The Liberals-Progressives-Socialists-Leftists Democrats (whatever name they are hiding behind) are trying to divert attention from the corruption in passing ObamaCare and the government destroying of private health care. Obama and his cronies in the media and in Congress are whining about some phony charges of Republicans and Tea Party members inciting violence. This diversion is the usual trick used by Leftists; instead of answering factual objections to ObamaCare, the Leftists change the subject and resort to name calling. With this tactic, the Leftists don't have to do any actual thinking and don't have to deviate from their standard talking points which avoid the truth and are much easier to just parrot.
Here are some real issues that Obama and his puppets never address:
1. The Democratic Senate modifications to the Democratic ObamaCare have further increased the tax hikes to $620 billion and the Medicare cuts to $530 billion over ten years. Obama has never addressed the "double counting" of savings brought to light by Rep Paul Ryan or the decline in care that must occur with Medicare cuts of that magnitude.
2. ObamaCare only gives token attention to the $50 to $60 billion per year in Medicare and Medicaid fraud; which would be $500 to 600 billion cost cutting. Why hire 16,000 agents to go after that fraud instead of looking for those that don't want to buy insurance.
3. ObamaCare still has no allowance for buying health insurance across state lines; so while Obama demagogues about the insurance companies, he secretly is helping them by limiting competition; the result will be premium rate hikes for everyone.
4. ObamaCare has no provisions for meaningful tort reform; the outrageous lawsuit awards some get are only the tip of the iceberg in cost. The big savings would be from reducing unnecessary expensive defensive tests ordered by most doctors and hospitals
5. Remember the pledge for no tax increases on those making less than $200,000 per year? Well ObamaCare alone has the following taxes that hit about 72 million who are making less than $200,000/year.
-A tax of 2.9% on medical devices, conveniently starting in 2013 after the next presidential election.
-A tax amounting to $4.8 billion per year on prescription drugs starting in 2011 when full impact will not be understood until after the next presidential election.
-A tax on health insurance starting in 2014 amounting to $9 billion per year and increasing in 2017 to $10 billion per year; if paid by insurance companies this will be passed along to all insurance policy premiums. Again, conveniently starts after the next presidential election.
-A tax on so-called "Cadillac" policies of 40% over some threshold premium amount; so if you have a great private policy you will be taxed. If the employer agrees to pay this, then it will be passed along to affect raises, bonuses and hiring.
-A reduction in the allowable deduction for medical expenses by raising the threshold for deductions from the current 7.5% of your adjusted Gross Income to 10%' so if you have some unusually high medical expenses you get penalized in deducting the expenses from your income tax no matter what your income level.
-A tax on employers who provide health insurance of $3000 per employee who qualifies as from a"low income family". This will discourage hiring of people from "low income families" or affect wages and other benefits or encourage employers to not provide insurance and simply pay the fine.
-6. Obama claims this is not a takeover of the health industry, but ObamaCare creates 58 government bureaus or agencies and hires 16,000 new IRS investigators; this sure smells like a government takeover.
It's obvious that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Democratic leadership has lied and most of the media and hard core Democratic voters are playing along.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Obama Heightens Tensions with Israel by One More Lie
Here are the facts! Obama knows them. Hillary knows them! Biden knows them! But the three of them, along with much of the liberal media act deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to Israel, so they ignore or lie about the facts in order to pander to the "third World Nations that comprise the Arab League and the Islamic Nations League.
If the Arabs had accepted the 1947 partition to create a Palestinian State and a Jewish State, THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS PALESTINIAN REFUGEES. Instead 5 Arab nations (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon chose to go to invade Israel in 1948 with the goal of wiping out the new State and the promise of giving all the lands to Arabs.
SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND ARABS LIVING IN ISRAEL CHOSE TO STAY AND THEY AND THEIR DESCENDENTS ARE CITIZENS OF ISRAEL.
The Arabs that fled fell for the same kind of hateful teachings of radical Muslims that led to 9/11 53 years later and to all the other Islamic Terrorists actions throughout the 1990s to this date.
THE EASIEST WAY TO A TRUE PEACE AND A PALESTINIAN COUNTRY IS FOR THE 21 MEMBERS OF THE ARAB LEAGUE TO ACCEPT THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST, RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS A NATION, AND STOP PROMOTING AND AIDING TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL. FROM 1947 TO 2010 THE ARABS WILL NOT TAKE THIS SIMPLE STEP TO PEACE. THEIR INTENT IS OBVIOUS, THEY STILL DREAM OF DESTROYING ISRAEL AS SO OFTEN STATED BY AHMEDINEJAD!
