How can we put off a thing we do not like to deal with? Maybe a thing we know nothing about, maybe a thing we don't give a sh*t about?
Barack Obama knows - since he's put off answering Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more boots for six weeks now - and I'm gonna share it with y'all...
In the spirit of Paul Simon's classic "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover", let's all sing "20 Ways to Screw Your Soldiers":
* Deliver remarks at a fundraiser for Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate in New York's 23rd Congressional District, and then deliver remarks at a fundraiser to benefit the DNC at the Hammerstein Ballroom.
* Deliver remarks at a DNC fundraising dinner and reception at the Westin St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco.
* Deliver remarks at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel celebrating the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate.
* Deliver remarks at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner at the Washington Convention Center.
* Attend "In Performance at the White House: Fiesta Latina," a concert celebrating Hispanic musical heritage on the South Lawn.
* Host a picnic for United States Secret Service members and their families on the South Lawn.
* Host an event for local middle-school students to stargaze and conduct hands-on experiments with astronomers.
* Deliver remarks at event with doctors from across the country in the Rose Garden.
* Fly to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago’s Olympics bid (and meet with McChrystal while he was there).
* Deliver remarks at a fundraiser for the Democratic Governors Association at the St. Regis Hotel.
* Deliver remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative at the Sheraton Hotel.
* Hold a rally on health-insurance reform at the Comcast Center at the University of Maryland in College Park.
* Host a viewing of a portion of the documentary "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" in the White House movie theater.
* Host an event on the South Lawn with the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport, Chicago2016, and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to promote Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.
* Deliver remarks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 32nd Annual Awards Gala at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.
* Deliver remarks to the AFL-CIO Convention at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center.
* Attend and deliver remarks at a fundraising event and reception for Sen. Arlen Specter at the Pennsylvania Convention Center.
* Welcome the Pittsburgh Penguins to honor them for their 2009 Stanley Cup championship victory.
* Meet with the Professional Golf Association of American champions.
* Host a dinner celebrating Ramadan and highlight the contributions of American Muslims in the State Dining Room.
All via Campaign Spot.
And while some of these events are par for the course for any sitting president, couldn't he have skipped the PGA meeting - or the Ramadan dinner - and spent some of that time thinking about how to best support the men and women under his command...?
Maybe Paul Simon had it right after all:
The problem is all inside your head
She said to me
The answer is easy if you
Take it logically
I’d like to help you in your struggle
To be free....
And you know Obama is just dying to take his advice:
You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don’t need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don’t need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free...(of Afghanistan)
วันอังคาร, ตุลาคม 20, 2552
Complete Schedule of Heath Care Reform Deliberations on C-SPAN
With a bill guaranteed to cost almost a trillion dollars over the next decade, and tax the living sh*t out of the middle class, there's obviously great interest in the health care reform deliberations going forward. So you can plan accordingly, we are please to provide you with the schedule of health care reform deliberations on C-SPAN, as promised by Barack Obama:
But... Obama promised every session would be broadcast live on C-SPAN so the American public could be completely informed.
What could Barack Obama have to hide? Oh, yeah, that tax hike thingy mentioned above....can't have that getting too much play! "Transparency"? Who told you that, FOX News?
Well, that's change, to be sure. And in case you forgot the promise, well, we have that for you too:
The Republican opposition plan, weak as it may be, is actually the best hope - and shows what the president is afraid of, mainly, the truth about Obamacare:
Senate Republicans figure the only way to stop or reshape the measure is to give the public enough time to figure out what’s in it and what they don’t like about it.
Doing that is going to take some time, and the process of amending bills during a floor debate — which can include demanding a 60-vote threshold for all amendments — could provide the minority ample opportunity to slow things down.
I guess if we want to stay informed, we have no choice but to watch FOX...
Big hat tip to I Hate The Media !
วันจันทร์, ตุลาคม 19, 2552
Big Media Bashes Corzine, Then...Endorses Him
Jim Geraghty of the National Review is fond of saying that the media's easily predictable endorsements of Democratic candidates would be more palatable if they began, “We are, by and large, liberals, and thus are inclined to prefer the more liberal option in almost every election.”
And that seems like the only way to explain the following....Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer on embattled New Jersey governor Jon Corzine:
The former Goldman Sachs chief’s unusual background might have suggested he would bring real and needed upheaval to Trenton, but the past four years have not seen that. For a man who rose to the top of Wall Street from humble beginnings on an Illinois farm, Corzine has sometimes seemed timid about shaking up the statehouse.
As such, his administration’s victories have been qualified, its progress halting. On finances, the governor took a principled stand for funding pension obligations, only to have to retreat from it amid the downturn. He budgeted cautiously, but then made exceptions under political and economic pressure. He put forward but abandoned a controversial proposal to retire state debt.
...after which, of course, they endorsed Corzine for a second term. Not because he's good - even the Inquirer is honest enough to admit that - but because he's a liberal. And a liberal failure is more desirable to the Philadelphia Inquirer than a Republican success.
Of course, there may even be a more selfish reason for the P-I to endorse Corzine - after all, his policies has helped make Pennsylvania the #1 destination for disaffected New Jersey (ex)residents..
The New York Times, on Jon Corzine:
Most New Jersey voters find him astonishingly inarticulate, and his credentials as a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs do not seem as impressive as they did before the financial meltdown in 2008. He has poured lots of his personal wealth into this race, far too much of it for biting — and sometimes juvenile — attacks on Mr. Christie. In his second term, we would like to see him back away from the state’s unions.
...Jon Corzine, who is slightly ahead among likely voters (?), is a decent man with a laudable set of goals for his state.
...and thus he is endorsed. Not because he's good - even the Times is honest enough to admit he's not - but because he's a liberal. And a liberal failure is more desirable to the New York Times than a Republican success. Plus, I'm assuming - although it is nowhere proven - that Chris Christie is not a decent man.
Truth is, Christie still holds on to a slim lead. But with Corzine having dumped over $40 million of his own money into the campaign already to make New Jersey his personal fiefdom, and with new ads on the way touting his dubious endorsements, it's gonna be a tough final mile for Chris Christie...
And that seems like the only way to explain the following....Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer on embattled New Jersey governor Jon Corzine:
The former Goldman Sachs chief’s unusual background might have suggested he would bring real and needed upheaval to Trenton, but the past four years have not seen that. For a man who rose to the top of Wall Street from humble beginnings on an Illinois farm, Corzine has sometimes seemed timid about shaking up the statehouse.
As such, his administration’s victories have been qualified, its progress halting. On finances, the governor took a principled stand for funding pension obligations, only to have to retreat from it amid the downturn. He budgeted cautiously, but then made exceptions under political and economic pressure. He put forward but abandoned a controversial proposal to retire state debt.
...after which, of course, they endorsed Corzine for a second term. Not because he's good - even the Inquirer is honest enough to admit that - but because he's a liberal. And a liberal failure is more desirable to the Philadelphia Inquirer than a Republican success.
Of course, there may even be a more selfish reason for the P-I to endorse Corzine - after all, his policies has helped make Pennsylvania the #1 destination for disaffected New Jersey (ex)residents..
