anti-Semitic genie is soooo out of the bottle...
British lawyers are arguing today that they can - nay, must - arrest Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack while he's visiting the country on official business today:
Solicitors are asking a district judge at the City of Westminster magistrates court to issue a warrant for Barak's arrest under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which gives courts in England and Wales universal jurisdiction in war crimes cases. The application alleges that Barak has committed offences against the 1957 Geneva conventions.
Barak, who is also deputy prime minister of Israel and leader of the country's Labour party, could argue that his government office guarantees him "state immunity" from prosecution. But lawyers from two London law firms, Irvine Thanvi Natas and Imran Khan & Partners, believe the warrant that the international criminal court issued in May last year for the arrest of Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, offers a precedent. Bashir is accused of committing war crimes in Darfur.
"Universal jurisdiction"? Hah! And they call us "unilateralists!
All this, based on the "Goldstone Report" on the Israeli-Gaza war of almost a year ago. Netanyahu calls it a "kangaroo court against Israel", and he's right.
But "right" doesn't matter in this brawl. Without George Bush, the fight against a 20th century-type explosion of anti-semitism is left to Barack Obama, who spent 20 years going to a church in Chicago that demonized Jews as part of their weekly ritual. Enough said. Wait, read this. Now, enough said.
Let's hope Ehud Barack (!) avoids prosecution in Britain, and Jews avoid persecution by everyone else (including the British). But Obama has - in his infinitely cool way - allowed the genie out of the bottle (that George Bush sat so tightly on), and it is now loose in the world, with the knowledge that the strong lack the will to force it back inside.
The genie smiles and licks his oily lips, because he knows the fun has just begun...
Solicitors are asking a district judge at the City of Westminster magistrates court to issue a warrant for Barak's arrest under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which gives courts in England and Wales universal jurisdiction in war crimes cases. The application alleges that Barak has committed offences against the 1957 Geneva conventions.
Barak, who is also deputy prime minister of Israel and leader of the country's Labour party, could argue that his government office guarantees him "state immunity" from prosecution. But lawyers from two London law firms, Irvine Thanvi Natas and Imran Khan & Partners, believe the warrant that the international criminal court issued in May last year for the arrest of Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, offers a precedent. Bashir is accused of committing war crimes in Darfur.
"Universal jurisdiction"? Hah! And they call us "unilateralists!
All this, based on the "Goldstone Report" on the Israeli-Gaza war of almost a year ago. Netanyahu calls it a "kangaroo court against Israel", and he's right.
But "right" doesn't matter in this brawl. Without George Bush, the fight against a 20th century-type explosion of anti-semitism is left to Barack Obama, who spent 20 years going to a church in Chicago that demonized Jews as part of their weekly ritual. Enough said. Wait, read this. Now, enough said.
Let's hope Ehud Barack (!) avoids prosecution in Britain, and Jews avoid persecution by everyone else (including the British). But Obama has - in his infinitely cool way - allowed the genie out of the bottle (that George Bush sat so tightly on), and it is now loose in the world, with the knowledge that the strong lack the will to force it back inside.
The genie smiles and licks his oily lips, because he knows the fun has just begun...
Round Trip to Copenhagen? That'll Be $10 Million, Please...
I posted on Barack and Michelle's trip (separate planes!) to Copenhagen yesterday, and pinned the cost at approximately $2 million. I was off, apparently by an order of magnitude.
It is well over $10 mil if it is a dime... Presidential trips require both 747s, as one is a backup. However, the costs soar when you realize that from the moment a POTUS indicates he wants to go somewhere, dozens, if not hundreds of people start preparing every detail. These details include security, communications, protocol, logistics that boggle the mind and transportation that most people never see. Several Air Force cargo planes of equipment are loaded and flown to the destination with armored limos, security personnel from the Secret Service and the relevant military branches, fuels specialists, etc. A National Airborne Operations Command Post 747 from Offutt AFB, NE will accompany him to keep POTUS in constant communications in case of national or word emergency... We are now up to three 747s, multiple cargo planes and costs for personnel who fly commercial ahead of POTUS.
If FLOTUS flies separately, add a C-32 (757) for her and her staff, entourage, hangers-on etc, with attendant security, logistics, etc. Add a few more million dollars, though many personnel in Denmark will cover preparations for both POTUS and FLOTUS.
$10 million for what, exactly? Some believe that the IOC has already picked Chicago, and Obama wants to fly out there to show how his charm and wit can bring tourist dollars to the big-city Democratic trough. Or perhaps Chicago has already lost, and Barack doesn't want to get blamed for failing to show up and plead the city's case.
In either case, for a nation in economic turmoil, the spending of $10 million to send the First Couple to Denmark seems a bit "rich", especially as I can't get the idea of the flowing champagne and caviar out of my head.
But doesn't this guy have any interest in governing, instead of travelling the world on someone else's tit (in this case, the taxpayers) to campaign? How about, oh, I don't know - speaking to your commanding General in Afghanistan (it's only been 70 days), working on sanctions against the Iranian regime, or getting involved in some of that controversial legislation running through Congress these days, at your behest?
No. Our president would rather fly to Copenhagen with his wife, talk about Chicago for a while, then head on back to the States for another TV appearance, all while sticking the taxpayers with the bill.
We've elected a very unserious man to the world's most serious job. But if you are reading this, you knew that already...
It is well over $10 mil if it is a dime... Presidential trips require both 747s, as one is a backup. However, the costs soar when you realize that from the moment a POTUS indicates he wants to go somewhere, dozens, if not hundreds of people start preparing every detail. These details include security, communications, protocol, logistics that boggle the mind and transportation that most people never see. Several Air Force cargo planes of equipment are loaded and flown to the destination with armored limos, security personnel from the Secret Service and the relevant military branches, fuels specialists, etc. A National Airborne Operations Command Post 747 from Offutt AFB, NE will accompany him to keep POTUS in constant communications in case of national or word emergency... We are now up to three 747s, multiple cargo planes and costs for personnel who fly commercial ahead of POTUS.
If FLOTUS flies separately, add a C-32 (757) for her and her staff, entourage, hangers-on etc, with attendant security, logistics, etc. Add a few more million dollars, though many personnel in Denmark will cover preparations for both POTUS and FLOTUS.
$10 million for what, exactly? Some believe that the IOC has already picked Chicago, and Obama wants to fly out there to show how his charm and wit can bring tourist dollars to the big-city Democratic trough. Or perhaps Chicago has already lost, and Barack doesn't want to get blamed for failing to show up and plead the city's case.
In either case, for a nation in economic turmoil, the spending of $10 million to send the First Couple to Denmark seems a bit "rich", especially as I can't get the idea of the flowing champagne and caviar out of my head.
But doesn't this guy have any interest in governing, instead of travelling the world on someone else's tit (in this case, the taxpayers) to campaign? How about, oh, I don't know - speaking to your commanding General in Afghanistan (it's only been 70 days), working on sanctions against the Iranian regime, or getting involved in some of that controversial legislation running through Congress these days, at your behest?
No. Our president would rather fly to Copenhagen with his wife, talk about Chicago for a while, then head on back to the States for another TV appearance, all while sticking the taxpayers with the bill.
We've elected a very unserious man to the world's most serious job. But if you are reading this, you knew that already...
Lame-Duck Legalization of Gay Marriage in New Jersey?
Paul Muschine of the Star-Ledger reports on some back-room backbiting going on in the State House in Trenton, as a chickensh*t Governor Corzine strikes a deal for the lame-duck legislature to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage in New Jersey:
A group of conservative Republican legislators held a press conference at the Statehouse to make public an allegation that the Democrats are planning a move to legalize same-sex marriage in the lame-duck session after the election. State Sen. Gerry Cardinale of Bergen County said he had heard a conversation between key Democrats in which the deal was made.
"I was in the room when a key chairman promised the governor’s office that he would put it up, but that he wouldn’t do it until the lame-duck session after the election and the governor’s office said, ‘That’s fine,’" said Cardinale.
So New Jersey Democrats plan on changing the definition of marriage by ramming a bill trough what will be - at that point - an unelected legislature? Despite a Corzine "promise" to put it on the ballot for all New Jersey residents to decide ?
Sound unbelievable? Then you haven't been paying attention to the way New Jersey politics works.
Why would Corzine, a proud "progressive", refuse to stand by his gay friends during the campaign? Because, like most liberals, he's more concerned about keeping power than speaking truth (his truth, at least) to it:
Corzine is counting on a heavy African-American vote, and as that referendum on same-sex marriage in California last year showed, black voters tend to be socially conservative on the matter. A key reason for the California measure’s failure was the large black turnout for Barack Obama.