Meanwhile, not a peep ever comes from the Liberals-Progressives-Socialists about the 800,000 Jews who were living in Arab countries and following the various conflicts up through and after the 1967 "Six Day War" these Jews became refugees, abandoning their homes and all property and fleeing these Arab countries to avoid persecution by the Muslim Arabs. Most of these Jewish refugees from Arab countries were welcomed and settled in Israel in stark contrast as to how the Arab countries treated the Palestinian refugees (keeping them in camps and using them for political purposes to this date).
There is a huge difference between West Bank settlements in Israel and building in East Jerusalem. Obama ought to take a break and Google a map of Israel. To label the new housing units in Jerusalem as "settlements" is political rhetoric. These are no more "settlements" than are new apartments in New York City or Dallas, and the Palestinians have no more claim to what gets built in the capital city of Israel than do England about what gets built in New York and Mexico about what gets built in Dallas. Obama, Biden, Clinton all know this, but they jumped on the opportunity to take phony offense at Israel's announcement in order to further pander to Arab nations.
If the Arabs had accepted the 1947 partition to create a Palestinian State and a Jewish State, THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS PALESTINIAN REFUGEES. Instead 5 Arab nations (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon chose to go to invade Israel in 1948 with the goal of wiping out the new State and the promise of giving all the lands to Arabs.
SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND ARABS LIVING IN ISRAEL CHOSE TO STAY AND THEY AND THEIR DESCENDENTS ARE CITIZENS OF ISRAEL.
The Arabs that fled fell for the same kind of hateful teachings of radical Muslims that led to 9/11 53 years later and to all the other Islamic Terrorists actions throughout the 1990s to this date.
THE EASIEST WAY TO A TRUE PEACE AND A PALESTINIAN COUNTRY IS FOR THE 21 MEMBERS OF THE ARAB LEAGUE TO ACCEPT THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST, RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS A NATION, AND STOP PROMOTING AND AIDING TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL. FROM 1947 TO 2010 THE ARABS WILL NOT TAKE THIS SIMPLE STEP TO PEACE. THEIR INTENT IS OBVIOUS, THEY STILL DREAM OF DESTROYING ISRAEL AS SO OFTEN STATED BY AHMEDINEJAD!
Meanwhile, not a peep ever comes from the Liberals-Progressives-Socialists about the 800,000 Jews who were living in Arab countries and following the various conflicts up through and after the 1967 "Six Day War" these Jews became refugees, abandoning their homes and all property and fleeing these Arab countries to avoid persecution by the Muslim Arabs. Most of these Jewish refugees from Arab countries were welcomed and settled in Israel in stark contrast as to how the Arab countries treated the Palestinian refugees (keeping them in camps and using them for political purposes to this date).
There is a huge difference between West Bank settlements in Israel and building in East Jerusalem. Obama ought to take a break and Google a map of Israel. To label the new housing units in Jerusalem as "settlements" is political rhetoric. These are no more "settlements" than are new apartments in New York City or Dallas, and the Palestinians have no more claim to what gets built in the capital city of Israel than do England about what gets built in New York and Mexico about what gets built in Dallas. Obama, Biden, Clinton all know this, but they jumped on the opportunity to take phony offense at Israel's announcement in order to further pander to Arab nations.
Three Principles of Modern Democrats
The three things Democrats have learned in order to govern are:
1. LIE and LIE AGAIN, NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS SINCE MOST PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID OR LAZY TO CHALLENGE YOUR LIES.
2.BRIBE TO GET YOUR WAY, NO MATTER HOW BLATANT OR WHAT THE COST SINCE IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY.
3. THE ALTERNATIVE TO BRIBING IS TO COERCE AND THREATEN USUALLY ABOUT FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR RE-ELECTION.
This is the Chicago Way taken to a NEW LEVEL OF CORRUPTION BY OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES and adopted quickly by Pelosi and Reid.
These THREE PRINCIPLES OF THE LIBERALS were applied very effectively in getting ObamaCare passed and signed into law. We can expect Obama-Pelosi-Reid to continue to use these three principles until they are voted out of power.
Americans, not just conservatives, have usually gotten angry in the face of corruption, bribery, lies by public officials and anyone (especially government) taking away their independence and freedom to make decisions and increasing taxes.
ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO US BY OBAMA AND HIS CHICAGO STYLE THUGS.
THIS IS THE ROOT OF THE ANGER AT OBAMA, PELOSI, REID AND OTHERS AND AT OBAMACARE.