The New York Times, on Jon Corzine:
Most New Jersey voters find him astonishingly inarticulate, and his credentials as a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs do not seem as impressive as they did before the financial meltdown in 2008. He has poured lots of his personal wealth into this race, far too much of it for biting — and sometimes juvenile — attacks on Mr. Christie. In his second term, we would like to see him back away from the state’s unions.
...Jon Corzine, who is slightly ahead among likely voters (?), is a decent man with a laudable set of goals for his state.
...and thus he is endorsed. Not because he's good - even the Times is honest enough to admit he's not - but because he's a liberal. And a liberal failure is more desirable to the New York Times than a Republican success. Plus, I'm assuming - although it is nowhere proven - that Chris Christie is not a decent man.
Truth is, Christie still holds on to a slim lead. But with Corzine having dumped over $40 million of his own money into the campaign already to make New Jersey his personal fiefdom, and with new ads on the way touting his dubious endorsements, it's gonna be a tough final mile for Chris Christie...
A Lifetime of Mistakes for One Man, One Day of Gaffes for Obama
"How much damage could Barack Obama do in four years to the great and powerful United States?" is a thought I reassured myself with shortly after his election...
Four years? Now one can smartly only survey the damage in days, not years, and hope the Union survives until tomorrow. And this post is just on the international front, not the domestic, where Obama wages war on the wealth of a nation...
Let's start in Germany, as the disappointed der Spiegel wails like a jilted lover:
Citing government sources in Berlin, Reuters reported on Friday that Obama will not attend the anniversary festivities marking two decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The event will take place on Nov. 9 -- just two days before Obama embarks on a long-planned trip to Asia on Nov. 11.
Berlin is going all out for the anniversary, with such luminaries as Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa expected to be in attendance...
No wonder Barack is bailing out of that one - can you see him standing there with such men as Lech Walesa and Mikhail Gorbachev? A child amongst giants, and one who may have preferred the policies of those on the East side of the Wall to boot....
Next up we have the State Department coddling the Iranians after they experience a bit of well-deserved karmic retribution as a couple of Revolutionary Guards get blown to pieces:
“We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives,” State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement in Washington.
“Reports of alleged US involvement are completely false,” he added.
Seems less like terrorism to me and more like a legal attack on a government paramilitary group who has actively hunted and killed Iranian dissidents, not to mention facilitated attacks on American soldiers throughout the Iraq War. Maybe it's something about the word "Revolutionary" that gives the Obama administration a hard-on and prevent them from thinking clearly about who they are supporting. Then again, maybe they are thinking clearly (see Dunn, Anita)...
And finally, in Afghanistan - "The Good War (circa Fall 2008)" - we see the Decider has been replaced by Prince Hamlet:
The White House has said that it will take no decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until it determines the new government is a “true partner”.
Delay, delay, delay...while liberals love the work of Shakespeare (keeps them elite, don't you know), they seem to forget that many a tale ends in tragedy, or farce. Not a great role for a president to play....
Feel a cold chill up you spine? It's because Obama, having surveyed the damage he has done overseas to the causes of peace and democracy and declaring it is good, is now going to cast his eyes upon your health care plan...
Four years? Now one can smartly only survey the damage in days, not years, and hope the Union survives until tomorrow. And this post is just on the international front, not the domestic, where Obama wages war on the wealth of a nation...
Let's start in Germany, as the disappointed der Spiegel wails like a jilted lover:
Citing government sources in Berlin, Reuters reported on Friday that Obama will not attend the anniversary festivities marking two decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The event will take place on Nov. 9 -- just two days before Obama embarks on a long-planned trip to Asia on Nov. 11.
Berlin is going all out for the anniversary, with such luminaries as Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa expected to be in attendance...
No wonder Barack is bailing out of that one - can you see him standing there with such men as Lech Walesa and Mikhail Gorbachev? A child amongst giants, and one who may have preferred the policies of those on the East side of the Wall to boot....
Next up we have the State Department coddling the Iranians after they experience a bit of well-deserved karmic retribution as a couple of Revolutionary Guards get blown to pieces:
“We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives,” State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement in Washington.
“Reports of alleged US involvement are completely false,” he added.
Seems less like terrorism to me and more like a legal attack on a government paramilitary group who has actively hunted and killed Iranian dissidents, not to mention facilitated attacks on American soldiers throughout the Iraq War. Maybe it's something about the word "Revolutionary" that gives the Obama administration a hard-on and prevent them from thinking clearly about who they are supporting. Then again, maybe they are thinking clearly (see Dunn, Anita)...
And finally, in Afghanistan - "The Good War (circa Fall 2008)" - we see the Decider has been replaced by Prince Hamlet:
The White House has said that it will take no decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until it determines the new government is a “true partner”.
Delay, delay, delay...while liberals love the work of Shakespeare (keeps them elite, don't you know), they seem to forget that many a tale ends in tragedy, or farce. Not a great role for a president to play....
Feel a cold chill up you spine? It's because Obama, having surveyed the damage he has done overseas to the causes of peace and democracy and declaring it is good, is now going to cast his eyes upon your health care plan...
วันอาทิตย์, ตุลาคม 18, 2552
Pesky Constitution Annoys Obama, Dowd...
...really, what an anachronism, you know? A 200+ year-old piece of paper getting in the way of the hopes and dreams of the liberal elite? Really, ideas such as "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" are just tying Barack Obama's hands when he knows what's best for us.
And since we are talking of the liberal elite, who better than Maureen Dowd to express contempt -both hers and the president's - for the longest-running system of government in the free world?
At the New Orleans town hall, 29-year-old Gabriel Bordenave complained about the slow pace of the recovery. “I expected as much from the Bush administration,” he told Obama. “But why are we still being nickel-and-dimed?”
The president gave a technocrat’s answer about the “complications between the state, the city and the feds in making assessments of the damages.”
“Now, I wish I could just write a check,” he added. When an audience member yelled “Why not?” he dryly noted, “There’s this whole thing about the Constitution.”
The president should remember, though, that when you’re cooking up a more perfect Union, sometimes you’ve got to break some eggs.
The president - who has expressed open hostility to the constitution before - seems to believe his oath of office ( "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") is just another empty campaign promise with an expiration date.
And the New York Times - in the person of the shallow, loathsome, barely articulate Dowd - which chased George W. Bush for every transgression imaginable, both real and (primarily) imagined, is now urging the shredding of the constitution in order to get their agenda passed.
What do the "We, The People" know anyway, and how dare we stand in the way of better minds such as Barack Obama and the Times editorial board?
Dowd thinks she's clever, by using the language of the constitution itself to urge its destruction. One would think she would be smart enough to realize that her very livelihood depends on the freedoms contained within that hallowed document.
But "Dowd" and "intelligent" are two words that are not oft used together, unless one is using the lack of the latter in order to mock the former...
And since we are talking of the liberal elite, who better than Maureen Dowd to express contempt -both hers and the president's - for the longest-running system of government in the free world?
At the New Orleans town hall, 29-year-old Gabriel Bordenave complained about the slow pace of the recovery. “I expected as much from the Bush administration,” he told Obama. “But why are we still being nickel-and-dimed?”