So Corzine's is going to use black voters to get him re-elected, while working behind their backs to double-cross them on matters that are socially significant to them. Maybe Chris Christie should be less nervous about his conservative heritage and state clearly his opposition to gay marriage, and his disgust at the backhanded means that Corzine intends to use to force it upon New Jersey.
He might be surprised by the response he gets in a state where the deep blue is - ever so slightly - starting to look a tad faded...
A group of conservative Republican legislators held a press conference at the Statehouse to make public an allegation that the Democrats are planning a move to legalize same-sex marriage in the lame-duck session after the election. State Sen. Gerry Cardinale of Bergen County said he had heard a conversation between key Democrats in which the deal was made.
"I was in the room when a key chairman promised the governor’s office that he would put it up, but that he wouldn’t do it until the lame-duck session after the election and the governor’s office said, ‘That’s fine,’" said Cardinale.
So New Jersey Democrats plan on changing the definition of marriage by ramming a bill trough what will be - at that point - an unelected legislature? Despite a Corzine "promise" to put it on the ballot for all New Jersey residents to decide ?
Sound unbelievable? Then you haven't been paying attention to the way New Jersey politics works.
Why would Corzine, a proud "progressive", refuse to stand by his gay friends during the campaign? Because, like most liberals, he's more concerned about keeping power than speaking truth (his truth, at least) to it:
Corzine is counting on a heavy African-American vote, and as that referendum on same-sex marriage in California last year showed, black voters tend to be socially conservative on the matter. A key reason for the California measure’s failure was the large black turnout for Barack Obama.
So Corzine's is going to use black voters to get him re-elected, while working behind their backs to double-cross them on matters that are socially significant to them. Maybe Chris Christie should be less nervous about his conservative heritage and state clearly his opposition to gay marriage, and his disgust at the backhanded means that Corzine intends to use to force it upon New Jersey.
He might be surprised by the response he gets in a state where the deep blue is - ever so slightly - starting to look a tad faded...
Monday, September 28, 2009
Barack Goes To Copenhagen...
...and all we'll get is the bill for his little jaunt. Which, for a nation that is drowning in debt, is a bit rich:
...the flight to Copenhagen takes about eight hours, so at a cost of $56,518 per hour (according to a 2006 report) to fly Air Force One, the cost to taxpayers for this trip is roughly $904,288.
And what of Michelle? She's going as well, but she's taking her own plane so as to fit her entire retinue.
Is it just me, or is there something distasteful about the President and Mrs. O telling us we need to pay more for energy because it's dirty, we need to pay more in taxes because we're in debt, while at the same time dumping gazillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and sticking us with a bill - likely to exceed $2 million - so they can take a 24 hour jaunt into Copenhagen to pimp out Chicago?
Why do I believe they won't be skimping on the champagne and caviar on these two flights, either? As for us - I guess we can still eat cake, if the National Heath still deems it allowable...
...the flight to Copenhagen takes about eight hours, so at a cost of $56,518 per hour (according to a 2006 report) to fly Air Force One, the cost to taxpayers for this trip is roughly $904,288.
And what of Michelle? She's going as well, but she's taking her own plane so as to fit her entire retinue.
Is it just me, or is there something distasteful about the President and Mrs. O telling us we need to pay more for energy because it's dirty, we need to pay more in taxes because we're in debt, while at the same time dumping gazillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and sticking us with a bill - likely to exceed $2 million - so they can take a 24 hour jaunt into Copenhagen to pimp out Chicago?
Why do I believe they won't be skimping on the champagne and caviar on these two flights, either? As for us - I guess we can still eat cake, if the National Heath still deems it allowable...
Rush Holt: My Constituents Are Selfish Bastards
Rush Holt (D-NJ), a man who's district is 40-45% Republican and represents them by voting with the far-left wing of his party 98% of the time has figured out the problems with these pesky individuals who refuse to fall in line with his agenda. Speaking to the Asbury Park-Press late last week, he said the following:
About half of the angry voters who attended the meetings are still upset that President Obama won last November's election and have not yet had the opportunity to express it, Holt said.
Holt also said he has noticed an unsettling sense of selfishness among the health care reform protesters.
"This "I've got mine, you get yours' attitude is really offensive," Holt said. "It is a nasty streak."
Amazing. The idea that you may want to hold on to something that you have worked your whole life to achieve is offensive to Congressman Holt. The notion that it is somehow unfair that everyone will now have to pay higher taxes and fees and insurance rates in order to cover the health care of less than 10% of all Americans (including some who can afford, but choose not to, insure themselves) is now a nasty sentiment. The fact that socialized medicine will actually bring down the level of heath care for 90% of all Americans in order to bring up the level for the remaining 10% is apparently an "unsettling selfish" fact, and not to even be discussed.
Actually, Holt's heath care push and moral deriding of those who oppose him is all about his own selfishness. Holt it more than willing to enslave the next generation to a high-tax, low productivity economy so that he can continue his moral preening at the Princeton cocktail party circuit. Holt is looking to take away the rights and privileges you worked a whole lifetime to achieve to those who cannot earn it, and do not deserve it, so he can feel better about himself - and he demands you react in the same way. Holt is the one taking your family's health care away, as well as additional money out of your paycheck to pay for it - and boy, if that doesn't qualify as "offensive" behavior by an elected official, I don't know what does.
Holt's a man who hates 45% of his constituents. There is no other conclusion to draw, based on his ugly, no doubt racially-tinged remarks about those who dare - dare! - oppose liberal dogma and the re-shaping of America into a socialist swamp.
Holt's 2010 opponent Mike Halfacre is well aware of this story, and has blasted Holt for his "elitism" on his website. Good for Mike. Holt doesn't seem too concerned; me, I think he forgets that he represents people other than himself. Hopefully we'll show him next November...
About half of the angry voters who attended the meetings are still upset that President Obama won last November's election and have not yet had the opportunity to express it, Holt said.
Holt also said he has noticed an unsettling sense of selfishness among the health care reform protesters.
"This "I've got mine, you get yours' attitude is really offensive," Holt said. "It is a nasty streak."
Amazing. The idea that you may want to hold on to something that you have worked your whole life to achieve is offensive to Congressman Holt. The notion that it is somehow unfair that everyone will now have to pay higher taxes and fees and insurance rates in order to cover the health care of less than 10% of all Americans (including some who can afford, but choose not to, insure themselves) is now a nasty sentiment. The fact that socialized medicine will actually bring down the level of heath care for 90% of all Americans in order to bring up the level for the remaining 10% is apparently an "unsettling selfish" fact, and not to even be discussed.
Actually, Holt's heath care push and moral deriding of those who oppose him is all about his own selfishness. Holt it more than willing to enslave the next generation to a high-tax, low productivity economy so that he can continue his moral preening at the Princeton cocktail party circuit. Holt is looking to take away the rights and privileges you worked a whole lifetime to achieve to those who cannot earn it, and do not deserve it, so he can feel better about himself - and he demands you react in the same way. Holt is the one taking your family's health care away, as well as additional money out of your paycheck to pay for it - and boy, if that doesn't qualify as "offensive" behavior by an elected official, I don't know what does.
Holt's a man who hates 45% of his constituents. There is no other conclusion to draw, based on his ugly, no doubt racially-tinged remarks about those who dare - dare! - oppose liberal dogma and the re-shaping of America into a socialist swamp.
Holt's 2010 opponent Mike Halfacre is well aware of this story, and has blasted Holt for his "elitism" on his website. Good for Mike. Holt doesn't seem too concerned; me, I think he forgets that he represents people other than himself. Hopefully we'll show him next November...
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Foreign Policy: Obama's Distraction...
...from what's really important to him - the destruction of the United States from the inside. After all, people flying passenger jets into office buildings can't have all the fun, right? Baracky's going to show you how to destroy a nation without a single detonation...that's a measure of his greatness, you know, and he doesn't need anyone stepping on his toes while he's doing it.
Mark Steyn:
Although he affects a president-of-the-world manner, I don’t think Barack Obama cares much about foreign affairs one way or the other. He has a huge transformative domestic agenda designed to leave this country looking much closer to the average Continental social democracy. His principal interest in the rest of the planet is that he doesn’t need some nutjob nuking Cleveland before he’s finished reducing it to a moribund socialist swamp.
And once we are attacked - inevitably, as we appear weaker and weaker - Obama will simply chalk it up to more "chickens coming home to roost", and lay the blame upon our own doorstep, as is his wont.
After all, how much will does a "moribund socialist swamp" have to fight back, anyway? Assuming their president has left them with the ability to do so....
I mean, really - if you were setting out to destroy the United States, what would you do differently than Obama has, anyway?
