Here's Rush Holt (D-NJ) on Rush Holt:
"As a scientist and teacher I take a distinctive approach to representing people - first I listen to people to understand their concerns, next I look at the facts and then I get to work to get results," said Holt. "I don't let partisanship crowd out evidence and thought."
Oooh, a scientist! Can't you hear the elitism drip like pancake syrup? But people ain't particles, Congressman, and you're full of sh*t. Here's one take on Rush Holt's town hall meeting last night, in which he saw 238 of his constituents (leaving at least twice that many out in the heat):
His basic premise is that for the “majority of Americans the system is broken” and what he wants is to “impose elevated national standards” on insurance companies and eliminate things like lifetime caps on coverage and co-pays and to “require insurance companies to spend 85% of the premiums they receive on health care.”
He feels that people are not well served by their insurance companies now and he believes that we will be better served by the government forcing companies to “compete in an insurance store” (This seemed to be his answer to all of our problems; he said it so often that it got to be a running joke in the group of folks I happened to be sitting with)
...sounds like he already had his mind made up, and wasn't prepared to do much "listening":
His answers were fairly consistent, and always contained one or more of the following: “Medicare savings will pay for it”, “insurance store”, or, my personal favorite, “maybe”, which was the answer always given when the question was the type that you or I would answer “yes” or “no” to, although at one point he did say “it remains to be seen how much savings there will be.”
He was asked “why are we moving so fast” to which he replied that “the country won’t recover if we are saddled with these health care costs; time is of the essence; it’s not happening fast enough.” Not having a PhD in physics I am unable to grasp the concept of how spending trillions and creating a massive new bureaucracy “unsaddles” those costs....
And the truth comes out from our friendly progressives in the audience:
There was a rather revealing moment in a subsequent question along these lines, which asked “why are you forcing this plan on us?” and the response from the more vocal supporters of the plan was “because we won the election!”
Incidentally, Holt only took pre-written (pre-selected) questions from the audience. Which leads to this Asbury Park-Press headline:
Holt's town hall keeps tight rein on audience
Nice way to listen to your constituents, right Rush? Sharply limit the number by choosing a tiny venue, then pre-screen the questions. The Park-Press is skeptical:
With the auditorium's capacity at 258 people, it didn't take long for the space to get filled and for hundreds of people to be left outside.
Unlike at other town hall meetings related to health care, where several sessions were held to allow everyone a chance inside, only one session was held on Wednesday.
Charles Gizzi walked out of the meeting long before it was over. Outside, the Middletown resident said that Holt was not responding to the questions, only saying what he felt like saying.
"There's no flexibility from (Holt)," said Gizzi, 78, who is concerned health care reform would negatively impact him. "Apparently, (Holt) is going to do what he wants."
Holt has always done what he wants - not what the residents of his district want - which is what gives him an 86% rating on the "progressive" meter. But he's got some good competition this year - and one of them took advantage of his shifty venue selection:
Some of the hundreds of people who could not make it inside the Middletown Arts Center spoke their minds during a rally held outside by Fair Haven Mayor Mike Halfacre, who intends to challenge Holt in 2010.
A report from the Halfacre rally:
... Halfacre spoke briefly on HR3200. Halfacre's assertion that we needed to take a scalpel to the health care system, not a sledgehammer, was met with cheers, as were many of his remarks about the bill, which the mayor had printed and available for review.
After his comments, Mayor Halfacre invited anyone who wanted to speak to line up and have their turn at the microphone. He asked the crowd to be civil and respectful, and, when they jeered at pro-HR3200 supporters, repeatedly encouraged respect and consideration for both sides.This was a difficult forum. While about ninety percent of the people who spoke were against the bill, as is Halfacre, the mayor listened to every single person in that line, standing in the near dark until almost nine o'clock last night to make sure that everyone who wanted to be heard had their say, whether he agreed with them or not.
Last night, while Rush Holt hid inside taking pre-written questions from 238 people, Mike Halfacre rolled up his sleeves, stood in front of all the people who were left out, and listened to what each and every person had to say. He listened carefully, quieted the crowd to allow people to have their turn, and never lost his cool.
Holt must be vulnerable, as the able Halfacre will have a Republican primary opponent in former Holmdel Mayor Alan Bateman- who ran against Holt in '06 and got killed, and deservedly so. Invisible, with no district presence to this day (why hasn't Bateman ever done an event like Halfacre's ?), it took me quite a bit of research to even find out who was running against Holt (good job, Republican party of New Jersey!) in the 12th.
But back to Holt. A man who obviously considers himself an intellectual superior to his constituents, and who enjoys constantly strong re-election prospects due to a bizarrely redrawn district map, he's not listening to the people he represents at all. He's the lifetime academic and government employee, dictating to his people what he intends to do, with little to no realization how it will affect the lives of the middle classes he pretends to represent.
Time to send Rush Holt back to the Princeton particle accelerators, where theory and practice collide less than they do in the real world.
In the meantime, let's see if Halfacre has what it takes...
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Teddy Kennedy as Cindy Sheehan
Liberals have great use for the dead; unable to defend the abduction of their life stories, they can be manipulated in any way necessary without protest; criticism of such re-writing of history is the only thing deemed disrespectful of the dead.
Remember the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan, who used her son Casey's death to launch a personal anti-war campaign that every media outlet and left-wing group hitched their wagon to? Never mind that Casey was a model soldier and enthusiastic patriot; his mother left his grave unmarked and lie in it for photos while the media hailed her with kudos - iconic earth-mother , indeed...
Well, despite media enthusiasm for her cause - end the war, death to Bush, viva Chavez, et al, she was widely viewed as a nutcase by middle America, and her self-serving jihad based upon the desecrated memory of a fallen soldier faltered. The media dumped her like ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag (God forbid she should embarrass Nancy or Baracky!), and looked for a new liberal icon, preferably one who had the stench of death on him, so that their cause could be advanced without criticism.
And so we have the demise of Ted Kennedy, perfectly placed in the midst of the battle to create/prevent socialized medicine in the United States, one beloved by liberals and their handmaidens in the mainstream media. And so, instead of stories asking (hoping) whether Cindy Sheehan can end the war in Iraq, we get stories like these:
Health Overhaul Backers Seek Boost by Citing Kennedy’s Support
Democrats are invoking the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s commitment to universal health-care coverage in seeking regain political momentum to pass a U.S. health overhaul plan by the end of the year.
“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat who shepherded a health-reform measure through Kennedy’s Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, said he hoped his colleague’s death “would remind people to calm down” and debate “in more civil tones about what needs to be done, because that’s what Teddy would do.”
Ah. So the late Senator's "inspiration" will help insure the passage of health care reform, and it will be done in "civil tones", because that's what Teddy would want.
In other words, we're passing heath care reform, and you naysayers better shut the hell up. After all, it's what we claim Teddy would have wanted. So lie down and take it, lest I curse you with a decree of "dishonor to the dead".
But using his name to wage partisan warfare and disrespect the wishes of the republic is fine, by the lights of the Left and the media.
Let's hope the Democrats have as much success using Teddy's death as a bludgeon as Cindy Sheehan did with her late son....
Remember the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan, who used her son Casey's death to launch a personal anti-war campaign that every media outlet and left-wing group hitched their wagon to? Never mind that Casey was a model soldier and enthusiastic patriot; his mother left his grave unmarked and lie in it for photos while the media hailed her with kudos - iconic earth-mother , indeed...
Well, despite media enthusiasm for her cause - end the war, death to Bush, viva Chavez, et al, she was widely viewed as a nutcase by middle America, and her self-serving jihad based upon the desecrated memory of a fallen soldier faltered. The media dumped her like ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag (God forbid she should embarrass Nancy or Baracky!), and looked for a new liberal icon, preferably one who had the stench of death on him, so that their cause could be advanced without criticism.
And so we have the demise of Ted Kennedy, perfectly placed in the midst of the battle to create/prevent socialized medicine in the United States, one beloved by liberals and their handmaidens in the mainstream media. And so, instead of stories asking (hoping) whether Cindy Sheehan can end the war in Iraq, we get stories like these:
Health Overhaul Backers Seek Boost by Citing Kennedy’s Support
Democrats are invoking the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s commitment to universal health-care coverage in seeking regain political momentum to pass a U.S. health overhaul plan by the end of the year.
“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat who shepherded a health-reform measure through Kennedy’s Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, said he hoped his colleague’s death “would remind people to calm down” and debate “in more civil tones about what needs to be done, because that’s what Teddy would do.”
Ah. So the late Senator's "inspiration" will help insure the passage of health care reform, and it will be done in "civil tones", because that's what Teddy would want.
In other words, we're passing heath care reform, and you naysayers better shut the hell up. After all, it's what we claim Teddy would have wanted. So lie down and take it, lest I curse you with a decree of "dishonor to the dead".
But using his name to wage partisan warfare and disrespect the wishes of the republic is fine, by the lights of the Left and the media.
Let's hope the Democrats have as much success using Teddy's death as a bludgeon as Cindy Sheehan did with her late son....
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
NEA: Using Stimulus Money To Blackmail Artists?
So the NEA gets just over $80 million from Barack Obama's stimulus package; certainly a questionable grant while deficits are skyrocketing and unemployment continues to mount. Offensive enough that some of this money has been "plowed" into funding and supporting pornographic ventures ("Perverts Put Out") under the guise of "art".
But should they be organizing artists to support administration causes? Patrick Courrielche was on the conference call, and he describes what he heard:
Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.
It sounded, how should I phrase it…unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me.
The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons.
We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us.