The president gave a technocrat’s answer about the “complications between the state, the city and the feds in making assessments of the damages.”
“Now, I wish I could just write a check,” he added. When an audience member yelled “Why not?” he dryly noted, “There’s this whole thing about the Constitution.”
The president should remember, though, that when you’re cooking up a more perfect Union, sometimes you’ve got to break some eggs.
The president - who has expressed open hostility to the constitution before - seems to believe his oath of office ( "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") is just another empty campaign promise with an expiration date.
And the New York Times - in the person of the shallow, loathsome, barely articulate Dowd - which chased George W. Bush for every transgression imaginable, both real and (primarily) imagined, is now urging the shredding of the constitution in order to get their agenda passed.
What do the "We, The People" know anyway, and how dare we stand in the way of better minds such as Barack Obama and the Times editorial board?
Dowd thinks she's clever, by using the language of the constitution itself to urge its destruction. One would think she would be smart enough to realize that her very livelihood depends on the freedoms contained within that hallowed document.
But "Dowd" and "intelligent" are two words that are not oft used together, unless one is using the lack of the latter in order to mock the former...
วันเสาร์, ตุลาคม 17, 2552
CNN's Rick Sanchez: A Liar AND a Murderer?
Yeah, you know Rick Sanchez - one of the people that foiled Rush Limbaugh's attempt to purchase an NFL team by plastering phony racist quotes all over the news. CNN's Sanchez was particularly hurtful, as he plaster this bit of hate under Rush's faces and credited it to him:
Too bad Rush never said it, or anything remotely close. Well, never let the truth get in the way of a good story, even if the story is false and is aimed a private citizen his right to make private investments. Sanchez did give a half-hearted confession a few days later - "We have been unable to independently confirm that quote", which leads me to believe that Sanchez hopes that one day, he will...
But let's talk about Sanchez, and a true story that has gone unreported during his rise to cable news fame. Apparently, Sanchez - in a drunken stupor - ran over a man (also a bit tipsy) outside of a Dolphins game while working as a Miami news anchor, then fled the scene. This report from 1991, The Forgotten Man, details the pain of the victim who was left to suffer while Sanchez wiggles his way out of prosecution:
Minutes after midnight on the morning of December 10, 1990, an intoxicated Smuzinick darted out in front of a Volvo on a residential street near Joe Robbie Stadium. The driver of the car, WSVN-TV Channel 7 anchorman Rick Sanchez, became the subject of a subsequent January 16 New Times story that described the odd circumstances of the accident. Sanchez, whom a Metro-Dade police officer said "smelled strongly of alcohol," first stopped his car but then later left the scene. A blood test to determine Sanchez's sobriety was not administered until an hour and fifteen minutes after the collision. Though Sanchez says he tried to aid Smuzinick at the scene of the accident and flag down motorists, eyewitnesses claim the anchorman ignored the injured man and loudly told police and bystanders that blood tests were pointless, and would hurt his public image.
Best known for his stint as a sometimes-melodramatic correspondent on Channel 7's "Crime Check," Sanchez continues his work on the station's evening and late newscasts while awaiting a September 13 court date on misdemeanor drunk-driving charges. Though the results of one test show the newsman's blood-alcohol level was .15 -slightly over the legal .10 limit - the test was performed after Sanchez left the scene of the accident. In January Sanchez told New Times he had consumed no alcohol the night of the accident. His attorney, Richard Essen, now says the anchorman returned home and had "a couple of drinks to calm his nerves" before returning to the scene.
Meanwhile, after two months in a coma, Smuzinick has regained consciousness and is making slow improvement. His right side remains largely paralyzed due to massive brain damage, but he can move his left arm and leg and sometimes hold his head upright. Using hand signals, he can answer yes or no to simple questions. Doctors last Friday removed a feeding tube from his trachea, and Smuzinick can now eat liquid foods.
Sanchez - wealthy, compassionate liberal that he is - never offered to help Smuzinick, or even went to visit him while he struggled through his long and painful rehabilitation. But Sanchez can rest easy now, because dead men tell no tales:
Jeffrey Smuzinick, who was left paralyzed after being struck by the car of Channel 7 anchor Rick Sanchez, died Monday in a Pennsylvania nursing home. He was 36.
Sanchez - a cold-hearted drunk, liar, and overall miserable, frugal bastard - gets off the hook, Ted Kennedy-style, by using the legal system to outmaneuver his poorer victim. And as we can see by the Rush Limbaugh episode, this incident has made not a dent in his foul persona - he will still tell any lie, as loudly and publicly as possible, in order to further his own ends, be it a personal agenda or a political one. All while playing the compassionate liberal card, of course, in order to make him immune from the criticism of his peers.
So they next time Sanchez opens his mouth, remember that he's a killer, and like most of his ilk, he's most likely lying. And the next time you see a liberal talking head on TV accusing a conservative of some heinous crime with scant evidence, take a moment to wonder what dark secret they might be hiding....
วันศุกร์, ตุลาคม 16, 2552
Obama: "Disgusted" With Israel; Preparing To Challenge God...
What does it take to upset Barack Obama? Not Iranian nukes, we know that. Or the fact that the Russians are helping the Iranians, as opposed to helping us.
Well, we know Obama got worked into a dither when the Honduran people legally deposed a despot in training, an avowed socialist who was intent on building a Chavez-like reign of terror. And now we know it is those pesky Jews that annoy him as well, since they refuse to kowtow to his demand that they stop settlement-building in the West Bank (In the age of Obama, only The One and his minions can decide where Jews are allowed to live).
Well, annoy is the wrong word...Barack Obama is apparently disgusted that the Jews continue to demand the right to survive:
U.S. officials in recent days expressed to the Palestinian Authority that President Obama's administration is "disgusted" with Israel, a top aide to PA President Mahmoud Abbas told WND in an interview.
Nimr Hamad said the White House was disgusted that Israel is refusing to halt all settlement activity as a precondition for re-starting talks with the PA over the creation of a Palestinian state
Hamad repeated that the term "disgusted" was used more than once in recent meetings with U.S. envoys to describe the administration's attitude toward Israel. Hamad did not name the U.S. envoys using the terminology.
George Mitchell, Obama's envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just this week wrapped up a series of meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders over re-starting talks.
Senior PA sources told WND yesterday the Obama administration urged them to begin publicly pressuring Israel, starting in March, to immediately withdraw from key areas in the West Bank and peripheral eastern Jerusalem sections in which the Palestinians currently maintain administrative control.
Did George Mitchell relay this information to the PA - that Obama is now officially disgusted with the Jews, is ready to take the PA's side in the battle for Israel, and intends to force Israel to relinquish key security checkpoints that has kept the nation free from the non-stop civilian attacks that defined the Clinton years?
OK, the Palis are not necessarily known for their truth telling. But Barack Obama has been particularly known for barely being able to keep his festering anti-semitism under wraps. (see here for his love of Honduran anti-Semites, click here to see him honoring European anti-Semites, over here we have him trying to name Jew-haters to key administration posts, and please let's not forget his 20-year association with the Reverend of Hate, Jeremiah Wright, to whom Jew-baiting was a regular Sunday sport. And this is just a small sample...).