Mark Steyn:
Although he affects a president-of-the-world manner, I don’t think Barack Obama cares much about foreign affairs one way or the other. He has a huge transformative domestic agenda designed to leave this country looking much closer to the average Continental social democracy. His principal interest in the rest of the planet is that he doesn’t need some nutjob nuking Cleveland before he’s finished reducing it to a moribund socialist swamp.
And once we are attacked - inevitably, as we appear weaker and weaker - Obama will simply chalk it up to more "chickens coming home to roost", and lay the blame upon our own doorstep, as is his wont.
After all, how much will does a "moribund socialist swamp" have to fight back, anyway? Assuming their president has left them with the ability to do so....
I mean, really - if you were setting out to destroy the United States, what would you do differently than Obama has, anyway?
Iran's Nukes: Is Obama Planning A "December Suprise" ?
Obama waxes poetic about world peace, while the dark side fires up weapons that will help tear the world to pieces:
Iran test-fired short-range missiles as its elite Revolutionary Guards began war games on Sunday aimed at boosting the Islamic Republic's deterrent capabilities, official media reported.
The missile maneuvers coincide with increased tension in Iran's nuclear dispute with the West, after last week's disclosure by Tehran that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant.
State radio said the Guards on Monday [Yom Kippur, FYI - ed.] would test-fire the Shahab 3 missile, which Iranian officials say has a range of around 2,000 km, potentially putting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach...
And Obama, with all the instincts of a classic European appeaser, keeps stepping backwards and daring Iran to cross over whatever new line he has drawn in the sand, while anxiously looking over his shoulder to make sure the cliff is still far enough away. Meanwhile, even those on his own side are warning him that objects in his rear-view mirror are closer than they appear...
Our nation's first"talks" with Iran are scheduled for later this week, and they are unlikely to bear much fruit, unless Obama is really prepared to give away the store, Chamberlain-style. But is he really just trying to buy time until December, when he may actually have a bit more military leverage than he does today? DEBKA, the Israeli intelligence blog, reports:
The Pentagon has brought forward to December 2009 the target-date for producing the first 15-ton super bunker-buster bomb (GBU-57A/B) Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which can reach a depth of 60.09 meters underground before exploding. DEBKAfile's military sources report that top defense agencies and air force units were also working against the clock to adapt the bay of a B2a Stealth bomber for carrying and delivering the bomb.
The Pentagon has ordered the number of bombs rolling off the production line increased from four to ten - a rush job triggered in May by the discovery that Iran was hiding a second uranium enrichment plant under a mountain near Qom - a discovery which prompted this week's international outcry.
Congress has since quietly inserted the necessary funding in the 2009 budget.
All this urgency indicates that the Obama administration has been preparing military muscle to back up the international condemnation of Iran's concealed nuclear bomb program, its sanctions threat and his willingness to join the negotiations with Iran opening on Oct. 1 in Geneva. Tehran may have to take into account a possible one-time surgical strike against its underground enrichment facility as a warning shot should its defiance continue.
This would be Obama-style diplomacy - talk until the last minute, then use weapons that would maximize damage underground while hopefully causing the minimal amount of causalities above-ground. Merry Christmas, motherf*ckers....
But does Barack Obama have the courage - or desire - to use even limited weaponry against Iran? Another report leads one to believe the president and his administration believe Iran's possessions of nuclear weapons to be a a fait accompli:
Defense secretary Robert Gates hit the nail on the head when he said Friday: "The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so."
DEBKAfile's sources note that the Gates assessment and the cooling note he injected into the US president's oratory came after Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak visited the Pentagon...
...the US defense secretary believes Israel, like the rest of the world, must accept life under the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran and make the best of it.
This view is shared by the Kremlin. It was advanced by prime minister Vladimir Putin to Binyamin Netanyahu during his secret trip to Moscow on Sept. 7.
According to DEBKAfile's Russian sources, when the Israeli prime minister tried to counter Putin's thesis and explain what restraint meant for Israel, the Russian prime minster became impatient and told his guest to leave.
Well, this scenario seems more realistic to me than Obama spending precious heath-care dollars on bunker-busters. More likely we are on the verge of a pre-emptive surrender to Iran, the handing over of another six million Jewish lives to fascists, and the dormancy of American power. Well, at least we know what Obama got for terminating European missile defense - an anti-Semitic tag-team, with Obama and Putin taking turns beating up the Jews for having the nerve to defend themselves. Guaranteed that should Israel blast the Iranian nuclear project to pieces, the UN will waste no time employing massive sanctions against the Jewish state, with Russia, China, and a "reluctant" US leading the way.
And those bunker-busters? More likely to be put to use by partisan Dems to discover the underground hiding spots of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove...
Iran test-fired short-range missiles as its elite Revolutionary Guards began war games on Sunday aimed at boosting the Islamic Republic's deterrent capabilities, official media reported.
The missile maneuvers coincide with increased tension in Iran's nuclear dispute with the West, after last week's disclosure by Tehran that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant.
State radio said the Guards on Monday [Yom Kippur, FYI - ed.] would test-fire the Shahab 3 missile, which Iranian officials say has a range of around 2,000 km, potentially putting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach...
And Obama, with all the instincts of a classic European appeaser, keeps stepping backwards and daring Iran to cross over whatever new line he has drawn in the sand, while anxiously looking over his shoulder to make sure the cliff is still far enough away. Meanwhile, even those on his own side are warning him that objects in his rear-view mirror are closer than they appear...
Our nation's first"talks" with Iran are scheduled for later this week, and they are unlikely to bear much fruit, unless Obama is really prepared to give away the store, Chamberlain-style. But is he really just trying to buy time until December, when he may actually have a bit more military leverage than he does today? DEBKA, the Israeli intelligence blog, reports:
The Pentagon has brought forward to December 2009 the target-date for producing the first 15-ton super bunker-buster bomb (GBU-57A/B) Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which can reach a depth of 60.09 meters underground before exploding. DEBKAfile's military sources report that top defense agencies and air force units were also working against the clock to adapt the bay of a B2a Stealth bomber for carrying and delivering the bomb.
The Pentagon has ordered the number of bombs rolling off the production line increased from four to ten - a rush job triggered in May by the discovery that Iran was hiding a second uranium enrichment plant under a mountain near Qom - a discovery which prompted this week's international outcry.
Congress has since quietly inserted the necessary funding in the 2009 budget.
All this urgency indicates that the Obama administration has been preparing military muscle to back up the international condemnation of Iran's concealed nuclear bomb program, its sanctions threat and his willingness to join the negotiations with Iran opening on Oct. 1 in Geneva. Tehran may have to take into account a possible one-time surgical strike against its underground enrichment facility as a warning shot should its defiance continue.
This would be Obama-style diplomacy - talk until the last minute, then use weapons that would maximize damage underground while hopefully causing the minimal amount of causalities above-ground. Merry Christmas, motherf*ckers....
But does Barack Obama have the courage - or desire - to use even limited weaponry against Iran? Another report leads one to believe the president and his administration believe Iran's possessions of nuclear weapons to be a a fait accompli:
Defense secretary Robert Gates hit the nail on the head when he said Friday: "The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so."
DEBKAfile's sources note that the Gates assessment and the cooling note he injected into the US president's oratory came after Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak visited the Pentagon...
...the US defense secretary believes Israel, like the rest of the world, must accept life under the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran and make the best of it.
This view is shared by the Kremlin. It was advanced by prime minister Vladimir Putin to Binyamin Netanyahu during his secret trip to Moscow on Sept. 7.
According to DEBKAfile's Russian sources, when the Israeli prime minister tried to counter Putin's thesis and explain what restraint meant for Israel, the Russian prime minster became impatient and told his guest to leave.
Well, this scenario seems more realistic to me than Obama spending precious heath-care dollars on bunker-busters. More likely we are on the verge of a pre-emptive surrender to Iran, the handing over of another six million Jewish lives to fascists, and the dormancy of American power. Well, at least we know what Obama got for terminating European missile defense - an anti-Semitic tag-team, with Obama and Putin taking turns beating up the Jews for having the nerve to defend themselves. Guaranteed that should Israel blast the Iranian nuclear project to pieces, the UN will waste no time employing massive sanctions against the Jewish state, with Russia, China, and a "reluctant" US leading the way.
And those bunker-busters? More likely to be put to use by partisan Dems to discover the underground hiding spots of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove...
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama/Corzine: Running Mates From Hell
Seems like New Jersey governor Jon Corzine lives in a different world altogether from the rest of us, one where raising taxes is a popular idea, where the fact that his state has the nation's worst business climate proves his "progressive" bona fides, and where the president of the United States isn't showing a shocking decline in popularity:
Barack Obama's approval rating with likely voters for this fall's election in New Jersey has sunk to just 45%, with 48% of voters disapproving of him.