Interesting. Mobilizing an "army of artists" (to paraphrase Glenn Reynolds), in order to disseminate government propaganda, with the expressed intent of shaping the "lives" (opinions) of their fellow Americans.
Hmmm....unusual, indeed. Maybe George Bush should have done the same thing in the run-up to the Iraq war; some four-color prints of Saddam engaged in one brutal act ot another...
Anyway - here's the unspoken threat, which I am sure was not wasted on the conference call crowd:
The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation - a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?
So we're seeing some more Chicago-style politics as usual, Al Capone style. "We need help pushing our radical agenda down the people's throat, and we need you guys to create an artistic basis for the changes we wish to make. So hop to it, or don't be surprised if subsequent requests for funding are summarily rejected."
Perhaps this blackmail from the NEA will finally wake up artists to the fact that government money in the service of art is not free; it comes with strings attached - strings that the lender may feel free to pull at any time, to demand your work in his service, on the threat of being deprived of your livelihood. "Who's gonna care about another starving artist, boy? So shut up and start cranking out those health care lithographs pronto; I want to see proofs on my desk by the end of the week. Capish?"
Curious to see what comes out of this ugly little effort. Another "Hope" poster? Or something more akin to the now-infamous "Joker"?
UPDATE: This story is getting bigger play since I posted this yesterday. More here and here
But should they be organizing artists to support administration causes? Patrick Courrielche was on the conference call, and he describes what he heard:
Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.
It sounded, how should I phrase it…unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me.
The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons.
We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us.
Interesting. Mobilizing an "army of artists" (to paraphrase Glenn Reynolds), in order to disseminate government propaganda, with the expressed intent of shaping the "lives" (opinions) of their fellow Americans.
Hmmm....unusual, indeed. Maybe George Bush should have done the same thing in the run-up to the Iraq war; some four-color prints of Saddam engaged in one brutal act ot another...
Anyway - here's the unspoken threat, which I am sure was not wasted on the conference call crowd:
The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation - a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?
So we're seeing some more Chicago-style politics as usual, Al Capone style. "We need help pushing our radical agenda down the people's throat, and we need you guys to create an artistic basis for the changes we wish to make. So hop to it, or don't be surprised if subsequent requests for funding are summarily rejected."
Perhaps this blackmail from the NEA will finally wake up artists to the fact that government money in the service of art is not free; it comes with strings attached - strings that the lender may feel free to pull at any time, to demand your work in his service, on the threat of being deprived of your livelihood. "Who's gonna care about another starving artist, boy? So shut up and start cranking out those health care lithographs pronto; I want to see proofs on my desk by the end of the week. Capish?"
Curious to see what comes out of this ugly little effort. Another "Hope" poster? Or something more akin to the now-infamous "Joker"?
UPDATE: This story is getting bigger play since I posted this yesterday. More here and here
Cash for Clunkers: The Scam Exposed !
Best ye learn this lesson well, my fellow subjects...what Obama giveth, Obama taketh away. And if you think you've gotten a great deal on your "clunker", well....you remember what mama told you about something being too good to be true?
'cause it's all about the taxes. The taxes. The taxes. To explain:
When you buy a new car you pay tax on the difference between the new car's purchase price and the trade-in you present to the dealer. This is an intentional distortion in the law that is intended to favor dealers over private-party used car sales; if you sell your used car privately the new buyer pays sales tax but you do not get the offset on the purchase of your replacement vehicle - the only way to get that is to trade the car.
Dealers use this, of course, in negotiations, effectively pocketing the sales tax - and why not? It's a real difference to you!
But the "cash for clunkers" is not a trade-in... [it's] a $4,500 check from the government...
And while Tony Soprano may set you up to earn a nice paycheck, well - you know what he expects from you at the end of the month: a nice, fat envelope, delivered with good cheer, full of kickback cash:
So you get nailed at least once and possibly twice. Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice.
Oh, and the shakedown ain't over yet! Why, it's even caught on in the nation's heartland....Dispatch: South Dakota:
[Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
Scam-a-palozza! The taxpayer foot the bill for each $4500 clunker check, which is used to destroy cars that still have life/parts, which the dealers use to increase their profits from the buyer, who then has to pay tax once, maybe twice, and fork over penalty fees if he isn't snappy about it. And to reiterate the delicious irony of it all...his taxes paid for the $4500 rebate check in the first place!
Welcome to Obamaland!
Doug Ross has a few more thoughts:
Let's count the unintended consequences of the National Socialist Democrats' idiotic clunkers program:
- So many SUVs were purchased by consumers that even the mainstream media was forced to report that the Obama administration fudged the sales data
- Speaking of which, the program drove huge increases in sales of Japanese-made vehicles
- Best of all, consumers who used the program are going to get slammed with taxes they never anticipated!
Isn't a faceless, unaccountable, centralized government grand?
'cause it's all about the taxes. The taxes. The taxes. To explain:
When you buy a new car you pay tax on the difference between the new car's purchase price and the trade-in you present to the dealer. This is an intentional distortion in the law that is intended to favor dealers over private-party used car sales; if you sell your used car privately the new buyer pays sales tax but you do not get the offset on the purchase of your replacement vehicle - the only way to get that is to trade the car.
Dealers use this, of course, in negotiations, effectively pocketing the sales tax - and why not? It's a real difference to you!
But the "cash for clunkers" is not a trade-in... [it's] a $4,500 check from the government...
And while Tony Soprano may set you up to earn a nice paycheck, well - you know what he expects from you at the end of the month: a nice, fat envelope, delivered with good cheer, full of kickback cash:
So you get nailed at least once and possibly twice. Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice.
Oh, and the shakedown ain't over yet! Why, it's even caught on in the nation's heartland....Dispatch: South Dakota:
[Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
Scam-a-palozza! The taxpayer foot the bill for each $4500 clunker check, which is used to destroy cars that still have life/parts, which the dealers use to increase their profits from the buyer, who then has to pay tax once, maybe twice, and fork over penalty fees if he isn't snappy about it. And to reiterate the delicious irony of it all...his taxes paid for the $4500 rebate check in the first place!
Welcome to Obamaland!
Doug Ross has a few more thoughts:
Let's count the unintended consequences of the National Socialist Democrats' idiotic clunkers program:
- So many SUVs were purchased by consumers that even the mainstream media was forced to report that the Obama administration fudged the sales data
- Speaking of which, the program drove huge increases in sales of Japanese-made vehicles
- Best of all, consumers who used the program are going to get slammed with taxes they never anticipated!
Isn't a faceless, unaccountable, centralized government grand?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Barack Hussein Obama: Traitor/Murderer/Coward
Well, I guess "The War on Terror" has taken on a new meaning, as the president, his Attorney General, and the media try to portray CIA interrogators as the ones who were really creating/causing"terror".
Granted, that terror was only in the mind of the captured jihadi, but to the American liberal, there is no difference between the terror of empty threats and the terror of being forced to jump out of a 99th floor window, hoping to die before you hit the ground, whispering "I love you" to a family that will never see you again, only to have the words stolen by the wind...
Granted, that terror was only in the mind of the captured jihadi, but to the American liberal, there is no difference between the terror of empty threats and the terror of being forced to jump out of a 99th floor window, hoping to die before you hit the ground, whispering "I love you" to a family that will never see you again, only to have the words stolen by the wind...
The AP describes the terror unleashed by our CIA agents against the masterminds of 9/11:
According to the material, CIA interrogators conducted mock executions, threatened to kill the children of one detainee and implied that another's mother would be sexually assaulted...
Representative Peter King, duly outraged:
It’s bulls***. It’s disgraceful. You wonder which side they’re on," he said of the Attorney General's move, which he described as a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense.""It’s a total breach of faith, and either the president is intentionally caving to the left wing of his party or he’s lost control of his administration," said King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security and a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
"You're talking about threatening to kill a guy, threatening to attack his family, threatening to use an electric drill on him – but never doing it," King said. "You have that on the one hand – and on the other you have the [interrogator's] attempt to prevent thousands of Americans from being killed."
"When Holder was talking about being 'shocked' [before the report's release], I thought they were going to have cutting guys' fingers off or something – or that they actually used the power drill," he said.
No, to a "man" like Holder, it is shocking that the CIA even made these threats, while 9/11 itself was not shocking, it was merely "chickens coming home to roost".
Of course, what's funny in all this is that we are now using Predator drones to eliminate "high-value targets" within the badlands of Afghanistan. With those "targets", we are usually taking out about 10-20 additional people, usually the relatives of the target, and almost always killing innocent children in the process.
Remember: It is OK for Obama to order the killing of innocent women and children while hunting down terrorists. However, it is criminal to capture live terrorists, and threaten to kill their women and children.
All this, while Obama hides behind "family time" in the exclusive beaches of Marth'a Vineyard, unavailable to answer questions.
So brave. I guess it takes a man like that to prosecute the very people who may have, at some time, saved his life...
A Neanderthal, Am I ?
....or perhaps I should have titled it: Maxine Waters: Anti-Semitic Racist!
Because really - as a Jew, I have been called "subhuman" since the middle ages. I thought in an enlightened, progressive nation led by liberal Democrats, the last insult I would here again is "subhuman".
Now granted, she didn't use that word exactly, but by calling all those opposed to Obamacare "Neanderthals", she is tagging me with the subhuman moniker. And I take offense. And so should you, at this ignorant, angry, hate-filled bitch masquerading as a lawmaker:
Hey - if the word "macaca" could bring down Senator George Allen, than calling Americans whom disagree with her "Neaderthals" should be enough to force the resignation of Maxine Waters.
Oh wait. My mistake. She's a Democrat. And she's black! So anything goes, I guess...including the laws of respect and and human decency...they go out the window.