So is it believable that this man, who would hire, support, and pray with rabid Jew-haters, would become easily "disgusted" with the state of Israel for daring to rebuke his authority over them? Hell yeah.
One wonders if Israel can survive four years of an American president who openly sides with her enemies. One wonders as well if America can survive four years as an enemy of Israel.
Believer or not, one thing has happened to all the regimes and peoples who have taken on the Jews: They have been vanquished. Ask the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, the Nazis, or the Palestinians...
Or ask God:
Zech 12:2 I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. V3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves....
Genesis 12: I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.
Barack Obama: On the wrong side of history; on the wrong side of God. Will he drag our faithful nation down to hell with him? Remember, it was Lucifier's pride that led him to challenge the throne....
Well, we know Obama got worked into a dither when the Honduran people legally deposed a despot in training, an avowed socialist who was intent on building a Chavez-like reign of terror. And now we know it is those pesky Jews that annoy him as well, since they refuse to kowtow to his demand that they stop settlement-building in the West Bank (In the age of Obama, only The One and his minions can decide where Jews are allowed to live).
Well, annoy is the wrong word...Barack Obama is apparently disgusted that the Jews continue to demand the right to survive:
U.S. officials in recent days expressed to the Palestinian Authority that President Obama's administration is "disgusted" with Israel, a top aide to PA President Mahmoud Abbas told WND in an interview.
Nimr Hamad said the White House was disgusted that Israel is refusing to halt all settlement activity as a precondition for re-starting talks with the PA over the creation of a Palestinian state
Hamad repeated that the term "disgusted" was used more than once in recent meetings with U.S. envoys to describe the administration's attitude toward Israel. Hamad did not name the U.S. envoys using the terminology.
George Mitchell, Obama's envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just this week wrapped up a series of meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders over re-starting talks.
Senior PA sources told WND yesterday the Obama administration urged them to begin publicly pressuring Israel, starting in March, to immediately withdraw from key areas in the West Bank and peripheral eastern Jerusalem sections in which the Palestinians currently maintain administrative control.
Did George Mitchell relay this information to the PA - that Obama is now officially disgusted with the Jews, is ready to take the PA's side in the battle for Israel, and intends to force Israel to relinquish key security checkpoints that has kept the nation free from the non-stop civilian attacks that defined the Clinton years?
OK, the Palis are not necessarily known for their truth telling. But Barack Obama has been particularly known for barely being able to keep his festering anti-semitism under wraps. (see here for his love of Honduran anti-Semites, click here to see him honoring European anti-Semites, over here we have him trying to name Jew-haters to key administration posts, and please let's not forget his 20-year association with the Reverend of Hate, Jeremiah Wright, to whom Jew-baiting was a regular Sunday sport. And this is just a small sample...).
So is it believable that this man, who would hire, support, and pray with rabid Jew-haters, would become easily "disgusted" with the state of Israel for daring to rebuke his authority over them? Hell yeah.
One wonders if Israel can survive four years of an American president who openly sides with her enemies. One wonders as well if America can survive four years as an enemy of Israel.
Believer or not, one thing has happened to all the regimes and peoples who have taken on the Jews: They have been vanquished. Ask the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, the Nazis, or the Palestinians...
Or ask God:
Zech 12:2 I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. V3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves....
Genesis 12: I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.
Barack Obama: On the wrong side of history; on the wrong side of God. Will he drag our faithful nation down to hell with him? Remember, it was Lucifier's pride that led him to challenge the throne....
Jeez, Does Barack Whack Off To That Thing?
..."that thing" being his ludicrously unearned Nobel Peace Prize. While his team of handlers claim that the president is "quite humbled" by it, you wouldn't know it from some of the press releases and emails being sent out from the White House. And as usual, you need to go to the foreign media to learn about it - Toby Harnden reports:
No opportunity to shoehorn in a mention of the Nobel prize is being missed.
Yesterday, it was: “Earlier today, President Obama spoke with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. In addition to thanking each for their respective calls regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, the President…”
The day before it was: “Late Saturday morning, President Obama returned Indian Prime Minister Singh’s phone call. Prime Minister Singh had called President Obama on Friday to congratulate him on having won the Nobel Peace Prize. The President expressed his appreciation for the call and congratulations.
Well, why wouldn't Obama believe he deserved it? He has spent his whole life moving ahead on the wave of projections that others have placed upon him, not upon actual accomplishments. And while he did have to work hard in order to win the presidential election, he did it on the back of an "aura of greatness" that others created around him, and not on the back of any personal accomplishments whatsoever. In that respect, there is no doubt that Barack Obama feels he truly earned this Nobel Peace Prize. For that too was awarded to him based not on anything he has ever done, but what others project he can and will do. In his mind, he is as worthy of that Prize as he is the presidency...
Funny, considering this is a man who has done absolutely nothing in his life whatsoever that has effected positive change in the circumstances of the people he claims to represent....
The final word goes to Harnden:
All in all, it’s a hilarious display of vanity and self-absorption masquerading ineptly as humility and selflessness.
But there’s a serious question: What does it say about Obama’s character when such an empty symbol means so much to him?
Or maybe the final word should go to Glenn Reynolds:
Good Grief....
UPDATE: Jimmy Carter's endorsement isn't helping....
No opportunity to shoehorn in a mention of the Nobel prize is being missed.
Yesterday, it was: “Earlier today, President Obama spoke with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. In addition to thanking each for their respective calls regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, the President…”
The day before it was: “Late Saturday morning, President Obama returned Indian Prime Minister Singh’s phone call. Prime Minister Singh had called President Obama on Friday to congratulate him on having won the Nobel Peace Prize. The President expressed his appreciation for the call and congratulations.
Well, why wouldn't Obama believe he deserved it? He has spent his whole life moving ahead on the wave of projections that others have placed upon him, not upon actual accomplishments. And while he did have to work hard in order to win the presidential election, he did it on the back of an "aura of greatness" that others created around him, and not on the back of any personal accomplishments whatsoever. In that respect, there is no doubt that Barack Obama feels he truly earned this Nobel Peace Prize. For that too was awarded to him based not on anything he has ever done, but what others project he can and will do. In his mind, he is as worthy of that Prize as he is the presidency...
Funny, considering this is a man who has done absolutely nothing in his life whatsoever that has effected positive change in the circumstances of the people he claims to represent....
The final word goes to Harnden:
All in all, it’s a hilarious display of vanity and self-absorption masquerading ineptly as humility and selflessness.
But there’s a serious question: What does it say about Obama’s character when such an empty symbol means so much to him?
Or maybe the final word should go to Glenn Reynolds:
Good Grief....
UPDATE: Jimmy Carter's endorsement isn't helping....
วันพฤหัสบดี, ตุลาคม 15, 2552
Honduras Defeats Obama, Hillary...
...as the rest of America's enemies (not that Honduras fits in that category - at least pre-Obama) gear up to...well, gear up to do whatever the f*ck they want, since there's nobody home.
Gateway Pundit reports:
The initial reports that Manuel Zelaya would be reinstated as president were not accurate.The latest speculation comes from my sources inside the Micheletti government.