...Where he was at a positive 48/42 with unaffiliated voters then [July], that's now dropped to 36/56.
New Jersey is the first state where PPP has found more people who voted for Obama saying they disapprove of him than people who voted for John McCain that think he's doing a good job.
So whatever world Corzine is living in, it's not called New Jersey. Why else would he think that putting up billboards like this is a good idea?
Barack Obama's approval rating with likely voters for this fall's election in New Jersey has sunk to just 45%, with 48% of voters disapproving of him.
...Where he was at a positive 48/42 with unaffiliated voters then [July], that's now dropped to 36/56.
New Jersey is the first state where PPP has found more people who voted for Obama saying they disapprove of him than people who voted for John McCain that think he's doing a good job.
So whatever world Corzine is living in, it's not called New Jersey. Why else would he think that putting up billboards like this is a good idea?
Corzine looks pathetic; like he's desperately trying to angle himself into a picture with someone famous to prove that they're pals. The Trentonian puts it thusly:
Gov. Jon Corzine has decided that to win re-election, he has to sit at the cool kids’ table.
Cool is transitory, though. Just ask any of the one-hit wonders and momentary media faves of the last two decades.
And is there anything more painful that watching a completely clueless individual trying desperately to be hip, by cringingly using words and imagery that has moved well-past its expiration date?
That's Corzine. Clueless, and pathetic in his vain attempts to prove otherwise. It's hard to watch. Thank God this show is due to be cancelled the first Tuesday in November....
UPDATE: How involved is Obama with all this? According to the New York Times, he is actually orchestrating the Corzine campaign:
Every TV ad that Mr. Corzine puts on the air is being screened by the president’s team. The governor’s aides are giving daily briefings to the White House. Mr. Obama’s pollsters have taken over for Mr. Corzine’s polling team, and White House operatives are on the ground for everything from internal strategy sessions to obscure pep rallies with Latino supporters
Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledge that a loss in this deep-blue state would be interpreted as a rebuke of Mr. Obama, affecting his ability to pass major legislation and the public’s perceptions of his party’s power.
This explains a lot, actually. Specifically , the billboards. Only an egomanic like Obama would think that a 20x20 billboard containing his face could singlehandedly swing an election.
Oh, this is gonna make Christie's victory that much sweeter...
Sarkozy Mocks Obama. U.S. Media Plugs Ears
Man - during the Bush administration, any time a third-rate third-world tin-pot crack-pot thug opened his illiterate mouth mouth to criticize the president, every media outlet rushed it to page one, with accompanying editorials bemoaning how our "unilateral cowboy-ism" was destroying our relationships with our allies and enemies.
Of course, in the age of Obama, when the president of France (which was the nation who's disdain most upset the left) rips the current administration a new *sshole, it doesn't even get reported.
Check out Sarkozy's smackdown of Barack Obama - reported in the National Post of Canada:
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy...Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
Not so sure how long the media can continue to play "hide the ball" with the reckless and inept behavior of the Democrats and Barack Obama. But refusing to report on the Van Jones debacle could not save his job, ignoring the ACORN scandal could not prevent them from being defunded, and laughing off the NEA propaganda push has done nothing to prevent that agency's image from being permanently tarnished.
The only thing they have proved is themselves irrelevant to the democratic process, and too weak to prevent the truth from smashing through alternative reporting venues. And in the long run, their loss of credibility hurts their preferred candidate, as the media is no longer viewed as an honest broker and an open source of information. Instead, the torrent of electronic information will continue unchecked and unfiltered, and Obama will not have the security wall of a mass media to defend him.
Which, in the short term, is a good thing. But in the long tern, perhaps not so useful to democracy:
Our Founding Fathers envisioned the press as almost another branch of government. It was to be free and nonpartisan, and would serve as a check on governmental power; it would expose scoundrels and keep politicians honest. It appears that things are not going as planned....
Of course, in the age of Obama, when the president of France (which was the nation who's disdain most upset the left) rips the current administration a new *sshole, it doesn't even get reported.
Check out Sarkozy's smackdown of Barack Obama - reported in the National Post of Canada:
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy...Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
Not so sure how long the media can continue to play "hide the ball" with the reckless and inept behavior of the Democrats and Barack Obama. But refusing to report on the Van Jones debacle could not save his job, ignoring the ACORN scandal could not prevent them from being defunded, and laughing off the NEA propaganda push has done nothing to prevent that agency's image from being permanently tarnished.
The only thing they have proved is themselves irrelevant to the democratic process, and too weak to prevent the truth from smashing through alternative reporting venues. And in the long run, their loss of credibility hurts their preferred candidate, as the media is no longer viewed as an honest broker and an open source of information. Instead, the torrent of electronic information will continue unchecked and unfiltered, and Obama will not have the security wall of a mass media to defend him.
Which, in the short term, is a good thing. But in the long tern, perhaps not so useful to democracy:
Our Founding Fathers envisioned the press as almost another branch of government. It was to be free and nonpartisan, and would serve as a check on governmental power; it would expose scoundrels and keep politicians honest. It appears that things are not going as planned....
Friday, September 25, 2009
Michael Jackson Heils Hitler From The Grave...
No surprise to readers of this space; as I have been writing about the late Micheal Jackson's anti-Semitic tendencies since 2005. Here's MJ on the Jews back then:
They suck them like leeches ... I'm so tired of it. I'm so tired of it."They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up penniless. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."
The singer, who died of heart failure in June, said: 'Hitler was a genius orator. To make that many people turn and change and hate, he had to be a showman and he was.'
Asked if he had the ability to make Hitler change, Jackson replied: 'Absolutely. You have to help them, give them therapy, teach them that somewhere, something in their life went wrong.
Guess the genocide was all just part of the act....
So all Hitler needed was a hug from The Gloved One, and he could have prevented the Holocaust. Maybe. If he wanted to, which, based on the above quote and some of his song lyrics, is in question:
“Jew me, sue me
Everybody do me
Kick me, kike me
Don’t you black or white me”
- Fire: Jackson’s descent into madness began with his head catching fire. Hitler’s ascent into madness began with the Reichstag fire.
- Clothes: Jackson liked dressing up children in paramilitary garb, just like him. Hitler had his Hitler youth movement dress like him and sing songs.
- Jackson wanted to heal the world. Hitler wanted to bring the world to heel.
- Clothes: Jackson liked dressing up children in paramilitary garb, just like him. Hitler had his Hitler youth movement dress like him and sing songs.
- Jackson wanted to heal the world. Hitler wanted to bring the world to heel.
Michael Jackson and Hitler - separated at birth? You tell me:
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Bibi the Brave Speaks Truth to Power at the UN...
...as he challenges the lies of Ahmadinejad, and the legitimacy of the United Nations as a whole:
“Last month I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee,” Netanyahu recalled a visit to the pastoral villa, where over just a few hours on January 20 1942 the Nazis devised the Final Solution—the decision to exterminate the Jews from Europe.
Netanyahu then dramatically showed a facsimile copy of Final Solution documents drafted in Wannsee.
“Is this protocol a lie?” he asked. “Is the German government lying?”
“The day before I was in Wannsee,” Netanyahu continued, “I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. “These plans I now hold in my hand,” he said, as he was showing the worn-out blueprints to the assembly. “They contain a signature by Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s deputy.
“Are these plans of the camp where one million Jews were murdered a lie too?” he asked.
Netanyahu then turned to attacking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying “Yesterday, the man who called the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. For those who refused to come, and those who left in protest—I commend you, you stood up for moral clarity.’
“But for those who stayed—I say on behalf of the Jewish people, my people and decent people everywhere—have you no shame? No decency? What a disgrace, what a mockery of the charter of the UN.”
I would assume it did not go over as well as Barack Obama's craven ass-kissing of the High Lords of Hatred. But sometimes, as they say, the truth hurts.
“Last month I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee,” Netanyahu recalled a visit to the pastoral villa, where over just a few hours on January 20 1942 the Nazis devised the Final Solution—the decision to exterminate the Jews from Europe.
Netanyahu then dramatically showed a facsimile copy of Final Solution documents drafted in Wannsee.
“Is this protocol a lie?” he asked. “Is the German government lying?”
“The day before I was in Wannsee,” Netanyahu continued, “I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. “These plans I now hold in my hand,” he said, as he was showing the worn-out blueprints to the assembly. “They contain a signature by Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s deputy.
“Are these plans of the camp where one million Jews were murdered a lie too?” he asked.
Netanyahu then turned to attacking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying “Yesterday, the man who called the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. For those who refused to come, and those who left in protest—I commend you, you stood up for moral clarity.’