Hat tip to JammieWearingFool
Because really - as a Jew, I have been called "subhuman" since the middle ages. I thought in an enlightened, progressive nation led by liberal Democrats, the last insult I would here again is "subhuman".
Now granted, she didn't use that word exactly, but by calling all those opposed to Obamacare "Neanderthals", she is tagging me with the subhuman moniker. And I take offense. And so should you, at this ignorant, angry, hate-filled bitch masquerading as a lawmaker:
Hey - if the word "macaca" could bring down Senator George Allen, than calling Americans whom disagree with her "Neaderthals" should be enough to force the resignation of Maxine Waters.
Oh wait. My mistake. She's a Democrat. And she's black! So anything goes, I guess...including the laws of respect and and human decency...they go out the window.
Hat tip to JammieWearingFool
Giving Janet Napolitano the Swine Flu
With the fall flu season on the horizon, it's time for the Doomsayers of the Great God Influenza to come to the forefront (of your newspapers and TV screens) and warn us all of an impending pandemic that may in fact kill us all. Yawn.
You wanna know what's really scary, though? "The President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology" are screeching the same alarmist sh*t into the president's ear, with recommendations that can turn a run-of-the-mill fall flu season into an Orwellian nightmare. Let's hear what the president is hearing:
Swine flu may infect half the U.S. population this year, hospitalize 1.8 million patients and lead to as many as 90,000 deaths, more than twice the number killed in a typical seasonal flu, White House advisers said.
President Barack Obama today was urged to speed vaccine production and name a senior member of the White House staff, preferably the homeland security adviser, to take responsibility for decision-making on the pandemic. Initial doses should be accelerated to mid-September to vaccinate as many as 40 million people, the advisory group said.
Sounds like a tempting offer to a president who desperately needs a heroic moment; why not seize the moment and become the great preventer-in chief?
Ah, but this is a slippery fish, fraught with many a sharp dorsal. Rush the vaccinations to start inoculating in September? Really?
Data from clinical trials to assess the safety and effectiveness of swine flu vaccines will start to become available in mid-September, health officials reported Aug. 21. Full results from the two-dose trials won’t be available until mid October.
Is the threat of a deadly flu outbreak that certain that the government must inoculate 40 million Americans with an untested vaccine? And should there be an adverse reaction, one not gauged by the short testing period the President's advisers allow, that kills, say a mere million (hey, it's only 1/40th!) or so? Hmmm...can we say genocide?
And giving Janet Napolitano the "responsibility" to "decision make"? What types of decisions are those, pray tell? Maybe - who gets the vaccine, and who doesn't? And if so, can we trust Janet to operate on need, not on politics? (just how long would Texas have to wait on line behind Chicago, Boston, and the key swing states anyway)? Hmmm.."
We are God's partners in matters of life and death," indeed....
Well, let's go to a Jersey guy - Peter Gross, chief medical officer at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey - who talks some sense:
The predictions seem “overblown,” Gross said, given that swine-flu outbreaks in 1968 and 1957 failed to cause as many deaths, even with medical technology and disease surveillance less advanced than today.
“Influenza, you can make all the predictions you want, but it’s more difficult than predicting the weather,” Gross said in a telephone interview today, after the advisory report was made public. “If influenza was a stock, I wouldn’t touch it.”
And like with "global warming", our president seems more than willing to risk the lives of the people he's sworn to protect in exchange for centralizing power in the central government.
May the swine flu spare no one this year...
You wanna know what's really scary, though? "The President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology" are screeching the same alarmist sh*t into the president's ear, with recommendations that can turn a run-of-the-mill fall flu season into an Orwellian nightmare. Let's hear what the president is hearing:
Swine flu may infect half the U.S. population this year, hospitalize 1.8 million patients and lead to as many as 90,000 deaths, more than twice the number killed in a typical seasonal flu, White House advisers said.
President Barack Obama today was urged to speed vaccine production and name a senior member of the White House staff, preferably the homeland security adviser, to take responsibility for decision-making on the pandemic. Initial doses should be accelerated to mid-September to vaccinate as many as 40 million people, the advisory group said.
Sounds like a tempting offer to a president who desperately needs a heroic moment; why not seize the moment and become the great preventer-in chief?
Ah, but this is a slippery fish, fraught with many a sharp dorsal. Rush the vaccinations to start inoculating in September? Really?
Data from clinical trials to assess the safety and effectiveness of swine flu vaccines will start to become available in mid-September, health officials reported Aug. 21. Full results from the two-dose trials won’t be available until mid October.
Is the threat of a deadly flu outbreak that certain that the government must inoculate 40 million Americans with an untested vaccine? And should there be an adverse reaction, one not gauged by the short testing period the President's advisers allow, that kills, say a mere million (hey, it's only 1/40th!) or so? Hmmm...can we say genocide?
And giving Janet Napolitano the "responsibility" to "decision make"? What types of decisions are those, pray tell? Maybe - who gets the vaccine, and who doesn't? And if so, can we trust Janet to operate on need, not on politics? (just how long would Texas have to wait on line behind Chicago, Boston, and the key swing states anyway)? Hmmm.."
We are God's partners in matters of life and death," indeed....
Well, let's go to a Jersey guy - Peter Gross, chief medical officer at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey - who talks some sense:
The predictions seem “overblown,” Gross said, given that swine-flu outbreaks in 1968 and 1957 failed to cause as many deaths, even with medical technology and disease surveillance less advanced than today.
“Influenza, you can make all the predictions you want, but it’s more difficult than predicting the weather,” Gross said in a telephone interview today, after the advisory report was made public. “If influenza was a stock, I wouldn’t touch it.”
And like with "global warming", our president seems more than willing to risk the lives of the people he's sworn to protect in exchange for centralizing power in the central government.
May the swine flu spare no one this year...
Monday, August 24, 2009
But I thought this Krugman fellow was an economist..?
Paul Krugman, who has spent much of his last few columns demanding that the president and his party ignore the will of the majority and impose health care reform by fiat, makes an interesting point about the "public option":
Mr. [Ben] Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.
Of course, every person on the government plan is one more person to be supported by taxpayers. It makes the collapse of private insurance (especially if the government is using taxpayer cash to create a "gold-plated" plan) that much more likely, pushing even more people onto a public plan. And that precludes companies who find it cheaper to pay a health care "tax" than actually provide healthcare.
Can our system absorb that? Well, let's see where we are under Obamanomics (a subsidiary of Krugmanomics) before we socialize medicine:
In news leaked late Friday to the Reuters news agency, the White House conceded that the national debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next ten years, nearly doubling a national debt that now stands at $11.67 trillion.
Since the beginning of the republic in the late 18th century, the U.S. government has accumulated a total of $11.67 trillion in debt. In the next decade, under the budget plans the Obama administration has in mind, that debt will almost double to about $20.67 trillion.
Until this year, according to historical budget tables published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the largest annual budget deficit the U.S. government ever ran was in fiscal 2008, when the deficit was $458.5 billion. The average deficits the Obama administration is now planning to run in each of the next ten years will now almost double that.
Charles Krauthammer - not a Nobel Prize-winning economist - talks about the effect this will have on our economy, and the effect it should have on Obama's health care "reform":
This is a huge increase in the deficit. And if you think of it, this is an estimate over a decade, which means that the annual [deficit] will be nearly $1 trillion. It will be $900 million every year for ten years, which is unsustainable.
It will destroy the dollar. The only way that kind of debt is paid off is not in taxes. It is in inflation. And everyone will see it coming. It will raise interest rates.
This is a crisis in and of itself. And one of the reasons health care is in trouble — there are a lot of reasons — but one of them is Americans understand that when you are looking at [health-care] deficits which are...adding $1 trillion or $1.6 trillion, as the CBO has estimated in the Senate plan, adding that onto it gratuitously is insane.
Insane, indeed. So where does that place Krugman, a man who is screaming that we must have that additional trillion-plus deficit now, even if it tears the nation asunder? What does this say for Krugman's economic credentials when writes pieces that says that the more people on public health care, the better, and refuses to even bring up the topic of the enormous financial burden it will place upon the nation?
Well, let's say this: I would sooner ask Nobel medalist Yassar Arafat (may he rot in hell) for his guidance on Arab-Israeli relations than ask Krugman for his advice on matters economic.
For the man is - to paraphrase Dr. K - gratuitously insane.
Mr. [Ben] Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.
Of course, every person on the government plan is one more person to be supported by taxpayers. It makes the collapse of private insurance (especially if the government is using taxpayer cash to create a "gold-plated" plan) that much more likely, pushing even more people onto a public plan. And that precludes companies who find it cheaper to pay a health care "tax" than actually provide healthcare.
Can our system absorb that? Well, let's see where we are under Obamanomics (a subsidiary of Krugmanomics) before we socialize medicine:
In news leaked late Friday to the Reuters news agency, the White House conceded that the national debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next ten years, nearly doubling a national debt that now stands at $11.67 trillion.
Since the beginning of the republic in the late 18th century, the U.S. government has accumulated a total of $11.67 trillion in debt. In the next decade, under the budget plans the Obama administration has in mind, that debt will almost double to about $20.67 trillion.
Until this year, according to historical budget tables published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the largest annual budget deficit the U.S. government ever ran was in fiscal 2008, when the deficit was $458.5 billion. The average deficits the Obama administration is now planning to run in each of the next ten years will now almost double that.
Charles Krauthammer - not a Nobel Prize-winning economist - talks about the effect this will have on our economy, and the effect it should have on Obama's health care "reform":
This is a huge increase in the deficit. And if you think of it, this is an estimate over a decade, which means that the annual [deficit] will be nearly $1 trillion. It will be $900 million every year for ten years, which is unsustainable.