President Micheletti will step down and may be moved to a position connected to the Honduran Supreme Court.
Former President Manuel Zelaya will be exiled to Spain. If he comes back to Honduras he will be charged for his many crimes discovered by the current government after Zelaya was ousted for circumventing the Honduran Constitution. Another official will step in as president until elections in November...
This is a defeat for Obama, plain and simple, as he tried to force a wanna-be leftist strongman (in other words, an Obama ally) back into power, attempting to overrule both the legal system and proud people of this tiny nation.
So why should Iran even think about halting their nuclear arms program to repay Obama's "outreach"? Why would Russia even consider jeopardizing their business relationships in Tehran (no wonder they treat Hillary as a buffoon)? Why should Israel even dream of granting any of the insane concessions that Obama is demanding from them before he "delivers" peace?
He has proven himself worthless and weak, both in strength and moral character. Demanding the return of a thug, indeed. The Hondurans gave him the middle finger, as well they should.
Don't think the Taliban, and al-Qaeda, haven't taken note as well....
Gateway Pundit reports:
The initial reports that Manuel Zelaya would be reinstated as president were not accurate.The latest speculation comes from my sources inside the Micheletti government.
President Micheletti will step down and may be moved to a position connected to the Honduran Supreme Court.
Former President Manuel Zelaya will be exiled to Spain. If he comes back to Honduras he will be charged for his many crimes discovered by the current government after Zelaya was ousted for circumventing the Honduran Constitution. Another official will step in as president until elections in November...
This is a defeat for Obama, plain and simple, as he tried to force a wanna-be leftist strongman (in other words, an Obama ally) back into power, attempting to overrule both the legal system and proud people of this tiny nation.
So why should Iran even think about halting their nuclear arms program to repay Obama's "outreach"? Why would Russia even consider jeopardizing their business relationships in Tehran (no wonder they treat Hillary as a buffoon)? Why should Israel even dream of granting any of the insane concessions that Obama is demanding from them before he "delivers" peace?
He has proven himself worthless and weak, both in strength and moral character. Demanding the return of a thug, indeed. The Hondurans gave him the middle finger, as well they should.
Don't think the Taliban, and al-Qaeda, haven't taken note as well....
Liberal Loathing of Women Continues Unabated !
Fresh off the rapes of Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin, the liberal mainstream media is gearing up again for a number of assaults against conservative women. Let's start with the hateful hero of the Left, Keith Olbermann, who launches a sick salvo against Michelle Malkin:While honoring conservative author Michelle Malkin with the “Worst Person in the World” award, the frothing commentator ranted on Tuesday that without her “total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred,” Malkin would “just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”
Nice way to dehumanize your opponent, Keith. He musty have learned his lesson from the Nazis quite well - if you dehumanize someone - say, the Jews, for instance - any act you take against them, no matter how repulsive, becomes more excusable since you are not committing it against a living, breathing human being, just a Jew. Or a "mashed up bag of meat".
And what is it with liberals and their miserable taste in women, anyway? Pissy-pants Hillary Clinton as an icon? Jeanneane Garafolo, perpetual teenage witch, as a spokeswomen ? Michelle Obama, to whom an ugly scowl is her most comfortable facial expression, as a living fashion statement?
Me - I think Michelle Malkin is smokin' hot. But maybe it's just that I like a strong, independent thinker who's doesn't need to check the New York Times editorial pages before opening their mouth...
And at the NY Times , Maureen Dowd shows the sisterhood mean nothing to her when politics are at stake, 
here she takes a double money-shot at conservative women:
here she takes a double money-shot at conservative women:That raises the terrifying specter that some day we could see a Palin-Cheney ticket...
Sarah would bring her content-free crackle and gut instincts; Liz would bring facts and figures distorted by ideology....
Two women running on a combined ticket - terrifying! They would be a bunch of crackling, no-nothing ideologues! Destroy us all, they would!
Of course a women-women Democratic presidential ticket would be just the thing to save all of humanity. But the rules for treatment of females in our society varies depending on their political beliefs. Liberal women must be respected and obeyed; conservative women?
Well, oil up those zippers, boys....
UPDATE: A "conservative women" liberals can love - a RHINO whore-O:
"...when I am alone in my apartment, I wear tank tops and sweat pants, I had no idea this makes me a "slut", I can't even tell you how hurt I am"--McCainBlogette
วันพุธ, ตุลาคม 14, 2552
The Canadian Health Care System - As Told By Canadians
As we work to turn our health care system into a model that duplicates Canada, why don't we take a moment to listen to what Canadians have to say about their ability to receive adequate health care:
"If the U.S. changes their health care system, where are Canadians like us going to go for surgery?"
"It's proven again and again that this does not work..."
"I truly believe I have no say here..."
"If the U.S. changes their health care system, where are Canadians like us going to go for surgery?"
"It's proven again and again that this does not work..."
"I truly believe I have no say here..."
Hillary Clinton: More Bad Choices with Men?
Now is not the time to rehash the particulars of the unusual marriage maintained by Hillary and Bill Clinton. However, one can see a disturbing trend developing in Hillary's relationships with various male figures, one which may actually threaten the national security of the United States.
Jennifer Rubin remarks on the Hillary's recent disastrous overtures in regard to Russia, with tongue somewhat in cheek:
Hillary proclaims herself to be delighted by the new relationship. But this is a one-sided, dysfunctional relationship if there ever was one. One side does precisely what it wants, and the other makes excuses. (Does this remind you of . . . no, let’s keep on topic here.)
And her relationship with Barack Obama?
Clinton also described as “absurd” the suggestion that she was being marginalized in the administration.
“I believe in delegating power,” she said. “I’m not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV in every moment of the day.
Uh...OK. If you believe that, then I have a right-wing conspiracy to sell you....
Hillary was willing to ignore her husband's blatant philandering, because his power benefited her. She is willing to ignore Barack Obama's blatant patronizing, because she still retains the title of "Madame Secretary".
But will she mislead America and the administration about the true motivations and desires of our nation's enemies so that she can maintain her power and title, as well as an illusion of success?
Maybe it is better asked - how much abuse is Hillary willing to take from the men in her life in order to hold on to her illusion of power and prestige? And how much abuse will America have to suffer due to her white-trash, trailer-park obsequiousness to her men?
Somebody call in a psychiatrist, please...!
Jennifer Rubin remarks on the Hillary's recent disastrous overtures in regard to Russia, with tongue somewhat in cheek:
Hillary proclaims herself to be delighted by the new relationship. But this is a one-sided, dysfunctional relationship if there ever was one. One side does precisely what it wants, and the other makes excuses. (Does this remind you of . . . no, let’s keep on topic here.)
And her relationship with Barack Obama?
Clinton also described as “absurd” the suggestion that she was being marginalized in the administration.
“I believe in delegating power,” she said. “I’m not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV in every moment of the day.
Uh...OK. If you believe that, then I have a right-wing conspiracy to sell you....
Hillary was willing to ignore her husband's blatant philandering, because his power benefited her. She is willing to ignore Barack Obama's blatant patronizing, because she still retains the title of "Madame Secretary".