“But for those who stayed—I say on behalf of the Jewish people, my people and decent people everywhere—have you no shame? No decency? What a disgrace, what a mockery of the charter of the UN.”
I would assume it did not go over as well as Barack Obama's craven ass-kissing of the High Lords of Hatred. But sometimes, as they say, the truth hurts.
As they say a lot in synagogue during the High Holy Days, "Which of us will be redeemed before the Lord this year?"
I do not think I fall afoul of the admonishment to "Judge not, lest ye be judged" when I say that our president's performance - in contrast to Bibi's - on the eve of the holiest day of all, will be found wanting by the ultimate deliverer of judgement...
New Jersey: The Worst Place To Do Business in America
The national Tax Foundation has released its 2010 State Business Tax Climate, and well, let's just say embattled incumbent Jon Corzine isn't going to find much fodder for campaign commercials here. Chris Christie, on the other hand....
So where does New Jersey stand? Do you even have to ask? Then Bob Ingle will answer:
Guess who is dead last? Oh, go on take a stab at it. That’s right. Us.
South Dakota has the best business tax climate, although as Corzine told us, North Dakota has better unemployment numbers. New Jersey is No. 50.
The Tax Foundation said: “New Jersey has only one tax that scores dead last, property taxes, but its overall ranking is 50th because it has no competitive taxes. The best it can muster is a middle-of-the-pack 25th on unemployment insurance, the least heavily weighed sub-index, while scoring poorly on the three biggest state-level taxes: corporate income (10th worst) personal income (4th worst) and general sales (13th worst).
We’ve been last since 2007. This year our overall score fell from 3.90 to 3.60.
Take a look at the ten best and ten worst states to do business in, and then look at the overall financial status of the bottom ten, and then ask yourself, which party controls the bottom ten, and which one controls most of the top ten?
Do you even have to ask?
10 Best States:
South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Washington, Utah.
10 Worst States:
New Jersey, New York, California, Ohio, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont.
TaxProf makes the following observation as well:
Interestingly, all ten of the states with the worst business tax climates voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, and five of the ten states with the best business tax climates voted for John McCain (South Dakota #1, Wyoming (#2), Alaska (#3), Montana (#6), and Utah (#10).
A good point regarding taxes as made by the Foundation:
Good state tax systems levy low, flat rates on the broadest bases possible, and they treat all taxpayers the same. Variation in the tax treatment of different industries favors one economic activity or decision over another. The more riddled a tax system is with these politically motivated preferences the less likely it is that business decisions will be made in response to market forces.
Just think of what America will look like once Obama and the Democrats put in a system of subsidies and rebates based on their most favored groups and policies. Yup, a whole nation that looks just like New Jersey....
So where does New Jersey stand? Do you even have to ask? Then Bob Ingle will answer:
Guess who is dead last? Oh, go on take a stab at it. That’s right. Us.
South Dakota has the best business tax climate, although as Corzine told us, North Dakota has better unemployment numbers. New Jersey is No. 50.
The Tax Foundation said: “New Jersey has only one tax that scores dead last, property taxes, but its overall ranking is 50th because it has no competitive taxes. The best it can muster is a middle-of-the-pack 25th on unemployment insurance, the least heavily weighed sub-index, while scoring poorly on the three biggest state-level taxes: corporate income (10th worst) personal income (4th worst) and general sales (13th worst).
We’ve been last since 2007. This year our overall score fell from 3.90 to 3.60.
Take a look at the ten best and ten worst states to do business in, and then look at the overall financial status of the bottom ten, and then ask yourself, which party controls the bottom ten, and which one controls most of the top ten?
Do you even have to ask?
10 Best States:
South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Washington, Utah.
10 Worst States:
New Jersey, New York, California, Ohio, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont.
TaxProf makes the following observation as well:
Interestingly, all ten of the states with the worst business tax climates voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, and five of the ten states with the best business tax climates voted for John McCain (South Dakota #1, Wyoming (#2), Alaska (#3), Montana (#6), and Utah (#10).
A good point regarding taxes as made by the Foundation:
Good state tax systems levy low, flat rates on the broadest bases possible, and they treat all taxpayers the same. Variation in the tax treatment of different industries favors one economic activity or decision over another. The more riddled a tax system is with these politically motivated preferences the less likely it is that business decisions will be made in response to market forces.
Just think of what America will look like once Obama and the Democrats put in a system of subsidies and rebates based on their most favored groups and policies. Yup, a whole nation that looks just like New Jersey....
Obama Snubs The Brits (again)
So it wasn't bad enough that President Obama returned a bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had, since 9/11, been on loan as a sign of strength and friendship from our allies across the pond. And apparently Obama didn't show enough disdain for the British when he gave Prime Minister Brown a discount pack of DVDs as a gift, while Brown brought Obama a pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a ship that served on anti-slavery missions off Africa. And no, he had no intention to disrespect the Queen of England by giving her an iPod filled with his speeches, while his churlish wife patted her condescendingly on the back.
No, for some reason the depths of Obama's hatred and disdain of the British have not yet been reached. Once again, yesterday, he found a way to slap our staunchest allies in the face:
Gordon Brown lurched from being hailed as a global statesman to intense embarrassment tonight, after it emerged US President Barack Obama had turned down no fewer than five requests from Downing Street to hold a bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York or at the G20 summit starting in Pittsburgh today...
But Obama has held bilateral meetings in New York with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and the new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama...
Some in the British press are not amused:
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable.... Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - that lessons would have been learned. Apparently not... Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.
This is a dangerous but legitimate sentiment from the Brits. I guess Obama feels that since he wasn't president before January 20th,2009, all favors done for this nation before The Days Of The One are no longer valid currency. Apparently, all alliances are now "off the table" and any future acts of friendship will be based on a "what have you done for me lately" basis, the "me" being not the United States of America but for Barack Obama.
Why would the Brits ever help us again, based on the treatment they have received from Obama? They won't, but that doesn't concern the president, who seems more anxious to pull us into an alliance with South American dictatorships than thriving European democracies. It's almost as if our foreign policy was being run by a college sophomore, just indoctrinated into Western Civilization by his tenured, socialist college professor, who still has pictures of himself in his office smoking weed at Woodstock.
Unless this is Michelle Obama's doing? From the British press, in March:
We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.
Sorry, our erstwhile friends. Our new president has 200 year-old scores to settle, and whatever you've think you have done for us lately, it's not enough to satisfy The One...
No, for some reason the depths of Obama's hatred and disdain of the British have not yet been reached. Once again, yesterday, he found a way to slap our staunchest allies in the face:
Gordon Brown lurched from being hailed as a global statesman to intense embarrassment tonight, after it emerged US President Barack Obama had turned down no fewer than five requests from Downing Street to hold a bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York or at the G20 summit starting in Pittsburgh today...
But Obama has held bilateral meetings in New York with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and the new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama...
Some in the British press are not amused:
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable.... Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - that lessons would have been learned. Apparently not... Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.
This is a dangerous but legitimate sentiment from the Brits. I guess Obama feels that since he wasn't president before January 20th,2009, all favors done for this nation before The Days Of The One are no longer valid currency. Apparently, all alliances are now "off the table" and any future acts of friendship will be based on a "what have you done for me lately" basis, the "me" being not the United States of America but for Barack Obama.
Why would the Brits ever help us again, based on the treatment they have received from Obama? They won't, but that doesn't concern the president, who seems more anxious to pull us into an alliance with South American dictatorships than thriving European democracies. It's almost as if our foreign policy was being run by a college sophomore, just indoctrinated into Western Civilization by his tenured, socialist college professor, who still has pictures of himself in his office smoking weed at Woodstock.
Unless this is Michelle Obama's doing? From the British press, in March:
We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.
Sorry, our erstwhile friends. Our new president has 200 year-old scores to settle, and whatever you've think you have done for us lately, it's not enough to satisfy The One...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sarah Palin wows 'em in Hong Kong!
...and you know it's true, because if there was a remotely negative spin that could be placed upon it, the New York Times would have leaped at the opportunity. Instead, we get sanity:A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.
“The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.
“She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said...
An interesting point from a non-fan:
Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.
“They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”
“They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”
Yeah, we knew that. Nice of you to admit it, but the crime against Sarah has already been committed....
Seems to me like Sarah is running as a "Tea Party Republican" - not part of the Washington crowd, a women who owes favors to no one, and an American who values her freedom to live her life as she sees fit without interference from a government that feels it is best suited to direct the lives of its individual citizens.
Could be a winning formula in 2012. As Mr. Goode readily admits, she's bright. Quite bright, actually. Don't expect her to follow a well-worn path to the White House; expect to find a path with twists and turns and some head-feints and hand-fakes, and seemingly blind alleys that open up to new ideas and opportunities that no one else saw coming....