It will destroy the dollar. The only way that kind of debt is paid off is not in taxes. It is in inflation. And everyone will see it coming. It will raise interest rates.
This is a crisis in and of itself. And one of the reasons health care is in trouble — there are a lot of reasons — but one of them is Americans understand that when you are looking at [health-care] deficits which are...adding $1 trillion or $1.6 trillion, as the CBO has estimated in the Senate plan, adding that onto it gratuitously is insane.
Insane, indeed. So where does that place Krugman, a man who is screaming that we must have that additional trillion-plus deficit now, even if it tears the nation asunder? What does this say for Krugman's economic credentials when writes pieces that says that the more people on public health care, the better, and refuses to even bring up the topic of the enormous financial burden it will place upon the nation?
Well, let's say this: I would sooner ask Nobel medalist Yassar Arafat (may he rot in hell) for his guidance on Arab-Israeli relations than ask Krugman for his advice on matters economic.
For the man is - to paraphrase Dr. K - gratuitously insane.
Health Care Reform: The AP's Fantasy Edition !
The impending defeat of Obama's socialization of American medicine reminds me a bit of the last days of Nazi Germany; the propaganda machine exhorted the citizens to fight on as top party officials sought safe haven; all while Hitler ordered counterattacks by German armies that existed only in his fevered imagination.
Anyway - this AP "analysis" blames the "sales tactics" of the Democrats for the failure of ObamaCare to gain any traction (if those stupid Americans only understood it, they would want it!), and creates fictitious enemies for Obama to defeat.
First, the stupidity meme:
"The people don't have sufficient information, and I'm surprised the administration and others backing reform haven't done much more to educate the public," said Robin Lauermann, professor of politics at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa.
If only we understood the machinations of our betters....!
And here's the straw men:
As the health care argument swirls during the August congressional recess, Americans have witnessed ugly and offensive attacks on the motives of Obama and those who support changing the system, even though it is held responsible for a majority of private bankruptcies in the world's No. 1 economy.
The article makes no mention of the ugly and offensive attacks by the administration on those private citizens who oppose their legislation - un-American liars, indeed!
And when in doubt, blame the ex-governor of Alaska:
The lack of one specific piece of legislation for the president to sell has opened the door for opponents inside and outside government to heap unfounded allegations on the reform process.
Some have been outrageous, including an assertion by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, last year's Republican vice presidential nominee, who said the plan would include "death panels."
She appears to have created that scare tactic out of a now-abandoned portion of House legislation that would have required Medicare payments for consultation with a physician about a patient's wishes for treatment at the end of life.
So Palin's assertion is outrageous, except for the fact that the provision she actually spoke about was then removed after she brought it to light. In other words, it actually existed, and she was telling the truth - which, to a media that loathes her and loves Obamacare, is therefore a lie.
Got that?
Regardless, the writer of this piece (Steven Hurst) makes his true feelings known in a throwaway line halfway through:
...bringing the United States in line with the world's other wealthy democracies that guarantee health care to everyone.
Ah. To be France, or Spain, nations that have unemployment consistently around 10-11%, with a taxation system that leaves little chance for improvement, or the growth of one's personal status.
This is the crux of the matter. Mr. Hurst, and the Democrats, want America to be more like France. Americans, however, like who and what they are, and prefer not to mimic the dying throes of a dead culture.
And their in lies the struggle, not in "tactics" or talking points. The battle for the soul of America has been joined, and no amount of media scolding of our intelligence and immaturity will end it before its course has been run...
Anyway - this AP "analysis" blames the "sales tactics" of the Democrats for the failure of ObamaCare to gain any traction (if those stupid Americans only understood it, they would want it!), and creates fictitious enemies for Obama to defeat.
First, the stupidity meme:
"The people don't have sufficient information, and I'm surprised the administration and others backing reform haven't done much more to educate the public," said Robin Lauermann, professor of politics at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa.
If only we understood the machinations of our betters....!
And here's the straw men:
As the health care argument swirls during the August congressional recess, Americans have witnessed ugly and offensive attacks on the motives of Obama and those who support changing the system, even though it is held responsible for a majority of private bankruptcies in the world's No. 1 economy.
The article makes no mention of the ugly and offensive attacks by the administration on those private citizens who oppose their legislation - un-American liars, indeed!
And when in doubt, blame the ex-governor of Alaska:
The lack of one specific piece of legislation for the president to sell has opened the door for opponents inside and outside government to heap unfounded allegations on the reform process.
Some have been outrageous, including an assertion by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, last year's Republican vice presidential nominee, who said the plan would include "death panels."
She appears to have created that scare tactic out of a now-abandoned portion of House legislation that would have required Medicare payments for consultation with a physician about a patient's wishes for treatment at the end of life.
So Palin's assertion is outrageous, except for the fact that the provision she actually spoke about was then removed after she brought it to light. In other words, it actually existed, and she was telling the truth - which, to a media that loathes her and loves Obamacare, is therefore a lie.
Got that?
Regardless, the writer of this piece (Steven Hurst) makes his true feelings known in a throwaway line halfway through:
...bringing the United States in line with the world's other wealthy democracies that guarantee health care to everyone.
Ah. To be France, or Spain, nations that have unemployment consistently around 10-11%, with a taxation system that leaves little chance for improvement, or the growth of one's personal status.
This is the crux of the matter. Mr. Hurst, and the Democrats, want America to be more like France. Americans, however, like who and what they are, and prefer not to mimic the dying throes of a dead culture.
And their in lies the struggle, not in "tactics" or talking points. The battle for the soul of America has been joined, and no amount of media scolding of our intelligence and immaturity will end it before its course has been run...
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Frank Rich: Fantasy Edition !
I usually never bother to read Frank Rich - he's little more than Keith Olbermann in print - but I thought his piece today railing against the hatred and violence of "the right" revealed a bit too much.
Quoting the widely discredited Homeland Security report casting pro-lifers as potential terrorists while referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center (who create and fan the flames of racism where it doesn't exist in order to give itself a purpose), Rich quails at a political atmosphere that "keeps getting darker", due to "far-right fanatics bearing arms at presidential events".
No mention, of course, of the only act of political violence so far in the Obama era, a black conservative beaten by union thugs in St. Louis. No, the facts would mess with Rich's storyline, so he disposes of them, and goes to a 1962 sociologist to explain why the people are restive. And we get the same old, same old: it's because we're dumb, scared animals:
“What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime.”
Wait! It's because the right is made up of dumb, scared, white animals!
The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it’s a paper muskrat.
So we can add Frank Rich to Michael Moore , Politco, and Bill Maher school of thought that it is the stupidity of Americans (particularly white ones) that are preventing the implementation of the utopian liberal dream. Let's also add Rich, with his premature dismissal of the Republican party, to co-worker Paul Krugman's school of ramping up the unilateralism, disposing with dissent, and dismissing all those whom disagree with liberal doctrine. After all, they're just overwhelmed by a world that has become too technical and complex for them - why bring them in to the conversation at all?
I'll go a step further. Rich bemoans what he sees as signs of potential violence, but in his black heart he fervently hopes for this violence to occur. Obama's agenda is on the ropes from a Republic which disdains government interference in their lives, and can see the liberal agenda for what it is: government control - liberal control - of almost every key decision in a citizen's life. Rich sees what will likely be his last chance for power (as a voice of liberal morality, no doubt) about to slip from his grasp, and he dreads the return to angry minority status. So he believes that (hopes for?) an attack on the president, or an attack on any liberal symbol, would turn Americans against "the right", against their better judgement, and into the arms of the Left, who will take care of them via government enslavement for the rest of their lives.
And of course, it would prove him right - and after all, what is more important to an op-ed columnist than that?
One would hope - for many different reasons - that Rich's Tarentino-like fantasy does not become a reality. One suspects it will more likely be the Left who will strike out in rage first, as the bussed-in and paid-off union thugs and ACORN brownshirts continue to angrily confront law-abiding citizens everywhere.
Then who will Rich blame? Certainly not the Left, or his party, or even himself. After all, they're the "smart" ones...right?
Quoting the widely discredited Homeland Security report casting pro-lifers as potential terrorists while referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center (who create and fan the flames of racism where it doesn't exist in order to give itself a purpose), Rich quails at a political atmosphere that "keeps getting darker", due to "far-right fanatics bearing arms at presidential events".
No mention, of course, of the only act of political violence so far in the Obama era, a black conservative beaten by union thugs in St. Louis. No, the facts would mess with Rich's storyline, so he disposes of them, and goes to a 1962 sociologist to explain why the people are restive. And we get the same old, same old: it's because we're dumb, scared animals:
“What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime.”
Wait! It's because the right is made up of dumb, scared, white animals!
The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it’s a paper muskrat.
So we can add Frank Rich to Michael Moore , Politco, and Bill Maher school of thought that it is the stupidity of Americans (particularly white ones) that are preventing the implementation of the utopian liberal dream. Let's also add Rich, with his premature dismissal of the Republican party, to co-worker Paul Krugman's school of ramping up the unilateralism, disposing with dissent, and dismissing all those whom disagree with liberal doctrine. After all, they're just overwhelmed by a world that has become too technical and complex for them - why bring them in to the conversation at all?
I'll go a step further. Rich bemoans what he sees as signs of potential violence, but in his black heart he fervently hopes for this violence to occur. Obama's agenda is on the ropes from a Republic which disdains government interference in their lives, and can see the liberal agenda for what it is: government control - liberal control - of almost every key decision in a citizen's life. Rich sees what will likely be his last chance for power (as a voice of liberal morality, no doubt) about to slip from his grasp, and he dreads the return to angry minority status. So he believes that (hopes for?) an attack on the president, or an attack on any liberal symbol, would turn Americans against "the right", against their better judgement, and into the arms of the Left, who will take care of them via government enslavement for the rest of their lives.