But will she mislead America and the administration about the true motivations and desires of our nation's enemies so that she can maintain her power and title, as well as an illusion of success?
Maybe it is better asked - how much abuse is Hillary willing to take from the men in her life in order to hold on to her illusion of power and prestige? And how much abuse will America have to suffer due to her white-trash, trailer-park obsequiousness to her men?
Somebody call in a psychiatrist, please...!
Liberals Getting Freaked By Obama?
....'cause there is only so long that you can fool all the people all the time. And we are no fools. Marty Peretz over at the liberal dogsheet The New Republic knows it, and is seething about Obama's Epic Fail in his attempt to reset Russian relations:
... no, Obama hasn’t reset the American relationship with Russia. He was taken for a ride. Maybe his vanity won’t let him admit it. But, believe me, the Russians know they have taken him (and us) for a big ride, indeed...
After Obama agreed to cancel the missile defense program for Poland and the Czech Republic, the president got Moscow to give him an inch. Maybe, they said, we’d have to move on tougher measures against Iran if Tehran doesn’t satisfy us on its nukes. “Hallelujah!” said the president and his entourage.
All of this good cheer is now over. Lavrov greeted Clinton in Moscow with the bad news: “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process. ... Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.”
Sharp-tounged liberal feminist icon Camile Paglia is harsh as well on Obama, the media, and her party:
I have been deeply impressed by the citizen outrage that spilled out into town hall meetings this year. And I remain shocked at the priggish derision of the mainstream media (locked in their urban enclaves) toward those events. This was a moving spectacle of grassroots American democracy in action.
The mainstream media's failure to honestly cover last month's mass demonstration in Washington, D.C. was a disgrace....Only a simpleton would believe what they say.
More:
Obama is approaching a turning point which will define his political future, if he has one. He is surrounded by some mighty small potatoes who need shoveling into the dumpster...The most recent fiasco, of course, was sending the president of the United States on a humiliating fool's errand to beg for the Olympics as a Chicago boondoggle. I cheered when splendiferous Rio de Janeiro rightfully got the gig.
It's true he has accomplished nothing thus far and did not remotely deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, a gift carrying a terrible curse....
Wow. Camile sounds like she could be a regular on FOX News...no insult intended there, darlin'. I don't want to get on the wrong side of that tongue....
... no, Obama hasn’t reset the American relationship with Russia. He was taken for a ride. Maybe his vanity won’t let him admit it. But, believe me, the Russians know they have taken him (and us) for a big ride, indeed...
After Obama agreed to cancel the missile defense program for Poland and the Czech Republic, the president got Moscow to give him an inch. Maybe, they said, we’d have to move on tougher measures against Iran if Tehran doesn’t satisfy us on its nukes. “Hallelujah!” said the president and his entourage.
All of this good cheer is now over. Lavrov greeted Clinton in Moscow with the bad news: “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process. ... Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.”
Sharp-tounged liberal feminist icon Camile Paglia is harsh as well on Obama, the media, and her party:
I have been deeply impressed by the citizen outrage that spilled out into town hall meetings this year. And I remain shocked at the priggish derision of the mainstream media (locked in their urban enclaves) toward those events. This was a moving spectacle of grassroots American democracy in action.
The mainstream media's failure to honestly cover last month's mass demonstration in Washington, D.C. was a disgrace....Only a simpleton would believe what they say.
More:
Obama is approaching a turning point which will define his political future, if he has one. He is surrounded by some mighty small potatoes who need shoveling into the dumpster...The most recent fiasco, of course, was sending the president of the United States on a humiliating fool's errand to beg for the Olympics as a Chicago boondoggle. I cheered when splendiferous Rio de Janeiro rightfully got the gig.
It's true he has accomplished nothing thus far and did not remotely deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, a gift carrying a terrible curse....
Wow. Camile sounds like she could be a regular on FOX News...no insult intended there, darlin'. I don't want to get on the wrong side of that tongue....
Isn't This Desecration Of The Flag ??
No, this is not a Photoshop...it was spotted on a street in Kokomo, IN:
Click over to Atlas Shrugs to see it fly proudly in a leafy suburb, and to find out where you can get your own "One Nation, Under Obama" flag for a mere $4.99!
Hmmm...expensive for toilet paper, but it might just feel so good...
UPDATE: Of course, if you are looking to totally worship at the feet of The One, your outfit would not be complete without a pair of these...
วันอังคาร, ตุลาคม 13, 2552
Obama/Nazi...in Boston?
But...this is Taxachusetts! They love Obama up there! Right? Right...?
Someone carved the letter "I" then a swastika and the word "Obama" on the 18th hole at the Lakeville Country Club. It was discovered early Monday morning by greens keepers...
Obama's not a Nazi. Sure, he hates Jews, believes in national socialism, and wants everyone to drive a Volkswagon. But...
We really should stop the comparisons to Hitler. After all, at least Hitler got the Olympics to come to Berlin...
Civil Discourse, Democrat-Style !
Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, must have missed his fellow Democrats’ demand for decorum on the floor of the House.
Obviously thinking his microphone had been turned off, he turned to Missouri Republican Todd Akin and said “stick it up your ass.”
And remember, we're the ones that are supposedly vicious, angry, and hateful towards others...
Freudian projection, anyone?
Obviously thinking his microphone had been turned off, he turned to Missouri Republican Todd Akin and said “stick it up your ass.”
And remember, we're the ones that are supposedly vicious, angry, and hateful towards others...
Freudian projection, anyone?
That "Cadillac Tax"? Looks More Like A "Minivan Tax"
If I may quote the New York Times:
A proposed tax on high-cost, or “Cadillac,” health insurance plans has touched off a fierce clash between the Senate and the House as they wrestle over how to pay for legislation that would provide health benefits to millions of uninsured Americans.
Supporters, including many senators, say that the tax is essential to tamping down medical spending and that over 10 years it would generate more than $200 billion, nearly a fourth of what is needed to pay for the legislation.
Critics, including House members and labor unions, say the tax would quickly spiral out of control and hit middle-class workers, people more closely associated with minivans than Cadillacs...
The tax, a provision of the bill to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, is one of the few remaining proposals under consideration by Congress that budget experts say could lead directly to a reduction in health care spending over the long term, by prompting employers and employees to buy cheaper insurance.
In other words, everyone who has a halfway decent medical plan is going to get hit with an increase - some say up to 40% - in their premiums. Thus, the middle-class will be essentially footing the majority of the bill for uninsured Americans. And what will they get in return for this? Well, Obama's budget experts are hoping they get worse medical care, as the spiraling costs will either force employers to buy shittier plans for their employees, or dump them entirely into a "public option", or "exchange".
Jennifer Rubin notes the lies and impossibilities of this approach:
....the idea that the problem will be “solved” by taking away current health-care benefits runs smack into Obama’s promise that we’ll all get to keep the health-care benefits we have.
Apparently we won’t.
And let’s suppose all employers cut back so there aren’t so many Cadillac plans out there. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the whole scheme? We were promised, you recall, that this reform was going to save money. Well, not if the tax doesn’t materialize.
You can’t help but marvel at what’s going on here. The Democrats are fighting among themselves on how to tax and slash health-care benefits for their own constituents.