New Jersey's Taxes Are Nation's Highest. Corzine Vows To Make Them Higher!
And maybe that's why he's constantly 7-8 points down in the polls. Anyway:
New Jersey continues to have the highest property taxes in the nation.
The Tax Foundation analyzed Census figures and determined Garden State homeowners put 7 percent of their paychecks toward property taxes in 2008. New Jersey's median property tax bill was $6,320. The group found six of the nation's 10 most expensive counties were in New Jersey. Hunterdon County property owners paid a median bill of $8,492, or third-highest in the country.
And what does Corzine have to say about that? The Philadelphia Inquirer quotes him:
Neither candidate would go into deep detail on plans for handling the next budget, saying they would wait to see where the state's finances stood next year.
"Taxes should be a last resort," Corzine said, though he would not rule out increasing them.
And that brings us back to the polls:
Republican challenger Chris Christie still holds a seven-point lead - 48% to 41% - over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine in the race for New Jersey governor.
Corzine continues to be plagued with low job approval ratings and high negatives. Just 38% approve of the way he is performing his role as governor while 61% disapprove. That latter figure includes 45% who Strongly Disapprove.
On a personal basis, 39% have a favorable opinion of Corzine while 60% say the opposite.
For Christie, the numbers are 48% favorable and 46% unfavorable. But only 22% have a Very Unfavorable opinion of Christie compared to 39% who offer such a negative assessment of Corzine.
Seems like even the residents of Deep Blue Jersey don't enjoy being forced to lower their standard of living in order to provide sustenance to the liberal welfare state.
A lesson for Obama here, as he plans to raise taxes on energy, heath care, and soda?
Nah. He's too smart to learn anything anymore....
New Jersey continues to have the highest property taxes in the nation.
The Tax Foundation analyzed Census figures and determined Garden State homeowners put 7 percent of their paychecks toward property taxes in 2008. New Jersey's median property tax bill was $6,320. The group found six of the nation's 10 most expensive counties were in New Jersey. Hunterdon County property owners paid a median bill of $8,492, or third-highest in the country.
And what does Corzine have to say about that? The Philadelphia Inquirer quotes him:
Neither candidate would go into deep detail on plans for handling the next budget, saying they would wait to see where the state's finances stood next year.
"Taxes should be a last resort," Corzine said, though he would not rule out increasing them.
And that brings us back to the polls:
Republican challenger Chris Christie still holds a seven-point lead - 48% to 41% - over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine in the race for New Jersey governor.
Corzine continues to be plagued with low job approval ratings and high negatives. Just 38% approve of the way he is performing his role as governor while 61% disapprove. That latter figure includes 45% who Strongly Disapprove.
On a personal basis, 39% have a favorable opinion of Corzine while 60% say the opposite.
For Christie, the numbers are 48% favorable and 46% unfavorable. But only 22% have a Very Unfavorable opinion of Christie compared to 39% who offer such a negative assessment of Corzine.
Seems like even the residents of Deep Blue Jersey don't enjoy being forced to lower their standard of living in order to provide sustenance to the liberal welfare state.
A lesson for Obama here, as he plans to raise taxes on energy, heath care, and soda?
Nah. He's too smart to learn anything anymore....
Stimulus Fails To Stimulate Youth Job Market
One of this hidden statistics within our 9.7% unemployment rate is the 25.5% unemployment rates for teenagers looking for work. That's brutal, for not only does it act as a "disincentive" for young workers but it can hurt their career chances for years to come:
Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions. They are the first rung on young workers career ladder, where they learn essential career skills such as self-discipline, accepting direction from a boss, and interacting productively with customers and co-workers. Minimum wage positions provide on-the-job training in career skills.
But don't worry, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are here to save you, with a $1.2 billion "Workforce Investment Act" summer program that would be sure to help kids get jobs. Funny, politicians love to tax businesses to create these "work programs" and "job training programs", without realizing that these taxes would force businesses to hire less workers, thus subverting the whole idea of these "programs" in the first place.
S0 how did taxpayer-funded "Workforce" work out? Like all liberal welfare programs, it was a disaster:
More than $1.2 billion in federal stimulus money was supposed to help teenagers find jobs this summer, but the effort barely made a dent in one of the bleakest job markets young workers have faced in more than 60 years.
Despite the program's admirable goals, experts and government watchdogs say it yielded few new opportunities for teens seeking work....
"The summer program was basically half-disaster," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "It was too little, too late and too poorly constructed to have any lasting effect on our youngest workers."
And yet I am sure the Obama administration will trumpet this as a complete success:
Once the summer program ends this month, states won't have to show that teens actually got jobs. The Department of Labor's only requirement is that graduates be more "workforce ready," a term all states can measure for themselves.
....and so continue the program on the taxpayer tit for years to come, while teens lose out on income and experience, and the markets loses a segment of consumers and employees.
Economics, liberal-style. Ain't socialism grand?
Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions. They are the first rung on young workers career ladder, where they learn essential career skills such as self-discipline, accepting direction from a boss, and interacting productively with customers and co-workers. Minimum wage positions provide on-the-job training in career skills.
But don't worry, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are here to save you, with a $1.2 billion "Workforce Investment Act" summer program that would be sure to help kids get jobs. Funny, politicians love to tax businesses to create these "work programs" and "job training programs", without realizing that these taxes would force businesses to hire less workers, thus subverting the whole idea of these "programs" in the first place.
S0 how did taxpayer-funded "Workforce" work out? Like all liberal welfare programs, it was a disaster:
More than $1.2 billion in federal stimulus money was supposed to help teenagers find jobs this summer, but the effort barely made a dent in one of the bleakest job markets young workers have faced in more than 60 years.
Despite the program's admirable goals, experts and government watchdogs say it yielded few new opportunities for teens seeking work....
"The summer program was basically half-disaster," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "It was too little, too late and too poorly constructed to have any lasting effect on our youngest workers."
And yet I am sure the Obama administration will trumpet this as a complete success:
Once the summer program ends this month, states won't have to show that teens actually got jobs. The Department of Labor's only requirement is that graduates be more "workforce ready," a term all states can measure for themselves.
....and so continue the program on the taxpayer tit for years to come, while teens lose out on income and experience, and the markets loses a segment of consumers and employees.
Economics, liberal-style. Ain't socialism grand?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
What Europe Doesn't Understand About American Democracy
Wrote a post earlier today on the frustrations of the EU bureaucratic element, who cannot believe they have to wait until a representative government body (in this case, the U.S. Senate) debates a climate change bill before they get a climate change bill.
More frustration from the hard-left at the Guardian, who are also fretting over America's right to representation:
But it must be recognised that it's not just Obama's shortcomings that are causing the problem. The very structure of the American political system is at the heart of these failures. For example, thwarting Obama on a regular basis is an unrepresentative senate where "minority rule" prevails and undermines what a majority of the country may want. With two senators elected per state, regardless of population, California with more than 35 million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with just half a million residents. This constitutional arrangement greatly favours low population states, many of which tend to be conservative, producing what one political analyst has called "a weighted vote for small-town whites in pickup trucks with gun racks."
Hmm...I'd love to meet this racist "political analyst", sounds like another Brit to me. But what our frustrated Europhile does not understand is that the Senate was put into practice specifically for this type of circumstance - that is, to slow down wholesale changes in society, made in the heat of political passion, by the more reflexive House of Representatives. True as well is that if smaller states such as Wisconsin and the Dakotas could simply be outvoted at every turn, and had no real say in their lifestyle or destiny, they would have no reason to stay in the Union. The Senate binds us together by making change incremental, and more representative when it does occur.
More:
Pile on to that an uncompetitive, winner-take-all electoral system, marinated in money and special interest influence, and the sclerotic US political scene is deeply troubling. None of these anti-democratic structural features are going away any time soon. Unless Barack Obama is able to demonstrate a better level of political skill than he has shown so far, everyone needs to fasten their seatbelts. The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line.
It appears that the wheels may be coming off the world's post-war leader, and not even Barack Obama can stop it happening.
Again, the electoral system helps give the smaller states an more powerful voice in the government (and isn't that liberal in and of itself? "A seat at the table" kind of thing?) and has helped the United States avoid the fractious elections of places like Israel and Italy, where unity - and governments - last all of six months before new political fissures rend old partnerships. The electoral college puts us "all in" together, despite a very slight loss of individual representation (do you think my Republican vote in New Jersey was worth a damn last year?).
But the US political scene is in trouble, and we are ceding our place at the front of the line. But blame these problems not on the sytem, but on a president who has created dozens of little czars that answer to no one, who has affected the takeover of massive parts of the US economy, and who has questionable allegiance to the nation's core values and partnerships, preferring heavy-handedness over persuasion and honest debate. Blaming the system is ironic at this point - after all, isn't that the very thing Obama is working to change? And if you question the results, should you not be questioning his methods and philosophies?