And of course, it would prove him right - and after all, what is more important to an op-ed columnist than that?
One would hope - for many different reasons - that Rich's Tarentino-like fantasy does not become a reality. One suspects it will more likely be the Left who will strike out in rage first, as the bussed-in and paid-off union thugs and ACORN brownshirts continue to angrily confront law-abiding citizens everywhere.
Then who will Rich blame? Certainly not the Left, or his party, or even himself. After all, they're the "smart" ones...right?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
"Progressively" missing the point....
All of New York is astir over Governor Paterson's comments yesterday that his declining approval ratings (and those of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama) are due to racism. Well, nice try, I guess. It's like Obama blaming his free-falling poll numbers on those dirty Republicans...
Anyway, New York Daily News grievance columnist and token angry liberal black Errol Louis is trotted out to tell the governor that no, it's not about race. But in doing so, he reveals his true blindness to Paterson's woes as well as his ignorance of what is driving voter revolt these days:
... it's up to Paterson alone to decide if, when and whether he'll step aside - and it's premature to write him off.
Paterson is the most progressive governor in decades. He raised taxes on the wealthy, has championed same-sex marriage and raised the basic welfare grant for the first time in 18 years.
He also reformed the Rockefeller drug laws, began a historic reworking of the penal laws, and made good use of federal stimulus dollars for programs such as the $200 back-to-school grants for low-income families.
The political attacks on Paterson, gleefully magnified by the media, rarely acknowledge the good he has done...
Well, the wealthy wouldn't agree. Nor the middle-class taxpayer, who saw welfare moms getting "raises" and withdrawing $200 per kid at ATMs while bragging about receiving "free" money - paid for with their tax dollars. Not sure if these same folks are pleased that Paterson gone soft on crime either, or consider a budget this year that hiked taxes by $8 billion -- and spending by $11 billion - to be part of the "good" that Paterson has done.
There's a huge chasm these days in the way "progressives" view the world, and the way everyone else in America seems to (can someone say oddly detached from reality?). Recent polls show that only around 20% of Americans identify with the far-left label, but unfortunately, they currently hold 100% of the nation's political power.
And these same folks wonder why it's so hot in the town hall meetings....man, they are never going to see the truck that hits them...
Anyway, New York Daily News grievance columnist and token angry liberal black Errol Louis is trotted out to tell the governor that no, it's not about race. But in doing so, he reveals his true blindness to Paterson's woes as well as his ignorance of what is driving voter revolt these days:
... it's up to Paterson alone to decide if, when and whether he'll step aside - and it's premature to write him off.
Paterson is the most progressive governor in decades. He raised taxes on the wealthy, has championed same-sex marriage and raised the basic welfare grant for the first time in 18 years.
He also reformed the Rockefeller drug laws, began a historic reworking of the penal laws, and made good use of federal stimulus dollars for programs such as the $200 back-to-school grants for low-income families.
The political attacks on Paterson, gleefully magnified by the media, rarely acknowledge the good he has done...
Well, the wealthy wouldn't agree. Nor the middle-class taxpayer, who saw welfare moms getting "raises" and withdrawing $200 per kid at ATMs while bragging about receiving "free" money - paid for with their tax dollars. Not sure if these same folks are pleased that Paterson gone soft on crime either, or consider a budget this year that hiked taxes by $8 billion -- and spending by $11 billion - to be part of the "good" that Paterson has done.
There's a huge chasm these days in the way "progressives" view the world, and the way everyone else in America seems to (can someone say oddly detached from reality?). Recent polls show that only around 20% of Americans identify with the far-left label, but unfortunately, they currently hold 100% of the nation's political power.
And these same folks wonder why it's so hot in the town hall meetings....man, they are never going to see the truck that hits them...
"Scare Quotes": Bad News for Obama
{UPDATE 7:15PM: The AP still has the second article/link up, but they've removed the scare quotes. Think they read the following post? Hmmm...}
Ah, the good old days: When the only word that the media put in scare quotes was "terrorism", as its way of mocking the Bush administration's fight against radical Islam.
Check out the scare quotes that jumped out at me this morning:
Obama again tackles "myths" on healthcare reform
Obama calls for 'honest debate' on health care
Seems to me that these articles are questioning whether those "myths" are in fact that, or perhaps more akin to "truths". And in the same vein, if "honest debate" is in scare quotes, are we seeing a feeling from the media that Obama's portion of the debate has been less than truthful?
Seems like the media is getting wise to Obama's play on words, like these:
"As every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called death panels — an offensive notion to me and to the American people," Obama said. "These are phony claims meant to divide us."
So if you claim there are death panels - which are actually used today by the VA, re-instated under Obama (as well as in Canada), you are simply "not credible". Sarah Palin, thus becomes "not credible", and a divider to boot. Disagree with Obama, and armed with an armful of facts? Sorry, you're just "not credible"
Words and phrases like that are usually a wink to the radical base and an instruction to the liberal media on how to proceed with the talking points. Seems to me like those "scare quotes" are a "wee" bit of backlash from the rank and file in the MSM.
"Scared" yet, Baracky, of losing the last of your diehards? If you're as smart as everyone claims you are, you ought to be...
Ah, the good old days: When the only word that the media put in scare quotes was "terrorism", as its way of mocking the Bush administration's fight against radical Islam.
Check out the scare quotes that jumped out at me this morning:
Obama again tackles "myths" on healthcare reform
Obama calls for 'honest debate' on health care
Seems to me that these articles are questioning whether those "myths" are in fact that, or perhaps more akin to "truths". And in the same vein, if "honest debate" is in scare quotes, are we seeing a feeling from the media that Obama's portion of the debate has been less than truthful?
Seems like the media is getting wise to Obama's play on words, like these:
"As every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called death panels — an offensive notion to me and to the American people," Obama said. "These are phony claims meant to divide us."
So if you claim there are death panels - which are actually used today by the VA, re-instated under Obama (as well as in Canada), you are simply "not credible". Sarah Palin, thus becomes "not credible", and a divider to boot. Disagree with Obama, and armed with an armful of facts? Sorry, you're just "not credible"
Words and phrases like that are usually a wink to the radical base and an instruction to the liberal media on how to proceed with the talking points. Seems to me like those "scare quotes" are a "wee" bit of backlash from the rank and file in the MSM.
"Scared" yet, Baracky, of losing the last of your diehards? If you're as smart as everyone claims you are, you ought to be...
Friday, August 21, 2009
Just How Many Race Cards Are In This Marked Deck ??
Now it's New York Governor Patterson (unelected, promoted into the position when Democrat Elliot Spitzer was busted with his panties down) whining that his 30% approval rating is not due to the miserable job he's doing, it's because of the color of his skin! And just look; Whitey is doing it to everybody:
Paterson alleged he and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick - both of whom are the first African Americans to hold their respective positions and are tanking in the polls - are being treated unfairly by the media due to the color of their skin.
The governor said he thinks the same thing is happening to the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, who also seen his approval rating drop due to his controversial efforts to overhaul the health care system.
"This state is not in the trouble that Michigan is in, Pennsylvania is in and Massachusetts is in, but you don’t see in those other states this crescendo about getting rid of the governor just because we’re in a recession," Paterson told Louis this morning on AM 1600 WWRL.
"And I submit that the same kind of treatment that Deval Patrick is receiving right now in Massachusetts, and I’m receiving; the way in which the New York State Senate was written about, calling them a bunch of people with thick necks - they’re talking about Malcolm Smith and John Sampson - that we’re not in the post-racial period."
"And the reality is that the next victim on the list - and you see it coming - is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than try to reform a health care system that’s now 10 percent of GDP and will be 20 percent of GDP in the next four years only because he’s trying to make change."
Golly, where do I begin? Maybe with pointing out another thing that Paterson, Patrick, and Obama have in common - they are all hard-core liberals at a time when there is a tremendous backlash against that governing philosophy. Obama's approval ratings have dropped 20 points since inauguration; did 20% of the American people become racist after voting for him to be their leader?
Not to mention this Triumvirate from Hell are all Democrats, a party affiliation that is more associated now with socialism than freedom. Think that's got something to do with it?
And what about Governor Arnold? He's not getting love letters from the population either...must be because he's an immigrant, right?
New York baseball fans will remember the remark made by then-Mets manager Willie Randolph, who, when asked if he thought he was being picked on by the media:
As for why Joe Torre's calmness in the dugout was praised as a virtue while he's vilified when not ejected, Randolph had said: "Is it racial? Huh. It smells a little bit."
Hey Willie: If you had won more games, you would have kept your job. It's called performance, and it is all that matters.
Hey Governor Paterson: If you run the state better, you will be able to keep your job. It's called perfromance, and it is all that matters.
For all Democrats who are blaming their electoral woes on racism: Your employers will decide this November or next whether or not you keep your jobs. Perhaps you should concentrate on performance, rather than claiming victimization. Performance is all that matters.
Just ask Jackie Robinson.
Paterson alleged he and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick - both of whom are the first African Americans to hold their respective positions and are tanking in the polls - are being treated unfairly by the media due to the color of their skin.
The governor said he thinks the same thing is happening to the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, who also seen his approval rating drop due to his controversial efforts to overhaul the health care system.
"This state is not in the trouble that Michigan is in, Pennsylvania is in and Massachusetts is in, but you don’t see in those other states this crescendo about getting rid of the governor just because we’re in a recession," Paterson told Louis this morning on AM 1600 WWRL.