And of course, let's assume the Democrats are politically unable to cut Medicare by $500 billion, as they promise. Doesn't this bring the price tag closer to $1.5 trillion rather than the $800 billion the Dems are touting? And what about the second ten years of socialized medicine?
Ah, socialism. How many middle-class Americans voted for Barack Obama, thinking he would tax the rich and give them their fair share? Seems like they're finding out a bit to late that under this system, they're the ones who are rich, and it's their "wealth" that will be spread....
Explained here by Robert Reich:
A proposed tax on high-cost, or “Cadillac,” health insurance plans has touched off a fierce clash between the Senate and the House as they wrestle over how to pay for legislation that would provide health benefits to millions of uninsured Americans.
Supporters, including many senators, say that the tax is essential to tamping down medical spending and that over 10 years it would generate more than $200 billion, nearly a fourth of what is needed to pay for the legislation.
Critics, including House members and labor unions, say the tax would quickly spiral out of control and hit middle-class workers, people more closely associated with minivans than Cadillacs...
The tax, a provision of the bill to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, is one of the few remaining proposals under consideration by Congress that budget experts say could lead directly to a reduction in health care spending over the long term, by prompting employers and employees to buy cheaper insurance.
In other words, everyone who has a halfway decent medical plan is going to get hit with an increase - some say up to 40% - in their premiums. Thus, the middle-class will be essentially footing the majority of the bill for uninsured Americans. And what will they get in return for this? Well, Obama's budget experts are hoping they get worse medical care, as the spiraling costs will either force employers to buy shittier plans for their employees, or dump them entirely into a "public option", or "exchange".
Jennifer Rubin notes the lies and impossibilities of this approach:
....the idea that the problem will be “solved” by taking away current health-care benefits runs smack into Obama’s promise that we’ll all get to keep the health-care benefits we have.
Apparently we won’t.
And let’s suppose all employers cut back so there aren’t so many Cadillac plans out there. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the whole scheme? We were promised, you recall, that this reform was going to save money. Well, not if the tax doesn’t materialize.
You can’t help but marvel at what’s going on here. The Democrats are fighting among themselves on how to tax and slash health-care benefits for their own constituents.
And of course, let's assume the Democrats are politically unable to cut Medicare by $500 billion, as they promise. Doesn't this bring the price tag closer to $1.5 trillion rather than the $800 billion the Dems are touting? And what about the second ten years of socialized medicine?
Ah, socialism. How many middle-class Americans voted for Barack Obama, thinking he would tax the rich and give them their fair share? Seems like they're finding out a bit to late that under this system, they're the ones who are rich, and it's their "wealth" that will be spread....
Explained here by Robert Reich:
วันจันทร์, ตุลาคม 12, 2552
Obama's Nobel Prize: The European (Carbon) Gambit
The Washington Post posits a very interesting idea, which it doesn't really follow up on...their second paragraph:
The Nobel committee's announcement Friday that Obama won the Peace Prize was a fresh reminder that much of the world expects him to lead the way toward a global climate pact. The committee cited his "more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges."
And their (next-to) last:
Denmark's climate and energy minister, Connie Hedegaard, who will be chairing U.N.-sponsored climate talks in December in Copenhagen, said Obama needs to do more on climate. "It is hard to imagine that he will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10 and then come empty-handed to Copenhagen a week later," she said.
The rest of the article is the usual inside-Washington blather about who's pulling who's chains, but the idea of the Nobel being handed to Obama with some strings attached is worth examining.
Is it possible the Nobel committee took measure of Barack Obama, and realized they were dealing with a intently vainglorious man, to whom praise and applause was like the needle to the addict? Did they feel that by giving him this award prematurely, that the president would now feel that he had to earn it? Did they believe that to prove his Nobel-ity, he would go along with drastic climate change legislation, rather than face the wrath of foreign liberals (and their press) and the accusations from his "own side" that he was unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Will Obama stand up for the economic needs of his nation, or will he go to Copenhagen (his Waterloo, to date) prepared to sacrifice all (of us) so that he can stare up at his Nobel Prize at night, hear the echos of the roaring European crowds, and feel convinced that he earned it?
What price vanity? Perhaps the greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known will be the bill for one man's ego...
UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin believes the Nobel was a down payment for future continued one-way pressure on Israel. I dunno, doesn't seem to me as if Obama needed any encouragement in that regard...
The Nobel committee's announcement Friday that Obama won the Peace Prize was a fresh reminder that much of the world expects him to lead the way toward a global climate pact. The committee cited his "more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges."
And their (next-to) last:
Denmark's climate and energy minister, Connie Hedegaard, who will be chairing U.N.-sponsored climate talks in December in Copenhagen, said Obama needs to do more on climate. "It is hard to imagine that he will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10 and then come empty-handed to Copenhagen a week later," she said.
The rest of the article is the usual inside-Washington blather about who's pulling who's chains, but the idea of the Nobel being handed to Obama with some strings attached is worth examining.
Is it possible the Nobel committee took measure of Barack Obama, and realized they were dealing with a intently vainglorious man, to whom praise and applause was like the needle to the addict? Did they feel that by giving him this award prematurely, that the president would now feel that he had to earn it? Did they believe that to prove his Nobel-ity, he would go along with drastic climate change legislation, rather than face the wrath of foreign liberals (and their press) and the accusations from his "own side" that he was unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Will Obama stand up for the economic needs of his nation, or will he go to Copenhagen (his Waterloo, to date) prepared to sacrifice all (of us) so that he can stare up at his Nobel Prize at night, hear the echos of the roaring European crowds, and feel convinced that he earned it?
What price vanity? Perhaps the greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known will be the bill for one man's ego...
UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin believes the Nobel was a down payment for future continued one-way pressure on Israel. I dunno, doesn't seem to me as if Obama needed any encouragement in that regard...
Redistributing Health Care Costs...
....from those who lead the most active, healthy lifestyles to those who lead the most unhealthy, uninsured lifestyles. The New York Post:
Health-care "reform," that is, aims to shift costs and benefits of health insurance from some groups to others. And the losers are turning out to be less docile than politicians had hoped.
All the leading proposals involve massive redistribution from people with healthy lifestyles to those who take more risks.
As the Congressional Budget Office explained, "Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market . . . because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care."
So where's the incentive to stay healthy? Might as well stock up on bacon and cheese, because some poor sucker who jogs two miles a day to stay in shape is gonna pay for your bypass anyway!
And if you have employer-provider insurance? Don't worry, you're boned as well:
There would also be redistribution from people with employer-paid insurance (particularly in risky jobs with high premiums) to those who would be induced to shun such benefits in order to qualify for taxpayer subsidies.
Why opt in to your employer's plan if the government's can wind up being a tad cheaper for you come April 15th? And why should your employer offer benefits at all, if they can save money by dumping you onto the government plan?
Did you mock Joe the Plumber when he cried foul on Obama's attempt to "spread" his wealth? Bet you didn't realize then that just having health insurance made you "wealthy", and now you're gonna have to pay more for less. But don't complain, you selfish, unpatriotic bastard!
Sure, everyone loves socialism - until they're told that they are the rich that need to be soaked...