And is it not his methods - a preference for appeasement overseas and for government control at home - that is causing this nation to "cede its place"? And why does our British friend feels that only more authoritarianism will fix it?
Funny that the media - who has the most to lose - is arguing the most reverently for "soft tyranny". Let's hope they don't get their way, and let's hope the Brits - and the rest of the EU - realize what is is that kept America so strong all these years - and their nations so prosperous and safe...
More frustration from the hard-left at the Guardian, who are also fretting over America's right to representation:
But it must be recognised that it's not just Obama's shortcomings that are causing the problem. The very structure of the American political system is at the heart of these failures. For example, thwarting Obama on a regular basis is an unrepresentative senate where "minority rule" prevails and undermines what a majority of the country may want. With two senators elected per state, regardless of population, California with more than 35 million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with just half a million residents. This constitutional arrangement greatly favours low population states, many of which tend to be conservative, producing what one political analyst has called "a weighted vote for small-town whites in pickup trucks with gun racks."
Hmm...I'd love to meet this racist "political analyst", sounds like another Brit to me. But what our frustrated Europhile does not understand is that the Senate was put into practice specifically for this type of circumstance - that is, to slow down wholesale changes in society, made in the heat of political passion, by the more reflexive House of Representatives. True as well is that if smaller states such as Wisconsin and the Dakotas could simply be outvoted at every turn, and had no real say in their lifestyle or destiny, they would have no reason to stay in the Union. The Senate binds us together by making change incremental, and more representative when it does occur.
More:
Pile on to that an uncompetitive, winner-take-all electoral system, marinated in money and special interest influence, and the sclerotic US political scene is deeply troubling. None of these anti-democratic structural features are going away any time soon. Unless Barack Obama is able to demonstrate a better level of political skill than he has shown so far, everyone needs to fasten their seatbelts. The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line.
It appears that the wheels may be coming off the world's post-war leader, and not even Barack Obama can stop it happening.
Again, the electoral system helps give the smaller states an more powerful voice in the government (and isn't that liberal in and of itself? "A seat at the table" kind of thing?) and has helped the United States avoid the fractious elections of places like Israel and Italy, where unity - and governments - last all of six months before new political fissures rend old partnerships. The electoral college puts us "all in" together, despite a very slight loss of individual representation (do you think my Republican vote in New Jersey was worth a damn last year?).
But the US political scene is in trouble, and we are ceding our place at the front of the line. But blame these problems not on the sytem, but on a president who has created dozens of little czars that answer to no one, who has affected the takeover of massive parts of the US economy, and who has questionable allegiance to the nation's core values and partnerships, preferring heavy-handedness over persuasion and honest debate. Blaming the system is ironic at this point - after all, isn't that the very thing Obama is working to change? And if you question the results, should you not be questioning his methods and philosophies?
And is it not his methods - a preference for appeasement overseas and for government control at home - that is causing this nation to "cede its place"? And why does our British friend feels that only more authoritarianism will fix it?
Funny that the media - who has the most to lose - is arguing the most reverently for "soft tyranny". Let's hope they don't get their way, and let's hope the Brits - and the rest of the EU - realize what is is that kept America so strong all these years - and their nations so prosperous and safe...
Steven Chu: We Are A Nation Of "Teenagers"
Nah, those liberal elites are not too full of themselves and their Mensa membership cards. They love their fellow Americans - they really do! - but unfortunately, we're a bunch of willful adolescents who refuse to do what we are told, and must have strict guidelines and boundaries in order to live a life deemed as correct by the state.
Seriously:
When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.
Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”
Irritated at this second-rate genius yet, who can't wait to tell you how much smarter than you he is? Wait, here's more on how he expects the American people to roll over for a cap and trade bill, because, you know, there is no need for debate:
...Secretary Chu said he didn’t think that the public would throw the same political temper tantrum over climate legislation has has happened with the healthcare debate.
Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback, Dr. Chu said he was optimistic the public would buy the administration’s arguments that energy efficiency and caps on greenhouse-gas emissions will spark an economic rebound.
“I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters.
Somebody smack this college boy upside the head with a rolled-up newspaper, please. If he had a clue, he'd realize a large part of Barack Obama's problem is that nobody believes what he's selling anymore. After the debacle of the heath care debate, does Chu really think that an increasingly-skeptical public will buy into the global warming charade, complete with lectures from hypocrites like Al Gore, who use more carbon in a day than many of us will use in a lifetime? Does he really believe there will be "no debate" over how a huge tax increase will create new jobs, especially since such a thing has never actually happened in the history of the world so far?
Maybe Obama's prospects would be looking up a bit if he didn't surround himself strictly with out-of-touch academics who feel their degree entitles them to a respect and obedience they have never earned. A few "real people" in the administration would go a long way...but could you imagine Steven Chu being forced to listen to, and respect the opinion of, say, a mere "energy capitalist"?
He'd choke on his fois gras.....
UPDATE: The White House spin, as expected:
Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy.
Pul-eeeze....
UPDATE II: Via Hot Air, a look inside the liberal soul:
This is nothing more than a slightly more honest look at the attitude of the Left when it comes to governance. It’s all about paternalism and condescension, and the belief that a group of elites should be appointed to rule over the unwashed and unschooled masses for their own good. That has never been consonant with the American experience, which allows the individual to make his own choices and live with the consequences. Chu gives us a good look at the liberal soul, and most Americans will not like what they see...
Seriously:
When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.
Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”
Irritated at this second-rate genius yet, who can't wait to tell you how much smarter than you he is? Wait, here's more on how he expects the American people to roll over for a cap and trade bill, because, you know, there is no need for debate:
...Secretary Chu said he didn’t think that the public would throw the same political temper tantrum over climate legislation has has happened with the healthcare debate.
Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback, Dr. Chu said he was optimistic the public would buy the administration’s arguments that energy efficiency and caps on greenhouse-gas emissions will spark an economic rebound.
“I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters.
Somebody smack this college boy upside the head with a rolled-up newspaper, please. If he had a clue, he'd realize a large part of Barack Obama's problem is that nobody believes what he's selling anymore. After the debacle of the heath care debate, does Chu really think that an increasingly-skeptical public will buy into the global warming charade, complete with lectures from hypocrites like Al Gore, who use more carbon in a day than many of us will use in a lifetime? Does he really believe there will be "no debate" over how a huge tax increase will create new jobs, especially since such a thing has never actually happened in the history of the world so far?
Maybe Obama's prospects would be looking up a bit if he didn't surround himself strictly with out-of-touch academics who feel their degree entitles them to a respect and obedience they have never earned. A few "real people" in the administration would go a long way...but could you imagine Steven Chu being forced to listen to, and respect the opinion of, say, a mere "energy capitalist"?
He'd choke on his fois gras.....
UPDATE: The White House spin, as expected:
Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy.
Pul-eeeze....
UPDATE II: Via Hot Air, a look inside the liberal soul:
This is nothing more than a slightly more honest look at the attitude of the Left when it comes to governance. It’s all about paternalism and condescension, and the belief that a group of elites should be appointed to rule over the unwashed and unschooled masses for their own good. That has never been consonant with the American experience, which allows the individual to make his own choices and live with the consequences. Chu gives us a good look at the liberal soul, and most Americans will not like what they see...
EU on Global Warming: Don't Deliberate, Just Legislate !
It must be so frustrating for the Commissars of the EU - unelected bureaucratic functionaries who can "legislate" as they please - to have to wait for the United States to go through a democratic process before climbing on board the European train to hell.
Check out the simmering rage at the United Nations, as the Euro-trash grows frustrated with us stupid Americans, as we put our cap and trade bill on the back burner:
Prompted by remarks last week by Harry Reid, the US Senate majority leader, that cap and trade legislation might be pushed back to next year, John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, blamed the Senate for holding up the global agenda.
“Sometimes in this country, the greatest deliberative body in the world [the Senate] acts as though it is the only deliberative body in the world and that we should all wait until it gets healthcare passed,” he said.
“There is a global timetable and the US Senate is fully aware of it . . . The world cannot wait on the Senate’s timetable.”
US officials say their European counterparts fail to understand US political processes....
Seems like that good old-fashioned European urge for totalitarianism is becoming resurgent. Germany needed Hitler to restore their economy (and national pride), Italy needed Mussolini to make the trains run on time, the Arabs need despots to control their propensity for violence, and the West needs rulers who will...subordinate their nations to the doctrines of global warming.