"And I submit that the same kind of treatment that Deval Patrick is receiving right now in Massachusetts, and I’m receiving; the way in which the New York State Senate was written about, calling them a bunch of people with thick necks - they’re talking about Malcolm Smith and John Sampson - that we’re not in the post-racial period."
"And the reality is that the next victim on the list - and you see it coming - is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than try to reform a health care system that’s now 10 percent of GDP and will be 20 percent of GDP in the next four years only because he’s trying to make change."
Golly, where do I begin? Maybe with pointing out another thing that Paterson, Patrick, and Obama have in common - they are all hard-core liberals at a time when there is a tremendous backlash against that governing philosophy. Obama's approval ratings have dropped 20 points since inauguration; did 20% of the American people become racist after voting for him to be their leader?
Not to mention this Triumvirate from Hell are all Democrats, a party affiliation that is more associated now with socialism than freedom. Think that's got something to do with it?
And what about Governor Arnold? He's not getting love letters from the population either...must be because he's an immigrant, right?
New York baseball fans will remember the remark made by then-Mets manager Willie Randolph, who, when asked if he thought he was being picked on by the media:
As for why Joe Torre's calmness in the dugout was praised as a virtue while he's vilified when not ejected, Randolph had said: "Is it racial? Huh. It smells a little bit."
Hey Willie: If you had won more games, you would have kept your job. It's called performance, and it is all that matters.
Hey Governor Paterson: If you run the state better, you will be able to keep your job. It's called perfromance, and it is all that matters.
For all Democrats who are blaming their electoral woes on racism: Your employers will decide this November or next whether or not you keep your jobs. Perhaps you should concentrate on performance, rather than claiming victimization. Performance is all that matters.
Just ask Jackie Robinson.
Obama's Poll Crash: Blame Republicans and Stupid Citizens!
Seems like the American people have just about had enough of our transformative god-like Change-Master; now we just have to figure out a way to limit the damage over the next three-plus years:
Among all Americans, 49 percent now express confidence that Obama will make the right decisions for the country, down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency. Forty-nine percent now say they think he will be able to spearhead significant improvements in the system, down nearly 20 percentage points from before he took office.
As challenges to Obama's initiatives have mounted over the summer, pessimism in the nation's direction has risen: Fifty-five percent see things as pretty seriously on the wrong track, up from 48 percent in April.
Disapproval of Obama's handling of the health-care issue reached 50 percent in the new poll, the highest of his presidency, and 42 percent of those surveyed say they now "strongly disapprove" of the way he is dealing with his main domestic priority. Views of the president's actions on reform have dropped most sharply among seniors and independents.
Seems like some of the best and brightest in the polling business see this as easily translating to a Democratic party meltdown:
Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.
Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.
"These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
Paul Krugman suggests it's because Obama and the Democrats are being too tolerant of the opposition. Gee, calling them un-American Nazis wasn't enough for Pauli K.? Want does he want for Republicans, internment camps? And will that swing the electorate back to Barack Obama?
Well, it seems as if Obama is toeing Krugman's line:
President Obama took to the conservative airwaves Thursday to charge that Republican leaders are engaged in a vast right-wing conspiracy to kill health care reform in order to repeat the 1994 mid-term takeover of Congress, which followed the defeat of President Clinton's reform plan.
Or maybe Obama can win back the love of the nation by intensifying his elitist disdain:
The Obama team is saddled with a foundering health- care strategy. But it has a fallback plan -- relying on the sheer dimwitted gullibility of the American public. How stupid do they think we are?
We're not. And that, for Obama and the Democrats, is the crux of their problems...
Among all Americans, 49 percent now express confidence that Obama will make the right decisions for the country, down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency. Forty-nine percent now say they think he will be able to spearhead significant improvements in the system, down nearly 20 percentage points from before he took office.
As challenges to Obama's initiatives have mounted over the summer, pessimism in the nation's direction has risen: Fifty-five percent see things as pretty seriously on the wrong track, up from 48 percent in April.
Disapproval of Obama's handling of the health-care issue reached 50 percent in the new poll, the highest of his presidency, and 42 percent of those surveyed say they now "strongly disapprove" of the way he is dealing with his main domestic priority. Views of the president's actions on reform have dropped most sharply among seniors and independents.
Seems like some of the best and brightest in the polling business see this as easily translating to a Democratic party meltdown:
Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.
Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.
"These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
Paul Krugman suggests it's because Obama and the Democrats are being too tolerant of the opposition. Gee, calling them un-American Nazis wasn't enough for Pauli K.? Want does he want for Republicans, internment camps? And will that swing the electorate back to Barack Obama?
Well, it seems as if Obama is toeing Krugman's line:
President Obama took to the conservative airwaves Thursday to charge that Republican leaders are engaged in a vast right-wing conspiracy to kill health care reform in order to repeat the 1994 mid-term takeover of Congress, which followed the defeat of President Clinton's reform plan.
Or maybe Obama can win back the love of the nation by intensifying his elitist disdain:
The Obama team is saddled with a foundering health- care strategy. But it has a fallback plan -- relying on the sheer dimwitted gullibility of the American public. How stupid do they think we are?
We're not. And that, for Obama and the Democrats, is the crux of their problems...
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Obama Sends a Message To The Jews...
Well, just because 75% of them voted for you, you can't take them for granted, right? You gotta keep them in line!
So Obama held a conference call for close to 1000 influential Reform (aka liberal) rabbis from across America. In it, he pretty much gave them their marching orders for the High Holy days, coming up next month. In fact, the invitation read as follows:
This call can provide valuable information when you decide to preach on this issue whether on the High Holy Days, during the August 28-30 national health care sermon weekend, or whenever is appropriate for you.
When, not if. Sounds like an order to me. From a participant:
Pres Obama urged us explicitly to discuss healthcare reform in our high holiday sermons.
And if not? Well, Obama left no doubt about what could happen if the Jews should somehow defy him, or choose to support another leader:
...the hold music on the line...was “Deutschland Über Alles.” A number of rabbis apparently expressed discomfort with this choice of music as well.
No sh*t? Really? The German national anthem, beloved by the Nazis for its opening line "Germany, Germany above all, Above all in the world...". A song sung loud by the SS as they herded Jewish women and children into cattle cars to meet an ungodly fate . A song that still creates visions of "Sieg Heil-ing" Nazis.
Yes, that is the song Obama played for the rabbis while on hold.
Accident? Coincidence? Not if I take the liberals at their word that every move by Barack Obama is a calculated act of genius.
Will the rabbis extort their congregation to fall into line behind Obama, as he leads them and the nation of Israel to a 21st century holocaust?
Looks like we are going to see a very interesting holiday this year....
So Obama held a conference call for close to 1000 influential Reform (aka liberal) rabbis from across America. In it, he pretty much gave them their marching orders for the High Holy days, coming up next month. In fact, the invitation read as follows:
This call can provide valuable information when you decide to preach on this issue whether on the High Holy Days, during the August 28-30 national health care sermon weekend, or whenever is appropriate for you.
When, not if. Sounds like an order to me. From a participant:
Pres Obama urged us explicitly to discuss healthcare reform in our high holiday sermons.
And if not? Well, Obama left no doubt about what could happen if the Jews should somehow defy him, or choose to support another leader:
...the hold music on the line...was “Deutschland Über Alles.” A number of rabbis apparently expressed discomfort with this choice of music as well.
No sh*t? Really? The German national anthem, beloved by the Nazis for its opening line "Germany, Germany above all, Above all in the world...". A song sung loud by the SS as they herded Jewish women and children into cattle cars to meet an ungodly fate . A song that still creates visions of "Sieg Heil-ing" Nazis.
Yes, that is the song Obama played for the rabbis while on hold.
Accident? Coincidence? Not if I take the liberals at their word that every move by Barack Obama is a calculated act of genius.
Will the rabbis extort their congregation to fall into line behind Obama, as he leads them and the nation of Israel to a 21st century holocaust?
Looks like we are going to see a very interesting holiday this year....
Michael Moore: Americans Suck !
So that fat, slovenly filmmaker whose girth would be made illegal should his beloved ObamaCare become law speaks to the Hollywood Reporter, and affirms his loathing for the American people the way only a liberal can (or perhaps an Islamic terrorist):
THR: Bill Maher recently said that "America is stupid" and "too dumb to be governed." Do you agree?
Moore: Eight years ago I wrote a book called "Stupid White Men." In that book, I wrote a chapter entitled "Idiot Nation." I think that says it all. Sad, sad, sad.
THR: Have you ever considered leaving the U.S.?
Moore: Thank you for asking! I had never considered this idea until you mentioned it, and now that you have, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea! I guess if I were going to live outside the U.S., I would live in Texas.
THR: What's the No. 1 thing you want to teach your kids?
Moore: Never trust anyone from Texas.
Any surprise there has been a populist backlash (perhaps even a "popular revolt", as Peter Wehner implies?) against our ruling elites, whom treat honest inquiry as a personal affront, and accuse the populace of stupidity when they refuse to blindly follow along?
Pelosi calls us un-American, Reid calls us evil, Moore calls us stupid, and Obama smirks and says we are "misinformed". Their loathing of American citizens (and their rights) is palpable. But to expect unquestioning obedience from those you abuse?
Well, I hate to overuse the phrase "stupid", but...
THR: Bill Maher recently said that "America is stupid" and "too dumb to be governed." Do you agree?
Moore: Eight years ago I wrote a book called "Stupid White Men." In that book, I wrote a chapter entitled "Idiot Nation." I think that says it all. Sad, sad, sad.
THR: Have you ever considered leaving the U.S.?