Health-care "reform," that is, aims to shift costs and benefits of health insurance from some groups to others. And the losers are turning out to be less docile than politicians had hoped.
All the leading proposals involve massive redistribution from people with healthy lifestyles to those who take more risks.
As the Congressional Budget Office explained, "Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market . . . because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care."
So where's the incentive to stay healthy? Might as well stock up on bacon and cheese, because some poor sucker who jogs two miles a day to stay in shape is gonna pay for your bypass anyway!
And if you have employer-provider insurance? Don't worry, you're boned as well:
There would also be redistribution from people with employer-paid insurance (particularly in risky jobs with high premiums) to those who would be induced to shun such benefits in order to qualify for taxpayer subsidies.
Why opt in to your employer's plan if the government's can wind up being a tad cheaper for you come April 15th? And why should your employer offer benefits at all, if they can save money by dumping you onto the government plan?
Did you mock Joe the Plumber when he cried foul on Obama's attempt to "spread" his wealth? Bet you didn't realize then that just having health insurance made you "wealthy", and now you're gonna have to pay more for less. But don't complain, you selfish, unpatriotic bastard!
Sure, everyone loves socialism - until they're told that they are the rich that need to be soaked...
Democrats: Destroying The Black Community
While I often rant about Jewish loyalty to the Democratic party - even at a time where it's leader is a clear anti-Semite - I really should question black's loyalties to their party as well. After all, look at the cities and states that have full-fledged, lifetime Democratic leadership - from Detroit to Newark - and you'll find places where the lot of the black man has not improved one whit.
So I thought that this little nugget about the federally-mandated rise in the minimum wage - forced through and trumpeted by Democrats nationwide - was especially relevant:
Congress raised the minimum wage again in July, a direct slam at low-skilled and young workers. The black teen jobless rate has since climbed to 50.4% from 39.2% in two months. Congress is also moving ahead with a mountain of new mandates, from mandatory paid leave to the House's health-care payroll surtax of 5.4%. All of these policy changes give pause to employers as they contemplate the cost of new hires....
That's two months, folks. How will the African-American community survive through four years of what will be a Democratic-inspired economic holocaust visited on their population? Are they willing to keep voting loyally for the Democrats on the promise that "once we drive you into poverty, we'll redistribute some income from whatever rich are still left so you can survive on a day to day basis"?
The Democrats have kept blacks on their political plantation for a quarter-century by fear; by telling them that the other guys hate them, and are hood-wearing, noose-carrying racists by night who would surely starve them if they just had a little more power...and then they turn around, of course, and continue to starve the black man by engaging in economic illiteracy such as the minimum wage fiasco. Not to mention such nonsense as teaching "ebonics", urging softer treatment of the criminals who prey on the black community, and the nonstop reminder that they are just victims, victims, victims....
So the Jews and blacks apparently will go down together, ironically, their allegiance to political liberalism being held as more important than their survival. Unless they wake up from their long slumber, and give a try to the other guy...
And while we're on the topic of minimum wage, two points that I'd like to reiterate - first, on how Congress has just wreaked wanton destruction on America's young workers:
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. As minimum wage workers gain these skills they become more productive and earn raises – two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year.
Cutting off the bottom rung of this career ladder means that teenage workers delay acquiring these skills. This hurts their earnings and employment prospects for up to a decade later. If Congress hopes to change teenage workers employment prospects it should stop pricing them out of their jobs.
And here's a economic model that small business owners are facing more and more every day; for those members of Congress that think small businesses grow their money on trees, and that it is ripe fruit for the picking(or at least regulating), try this economic conundrum on for size:
Small business - profits $100K/year
4 employees, minimum wage $5-/hr (I'm rounding a bit), 10 hours a day
New government mandated wage $7-/hr.
Extra cost $80-/day, $480/wk (assuming six days), $24,960-year
Profit declines to $75K/yr (incidentally, government revenues decline as a result of lower taxable income, but that's only a side disaster)
Does the business owner:
-take his loss, maybe sell his home, pull a kid out of college, put off buying new equipment/car (that'll help the economy, Nancy!), or reduce his standard of living?
-raise his prices and hope he doesn't lose customers, thus further harming his business?
Or
-Does he fire one of his workers, recovering $22K of $25K lost?
And this is all before health care taxes and energy taxes come into play...how will the black community survive this assault from the Democrats?
Or am I racist just for asking?
So I thought that this little nugget about the federally-mandated rise in the minimum wage - forced through and trumpeted by Democrats nationwide - was especially relevant:
Congress raised the minimum wage again in July, a direct slam at low-skilled and young workers. The black teen jobless rate has since climbed to 50.4% from 39.2% in two months. Congress is also moving ahead with a mountain of new mandates, from mandatory paid leave to the House's health-care payroll surtax of 5.4%. All of these policy changes give pause to employers as they contemplate the cost of new hires....
That's two months, folks. How will the African-American community survive through four years of what will be a Democratic-inspired economic holocaust visited on their population? Are they willing to keep voting loyally for the Democrats on the promise that "once we drive you into poverty, we'll redistribute some income from whatever rich are still left so you can survive on a day to day basis"?
The Democrats have kept blacks on their political plantation for a quarter-century by fear; by telling them that the other guys hate them, and are hood-wearing, noose-carrying racists by night who would surely starve them if they just had a little more power...and then they turn around, of course, and continue to starve the black man by engaging in economic illiteracy such as the minimum wage fiasco. Not to mention such nonsense as teaching "ebonics", urging softer treatment of the criminals who prey on the black community, and the nonstop reminder that they are just victims, victims, victims....
So the Jews and blacks apparently will go down together, ironically, their allegiance to political liberalism being held as more important than their survival. Unless they wake up from their long slumber, and give a try to the other guy...
And while we're on the topic of minimum wage, two points that I'd like to reiterate - first, on how Congress has just wreaked wanton destruction on America's young workers:
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. As minimum wage workers gain these skills they become more productive and earn raises – two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year.
Cutting off the bottom rung of this career ladder means that teenage workers delay acquiring these skills. This hurts their earnings and employment prospects for up to a decade later. If Congress hopes to change teenage workers employment prospects it should stop pricing them out of their jobs.
And here's a economic model that small business owners are facing more and more every day; for those members of Congress that think small businesses grow their money on trees, and that it is ripe fruit for the picking(or at least regulating), try this economic conundrum on for size:
Small business - profits $100K/year
4 employees, minimum wage $5-/hr (I'm rounding a bit), 10 hours a day
New government mandated wage $7-/hr.
Extra cost $80-/day, $480/wk (assuming six days), $24,960-year
Profit declines to $75K/yr (incidentally, government revenues decline as a result of lower taxable income, but that's only a side disaster)
Does the business owner:
-take his loss, maybe sell his home, pull a kid out of college, put off buying new equipment/car (that'll help the economy, Nancy!), or reduce his standard of living?
-raise his prices and hope he doesn't lose customers, thus further harming his business?
Or
-Does he fire one of his workers, recovering $22K of $25K lost?
And this is all before health care taxes and energy taxes come into play...how will the black community survive this assault from the Democrats?
Or am I racist just for asking?
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)