Does Obama buy this? Of course he does. But for Barack Obama, it's always about Barack Obama, and he can't have people conflating the tax increases of his cap and trade plan with the tax increases of his heath care plan (which he needs to pass to prove the Almighty Power of The One). He'll whisper sweet nothings into the ears of Europe's unelected kings and queens, and tell them to be patient, for by this time next year...
Check out the simmering rage at the United Nations, as the Euro-trash grows frustrated with us stupid Americans, as we put our cap and trade bill on the back burner:
Prompted by remarks last week by Harry Reid, the US Senate majority leader, that cap and trade legislation might be pushed back to next year, John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, blamed the Senate for holding up the global agenda.
“Sometimes in this country, the greatest deliberative body in the world [the Senate] acts as though it is the only deliberative body in the world and that we should all wait until it gets healthcare passed,” he said.
“There is a global timetable and the US Senate is fully aware of it . . . The world cannot wait on the Senate’s timetable.”
US officials say their European counterparts fail to understand US political processes....
Seems like that good old-fashioned European urge for totalitarianism is becoming resurgent. Germany needed Hitler to restore their economy (and national pride), Italy needed Mussolini to make the trains run on time, the Arabs need despots to control their propensity for violence, and the West needs rulers who will...subordinate their nations to the doctrines of global warming.
Does Obama buy this? Of course he does. But for Barack Obama, it's always about Barack Obama, and he can't have people conflating the tax increases of his cap and trade plan with the tax increases of his heath care plan (which he needs to pass to prove the Almighty Power of The One). He'll whisper sweet nothings into the ears of Europe's unelected kings and queens, and tell them to be patient, for by this time next year...
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama's "Tampon Tax"
...and you thought Obama was going to "pay" for the socialization of medical care simply by letting senior citizens die off? Silly goose! That's only going to cover a portion of the huge cost the Democrats want to take on, so slipped into the Baucus bill was a legislative trick that allows women's most basic needs to become a taxable source of revenue.
We know that one of the main categories of taxation for the heath care bill was "medical devices", which most honest folks figured to be stuff from X-Ray machines to MRI's. Ah, but the government has a much wider definition, if you will...Townhall dissects the bill:
- This section of the bill entitled “Annual Fee on Manufacturers and Importers of Medical Devices” has the following language on what is covered under the taxes on medical devices: “covered domestic sales would include U.S. sales of medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] as a medical device [FOOTNOTE 103] and subject to premarketing and post marketing regulatory controls. The term would not include sales attributable to Class I products"
-you can conduct your own search and find out what Class of device a given medical device falls under by going to this search page. If you search “Tampon”, you will see that the FDA characterizes it as a Class II medical device and is therefore covered by the Obama tampon tax. You can also look up the following medical device terms and find out the same thing: like contact lenses and solutions, hearing aides, thermometers, oxygen bottles, wheelchairs, condoms....
Wonder how senior citizens living on limited budgets will feel once they real that the socialized medicine that the AARP is championing will raise the prices on many of the medical items they need most to continue to function fully in society?
But it's the "woman scorned" thing that intrigues me. How irked will female voters get about having the government use their most personal body functions as a way to force them to fork over extra money to fund socialized medicine?
"Hands off my body!" is what the liberal ladies used to shriek when the threat of more restrictive abortion laws was a fear tactic tossed around by the left. Is it now OK for Barack Obama to put his filching hands anywhere he pleases on a woman's body, if it serves the purposes of extorting their money and putting it towards a liberal cause?
Curious to see what reaction this bring out. I'm not even going to guess - any man who claims he has the female gender figured out is a man who doesn't have a clue...
We know that one of the main categories of taxation for the heath care bill was "medical devices", which most honest folks figured to be stuff from X-Ray machines to MRI's. Ah, but the government has a much wider definition, if you will...Townhall dissects the bill:
- This section of the bill entitled “Annual Fee on Manufacturers and Importers of Medical Devices” has the following language on what is covered under the taxes on medical devices: “covered domestic sales would include U.S. sales of medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] as a medical device [FOOTNOTE 103] and subject to premarketing and post marketing regulatory controls. The term would not include sales attributable to Class I products"
-you can conduct your own search and find out what Class of device a given medical device falls under by going to this search page. If you search “Tampon”, you will see that the FDA characterizes it as a Class II medical device and is therefore covered by the Obama tampon tax. You can also look up the following medical device terms and find out the same thing: like contact lenses and solutions, hearing aides, thermometers, oxygen bottles, wheelchairs, condoms....
Wonder how senior citizens living on limited budgets will feel once they real that the socialized medicine that the AARP is championing will raise the prices on many of the medical items they need most to continue to function fully in society?
But it's the "woman scorned" thing that intrigues me. How irked will female voters get about having the government use their most personal body functions as a way to force them to fork over extra money to fund socialized medicine?
"Hands off my body!" is what the liberal ladies used to shriek when the threat of more restrictive abortion laws was a fear tactic tossed around by the left. Is it now OK for Barack Obama to put his filching hands anywhere he pleases on a woman's body, if it serves the purposes of extorting their money and putting it towards a liberal cause?
Curious to see what reaction this bring out. I'm not even going to guess - any man who claims he has the female gender figured out is a man who doesn't have a clue...
AP Mocks Obama's Heath Care "Savings"
Great headline, BTW:
$2 trillion in health savings? Where?
....referring to the heady days of May, when insurance, hospital and other allied medical industries promised to find that amount in savings over the next ten years. Too bad that they failed to materialize, and that they would fail to count against the cost of the bill to begin with:
For starters, the $2 trillion in reduced costs for care, administrative work and other medical expenses were supposed to be savings for the entire economy, not just the government.
That means that even if the savings were realized, much of it — no one knows exactly how much — would not be available to help Congress pay for its health overhaul bills. Those measures have ranged from an $856 billion bill by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to House Democrats' $1.5 trillion version, both covering 10 years.
So far, the pharmaceutical and hospital industries have agreed to cuts that would total $235 billion in 10-year savings for the government. That's a fraction of both the cost of health legislation and the $2 trillion in promised reductions.
And it's not enough for the Socialist-in-Chief, who is not reforming health care as much as he is redistributing it:
"Insurance companies, drug companies are going to have to be ponying up," Obama said Sunday on CBS-TV's "Face the Nation," without specifying any amounts.
We are going to be "forced" to buy insurance, in order to pay for its redistribution. Drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and insurers will have to "pony up" dough in order to be controlled by the government. And of course, this is all before the avalanche of taxes - or whatever it is our bullsh*tter-in-chief chooses to call it - on everything else sets in. After all, if government is now our parent responsible for our health, they can - nay, must - raise taxes on anything considered unhealthy, from soda to breakfast cereals to energy drinks to liquor....
And he wonders why his reform "plan" keeps getting more unpopular by the day? Shoot, even the uninsured may be turning against him:
The latest data from Scott Rasmussen's poll of those who lack health insurance indicates that they're starting to turn skeptical about the Obama plan....
What a mess. Can't we just put this dog to sleep?
$2 trillion in health savings? Where?
....referring to the heady days of May, when insurance, hospital and other allied medical industries promised to find that amount in savings over the next ten years. Too bad that they failed to materialize, and that they would fail to count against the cost of the bill to begin with:
For starters, the $2 trillion in reduced costs for care, administrative work and other medical expenses were supposed to be savings for the entire economy, not just the government.
That means that even if the savings were realized, much of it — no one knows exactly how much — would not be available to help Congress pay for its health overhaul bills. Those measures have ranged from an $856 billion bill by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to House Democrats' $1.5 trillion version, both covering 10 years.
So far, the pharmaceutical and hospital industries have agreed to cuts that would total $235 billion in 10-year savings for the government. That's a fraction of both the cost of health legislation and the $2 trillion in promised reductions.
And it's not enough for the Socialist-in-Chief, who is not reforming health care as much as he is redistributing it:
"Insurance companies, drug companies are going to have to be ponying up," Obama said Sunday on CBS-TV's "Face the Nation," without specifying any amounts.
We are going to be "forced" to buy insurance, in order to pay for its redistribution. Drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and insurers will have to "pony up" dough in order to be controlled by the government. And of course, this is all before the avalanche of taxes - or whatever it is our bullsh*tter-in-chief chooses to call it - on everything else sets in. After all, if government is now our parent responsible for our health, they can - nay, must - raise taxes on anything considered unhealthy, from soda to breakfast cereals to energy drinks to liquor....
And he wonders why his reform "plan" keeps getting more unpopular by the day? Shoot, even the uninsured may be turning against him:
The latest data from Scott Rasmussen's poll of those who lack health insurance indicates that they're starting to turn skeptical about the Obama plan....
What a mess. Can't we just put this dog to sleep?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)