Moore: Thank you for asking! I had never considered this idea until you mentioned it, and now that you have, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea! I guess if I were going to live outside the U.S., I would live in Texas.
THR: What's the No. 1 thing you want to teach your kids?
Moore: Never trust anyone from Texas.
Any surprise there has been a populist backlash (perhaps even a "popular revolt", as Peter Wehner implies?) against our ruling elites, whom treat honest inquiry as a personal affront, and accuse the populace of stupidity when they refuse to blindly follow along?
Pelosi calls us un-American, Reid calls us evil, Moore calls us stupid, and Obama smirks and says we are "misinformed". Their loathing of American citizens (and their rights) is palpable. But to expect unquestioning obedience from those you abuse?
Well, I hate to overuse the phrase "stupid", but...
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Under Obamacare, Acorn Will Come To Your House And Weigh You...
No, seriously. It's in the freakin' bill. From CNS:
The health care reform bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) would provide federal grants to state and local governments and a “national network of community-based organizations” to "promote healthy living and reduce disparities" and to monitor people's weight, eating, exercise habits and other individual behaviors that affect health at the community level.
The language instituting the program, entitled "Community Transformation Grants," is on pages 382-387 of the bill as posted on the committee's Web site.
The bill states that only three types of entities will be eligible to receive grants under the program:
"a--(A) State government agency;
(B) local government agency; or
(C) national network of community-based organizations."
HELP is the only committee, incidentally, to have voted on the bill. So this is language they supposedly read, and approved.
Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) admits this is an opening for ACORN:
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said that it is possible that the controversial group ACORN could qualify for the available grants. “I don’t believe so, but they could be,” Dodd told CNSNews.com, in an earlier interview. “I just don’t want to say categorically it’s the case.” “I’m not saying yes or no, I just don’t know. I don’t think it’s a blanket thing that anyone applies necessarily,” he said. “There would have to be criteria by which an organization qualifies to receive those grants".
Uh-huh. And since this group is a favorite of Barack Obama, is there any doubt that they would "qualify" to engage in this type of "health enforcement" ?
And what would fall under ACORN's jurisdiction? Oh, just about every aspect of your life:
"In carrying out subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure--"
(i) decreases in weight;"
(ii) increases in proper nutrition;"
(iii) increases in physical activity;"
(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;"
(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and
(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].”
And what would those "other factors" be? Who knows; but the law is intentionally written as open ended so that just about any future activity can fall under the domain of the HHS Secretary, and ACORN. As we quoted Obama's "pay czar" earlier today, as he wallowed in his unchecked power to interfere in the private sector:
"Anything is possible under the law."
Remember that quote. The next one that will be using it is our HHS Secretary.....
The health care reform bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) would provide federal grants to state and local governments and a “national network of community-based organizations” to "promote healthy living and reduce disparities" and to monitor people's weight, eating, exercise habits and other individual behaviors that affect health at the community level.
The language instituting the program, entitled "Community Transformation Grants," is on pages 382-387 of the bill as posted on the committee's Web site.
The bill states that only three types of entities will be eligible to receive grants under the program:
"a--(A) State government agency;
(B) local government agency; or
(C) national network of community-based organizations."
HELP is the only committee, incidentally, to have voted on the bill. So this is language they supposedly read, and approved.
Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) admits this is an opening for ACORN:
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said that it is possible that the controversial group ACORN could qualify for the available grants. “I don’t believe so, but they could be,” Dodd told CNSNews.com, in an earlier interview. “I just don’t want to say categorically it’s the case.” “I’m not saying yes or no, I just don’t know. I don’t think it’s a blanket thing that anyone applies necessarily,” he said. “There would have to be criteria by which an organization qualifies to receive those grants".
Uh-huh. And since this group is a favorite of Barack Obama, is there any doubt that they would "qualify" to engage in this type of "health enforcement" ?
And what would fall under ACORN's jurisdiction? Oh, just about every aspect of your life:
"In carrying out subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure--"
(i) decreases in weight;"
(ii) increases in proper nutrition;"
(iii) increases in physical activity;"
(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;"
(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and
(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].”
And what would those "other factors" be? Who knows; but the law is intentionally written as open ended so that just about any future activity can fall under the domain of the HHS Secretary, and ACORN. As we quoted Obama's "pay czar" earlier today, as he wallowed in his unchecked power to interfere in the private sector:
"Anything is possible under the law."
Remember that quote. The next one that will be using it is our HHS Secretary.....
Once They're In...
...they never leave, they only take more and more and more....
I'm talking about the government, and about health care, and that's why we'll start with a line from Michelle Malkin's column in the New York Post on "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg:
Regulations governing his office explicitly limit his jurisdiction over contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009. But the fine print is no obstacle to President Obama's czars. "The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final," Feinberg claims. "Anything is possible under the law."
"Anything is possible under the law"
That's a terrifying quote from a government "czar". But maybe he's right, and the law is malleable enough to allow almost any action taken under its pretext to be allowable.
Government without limits. And they wonder why the American people are so opposed to "Obamacare"? They don't believe his lies that we'll be able to keep our healthcare, that the public option will not crowd out private insurance, and that there won't be panels rationing care to the sick and elderly.
And why should they believe? There is no true health care bill yet; Obama is just looking for public support so that he can rubber-stamp whatever monstrosity emerges from the mediocre minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And do we really believe the prince and princess of America's far-Left will craft a bill that does not include the heavy hand of government bureaucracy?
Of course they will. And once they believe the public is behind them, the amorphous health-care bill will have so many czars and commissars and panels and commissioners that there will be a hundred government hands touching every aspect of your life.
And there will be law covering each one of them. And to paraphrase our Obama's pay czar, "anything will be possible [under] those laws".
The key is not to even let the government through the front door; 'cause once they're in, they'll never, ever leave. That's is the fierce urgency of the battle that is being fought right now, between an reluctant American people and their so-called representatives, and media.
If the government wins, we the people will never recapture what it is we lost.
I'm talking about the government, and about health care, and that's why we'll start with a line from Michelle Malkin's column in the New York Post on "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg:
Regulations governing his office explicitly limit his jurisdiction over contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009. But the fine print is no obstacle to President Obama's czars. "The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final," Feinberg claims. "Anything is possible under the law."
"Anything is possible under the law"
That's a terrifying quote from a government "czar". But maybe he's right, and the law is malleable enough to allow almost any action taken under its pretext to be allowable.
Government without limits. And they wonder why the American people are so opposed to "Obamacare"? They don't believe his lies that we'll be able to keep our healthcare, that the public option will not crowd out private insurance, and that there won't be panels rationing care to the sick and elderly.
And why should they believe? There is no true health care bill yet; Obama is just looking for public support so that he can rubber-stamp whatever monstrosity emerges from the mediocre minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And do we really believe the prince and princess of America's far-Left will craft a bill that does not include the heavy hand of government bureaucracy?
Of course they will. And once they believe the public is behind them, the amorphous health-care bill will have so many czars and commissars and panels and commissioners that there will be a hundred government hands touching every aspect of your life.
And there will be law covering each one of them. And to paraphrase our Obama's pay czar, "anything will be possible [under] those laws".
The key is not to even let the government through the front door; 'cause once they're in, they'll never, ever leave. That's is the fierce urgency of the battle that is being fought right now, between an reluctant American people and their so-called representatives, and media.
If the government wins, we the people will never recapture what it is we lost.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
AARP Feels A "Side Effect" of Health Care Reform
...thanks to President Obama, our Doctor-in-Chief, who has been trying to ease the jangled nerves of America's senior citizens by assuring them that yes, the AARP has signed on to his vision of heathcare reform (patently untrue, like much of what Obama says, but more on that later). So just wheel yourselves on home, eat your mush, and keep quiet while the grownups figure this all out, OK?
Well, the seniors will not be silenced, and this angry right-wing mob, armed with canes, walkers, and hearing aids is taking out its rage on the AARP for shortening their lives in exchange for a seat at Obama's table:
CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care.
Last week, Obama told a town meeting in Portsmouth, NH, "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." The AARP called the President's statements "inaccurate," saying it hasn't endorsed any plan or bill.
Well, it seems like Obama's penchant for lies to bolster his cause has had a positive effect for conservatives - it seems as if many of these 60,000 folks who ditched the AARP have taken up with the more conservative-leaning American Seniors Association:
Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative ...Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came. Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards. "I think that probably the seniors are most upset with cuts in Medicare," said ASA President Stuart Barton.
The American Seniors Association is flat-out against President Obama's plan, which calls for $313 billion dollars in Medicare cuts over ten years....
Maybe seniors are most upset with the contents of this very ugly video (yes, they know how to operate a computer, Baracky), in which AARP flacks pull the plug on a membership meeting when some senior citizens had the temerity to question the group's heath care talking points:
Either way, it's good to see Barack Obama putting his much-famed skill for community organizing to work for the Right, for a change. His government takeover of American public life, combined with his less-than-smooth lying about it, has created a conservative up-swell that Republican activists couldn't inspire on their best day.
Keep it up, Baracky - today health care, tomorrow redefining marriage - and we'll finally get to see change we can believe in: A conservative majority that could last a generation.
Well, the seniors will not be silenced, and this angry right-wing mob, armed with canes, walkers, and hearing aids is taking out its rage on the AARP for shortening their lives in exchange for a seat at Obama's table:
CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care.
Last week, Obama told a town meeting in Portsmouth, NH, "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." The AARP called the President's statements "inaccurate," saying it hasn't endorsed any plan or bill.
Well, it seems like Obama's penchant for lies to bolster his cause has had a positive effect for conservatives - it seems as if many of these 60,000 folks who ditched the AARP have taken up with the more conservative-leaning American Seniors Association:
Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative ...Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came. Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards. "I think that probably the seniors are most upset with cuts in Medicare," said ASA President Stuart Barton.
The American Seniors Association is flat-out against President Obama's plan, which calls for $313 billion dollars in Medicare cuts over ten years....
Maybe seniors are most upset with the contents of this very ugly video (yes, they know how to operate a computer, Baracky), in which AARP flacks pull the plug on a membership meeting when some senior citizens had the temerity to question the group's heath care talking points:
Either way, it's good to see Barack Obama putting his much-famed skill for community organizing to work for the Right, for a change. His government takeover of American public life, combined with his less-than-smooth lying about it, has created a conservative up-swell that Republican activists couldn't inspire on their best day.
Keep it up, Baracky - today health care, tomorrow redefining marriage - and we'll finally get to see change we can believe in: A conservative majority that could last a generation.
Government Botches Swine Flu Vaccination
But that's OK. Once they take over complete control of the American health-care system, it'll be run better than private industry ever could. Really. Trust us.
Right:
...only about a third of the vaccine ordered up to stave off the H1N1 Swine Flu will be ready at the beginning of flu season. The U.S. government is planning on ramping up a mass vaccination in mid October. It will be voluntary but school age children, pregnant women and those with health issues will be highly encouraged to become vaccinated.
Originally the plan was to have 120 million doses of the new vaccine ready for flu season. Now, it is expected that there will be 45 million doses ready. Another 20 million doses will be available each week after that. This vaccination will be separate from the regular flu vaccine offered each year.
Not even close to what we allegedly need:
In July, U.S. advisers said about half the U.S. population, or 160 million people, should get vaccinated against the new pandemic influenza strain, with pregnant women and healthcare workers at the front of the line.
So I am sure that the vaccines, once they arrive, will be properly "rationed" out. Children first, and rightly so. Then the elderly? Who can say?
Failure, then rationing - shortly to be followed by excuses and recriminations over the dead.
But don't complain about it - that's un-American. Just lay down and die, like a good socialist...
Right:
...only about a third of the vaccine ordered up to stave off the H1N1 Swine Flu will be ready at the beginning of flu season. The U.S. government is planning on ramping up a mass vaccination in mid October. It will be voluntary but school age children, pregnant women and those with health issues will be highly encouraged to become vaccinated.
Originally the plan was to have 120 million doses of the new vaccine ready for flu season. Now, it is expected that there will be 45 million doses ready. Another 20 million doses will be available each week after that. This vaccination will be separate from the regular flu vaccine offered each year.
Not even close to what we allegedly need:
In July, U.S. advisers said about half the U.S. population, or 160 million people, should get vaccinated against the new pandemic influenza strain, with pregnant women and healthcare workers at the front of the line.
So I am sure that the vaccines, once they arrive, will be properly "rationed" out. Children first, and rightly so. Then the elderly? Who can say?
Failure, then rationing - shortly to be followed by excuses and recriminations over the dead.
But don't complain about it - that's un-American. Just lay down and die, like a good socialist...
Monday, August 17, 2009
Michelle Obama: Hillary Clinton Redux?
I came across this little piece in The Corner, and thought it worth sharing. Starts out with a quote from a June article in the Washington Post:
For weeks, Michelle Obama had been telling her staff and closest confidantes that she wasn't having the impact she wanted. She is a woman of substance, with a background in law, public policy and management, who found herself relegated to role model in chief.
..and a women who - by her own admission - loathed her country until it prostrated itself before her and her husband. Now that her hubby's approval ratings are south of 50% across the board, methinks her disdain for her fellow Americans is resurfacing with a vengeance.
Anyway - Benjamin Zycher takes Michelle Obama down a peg -at least:
Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin color?
Ouch. But perhaps, if we really want to see the whole concept of socialized medicine discredited and removed from the national conversation (and I do), we should encourage involvement by Michelle O. Just think of the fawning media, crediting her as an invaluable source of health care wisdom because she's an Ivy-League educated mother of two who got a $300K job at a hospital after her husband became senator. Imagine how well that would play in the red states, in the purple counties, and with the middle class at large.
I remember when Hillary first hit the scene - she too had too much "substance" to be a bit player - as the doyenne of heath care reform. Shocked, she was (as much of the liberal/feminist establishment was) that the American people would not take the word of this (obviously) brilliant woman and accept her "prescription for America" without question.
Are the Dems dumb enough to re-stage this play? Do they think their cries of "racism" will trump the claims of misogyny that preceded Hillary's spectacular crash? Are they really this stupid?
In a word - yes. And Michelle is vain and egotistical enough to believe she can pull it off.
Good luck with that. I'm looking forward to how well your elitist sneer will play on the 6PM news...
For weeks, Michelle Obama had been telling her staff and closest confidantes that she wasn't having the impact she wanted. She is a woman of substance, with a background in law, public policy and management, who found herself relegated to role model in chief.
..and a women who - by her own admission - loathed her country until it prostrated itself before her and her husband. Now that her hubby's approval ratings are south of 50% across the board, methinks her disdain for her fellow Americans is resurfacing with a vengeance.
Anyway - Benjamin Zycher takes Michelle Obama down a peg -at least:
Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin color?
Ouch. But perhaps, if we really want to see the whole concept of socialized medicine discredited and removed from the national conversation (and I do), we should encourage involvement by Michelle O. Just think of the fawning media, crediting her as an invaluable source of health care wisdom because she's an Ivy-League educated mother of two who got a $300K job at a hospital after her husband became senator. Imagine how well that would play in the red states, in the purple counties, and with the middle class at large.
I remember when Hillary first hit the scene - she too had too much "substance" to be a bit player - as the doyenne of heath care reform. Shocked, she was (as much of the liberal/feminist establishment was) that the American people would not take the word of this (obviously) brilliant woman and accept her "prescription for America" without question.
Are the Dems dumb enough to re-stage this play? Do they think their cries of "racism" will trump the claims of misogyny that preceded Hillary's spectacular crash? Are they really this stupid?
In a word - yes. And Michelle is vain and egotistical enough to believe she can pull it off.
Good luck with that. I'm looking forward to how well your elitist sneer will play on the 6PM news...
Anti-Semitism on the New Jersey Bench
Ah, those wacky progressives that make up the judicial elite in New Jersey -when they are not getting themselves double-digit salary increases in a state that's about to go bankrupt, and when they are not foisting gay marriage upon a state that's overwhelmingly opposed, they're doing a little Jew-bashing during their sidebars:
....the state Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has filed a formal complaint against Superior Court Judge William Wertheimer of Union County who made a joking reference to a 1930-era Nazi organization that operated in The Garden State.
According to the complaint, in April a plaintiff’s lawyer, William Gold said he needed to leave early because it was the first night of Passover and he was attending a Seder. In a sidebar but with the jury present, Wertheimer reportedly asked the attorneys if he should tell the jury the trial would end early that day so one of both lawyers could attend a “Bund meeting.” That’s a reference to a 1930s anti-Semtic group that promoted Hitler. The next day the judge apolologize to Gold, saying he was talking to the defendant’s lawyer.
The Bund, incidentally, were German-American Nazi support groups that operated quite visibly in New Jersey in the late 1930's:
The German-American Bund, which organized demonstrations in support of the Nazi regime, ran three camps in New Jersey in the 1930s, near Andover, Bloomingdale and Griggstown, according to a 1991 book by the New Jersey Historical Commission. Bund members clashed frequently with the American Legion and Jewish war veterans.”
(See here for an interesting story of an excavation of a Bund camp)
Wonder if it would have been OK if a black lawyer were mocked by a judge, saying he had to go to a Klan meeting...no? Why? Oh, right, only the Jews are fair play in the progressive handbook (and in the highest courts of New Jersey).
Let's see how the "Committee on Judicial Conduct" handles this case. One would think a certain governor in a state with a decent-sized Jewish community would feel the need to address this, but...party ties are thicker than race crimes, I reckon.
Would not want to be a Jew in front of Judge Wertheimer, though. Welcome to the People's State of New Jersey....
....the state Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has filed a formal complaint against Superior Court Judge William Wertheimer of Union County who made a joking reference to a 1930-era Nazi organization that operated in The Garden State.
According to the complaint, in April a plaintiff’s lawyer, William Gold said he needed to leave early because it was the first night of Passover and he was attending a Seder. In a sidebar but with the jury present, Wertheimer reportedly asked the attorneys if he should tell the jury the trial would end early that day so one of both lawyers could attend a “Bund meeting.” That’s a reference to a 1930s anti-Semtic group that promoted Hitler. The next day the judge apolologize to Gold, saying he was talking to the defendant’s lawyer.
The Bund, incidentally, were German-American Nazi support groups that operated quite visibly in New Jersey in the late 1930's:
The German-American Bund, which organized demonstrations in support of the Nazi regime, ran three camps in New Jersey in the 1930s, near Andover, Bloomingdale and Griggstown, according to a 1991 book by the New Jersey Historical Commission. Bund members clashed frequently with the American Legion and Jewish war veterans.”
(See here for an interesting story of an excavation of a Bund camp)
Wonder if it would have been OK if a black lawyer were mocked by a judge, saying he had to go to a Klan meeting...no? Why? Oh, right, only the Jews are fair play in the progressive handbook (and in the highest courts of New Jersey).
Let's see how the "Committee on Judicial Conduct" handles this case. One would think a certain governor in a state with a decent-sized Jewish community would feel the need to address this, but...party ties are thicker than race crimes, I reckon.
Would not want to be a Jew in front of Judge Wertheimer, though. Welcome to the People's State of New Jersey....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)