IS THIS ANGER JUST FROM CONSERVATIVES? THE POLLS SEEM TO SHOW THAT THE ANGER AND DISTRUST IS MUCH MORE BROAD THAN JUST FROM CONSERVATIVES AND IT IS DESERVEDLY AT MORE THAN JUST OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS. WHILE OBAMA HAS EARNED THE ANGER AND DISTRUST, IT EXTENDS TO THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO ABANDONED THEIR PRINCIPLES UNDER BUSH.
WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 2010 AND 2012 ELECTIONS TO FIND OUT.
1. LIE and LIE AGAIN, NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS SINCE MOST PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID OR LAZY TO CHALLENGE YOUR LIES.
2.BRIBE TO GET YOUR WAY, NO MATTER HOW BLATANT OR WHAT THE COST SINCE IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY.
3. THE ALTERNATIVE TO BRIBING IS TO COERCE AND THREATEN USUALLY ABOUT FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR RE-ELECTION.
This is the Chicago Way taken to a NEW LEVEL OF CORRUPTION BY OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES and adopted quickly by Pelosi and Reid.
These THREE PRINCIPLES OF THE LIBERALS were applied very effectively in getting ObamaCare passed and signed into law. We can expect Obama-Pelosi-Reid to continue to use these three principles until they are voted out of power.
Americans, not just conservatives, have usually gotten angry in the face of corruption, bribery, lies by public officials and anyone (especially government) taking away their independence and freedom to make decisions and increasing taxes.
ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO US BY OBAMA AND HIS CHICAGO STYLE THUGS.
THIS IS THE ROOT OF THE ANGER AT OBAMA, PELOSI, REID AND OTHERS AND AT OBAMACARE.
IS THIS ANGER JUST FROM CONSERVATIVES? THE POLLS SEEM TO SHOW THAT THE ANGER AND DISTRUST IS MUCH MORE BROAD THAN JUST FROM CONSERVATIVES AND IT IS DESERVEDLY AT MORE THAN JUST OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS. WHILE OBAMA HAS EARNED THE ANGER AND DISTRUST, IT EXTENDS TO THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO ABANDONED THEIR PRINCIPLES UNDER BUSH.
WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 2010 AND 2012 ELECTIONS TO FIND OUT.
If Obama and the Democrats Really Thought That ObamaCare Would Work, Then...
1. they would not have structured it so the bulk of the supposed "benefits" and the real cost don't kick in until after the next presidential election; how convenient for Obama that most benefits and costs start io 2014;
2. we wouldn't have Rep. Dingle commenting that they have to wait four years for most of the benefits because it takes time to put in the administration to "control the people";
3. Democrats wouldn't respond to specific well documented fallacies in ObamaCare with cries that opponents are "racists" and "extreme right-wingers" who don't care if the poor die.
OBAMACARE IS A CORRUPT DISASTER AND WILL EVENTUALLY BE OVERTURNED OR WILL DEGRADE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND BE A DISASTER FOR OUR ECONOMY FOR GENERATIONS.
2. we wouldn't have Rep. Dingle commenting that they have to wait four years for most of the benefits because it takes time to put in the administration to "control the people";
3. Democrats wouldn't respond to specific well documented fallacies in ObamaCare with cries that opponents are "racists" and "extreme right-wingers" who don't care if the poor die.
OBAMACARE IS A CORRUPT DISASTER AND WILL EVENTUALLY BE OVERTURNED OR WILL DEGRADE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND BE A DISASTER FOR OUR ECONOMY FOR GENERATIONS.
News Flash for Obama and the Liberals: Bush is No Longer The President!
If you listen to Obama, his circle of close advisors, the left-wing of the Democratic Party, The New York Times, NBC and the rest of the liberal media along with the leftists blogs you would think that Obama is still a candidate and Bush-Cheney are still in the White House and the Republicans control Congress. They continue to berate Bush-Cheney for anything and everything that is not working.
Do they think that the public is too disinterested or stupid to not have noticed that Obama is in the White House, and the Democrats had a supermajority in congress for one year and still retain an overwhelming majority?
HERE'S THE NEWS FLASH! WE, THE PUBLIC, KNOW THAT BUSH IS NO LONGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CHENEY IS NO LONGER VP.
It's now March 2010 and Obama is in the White House and the Democrats have been in control for one year and two months.
So, Obama owns all of the past year's corruption, bribery, coercion, threats, government expansion, unemployment over 8%, deal making with big Pharma in ObamaCare, failure to allow healthcare insurance competition across state lines (which would really punish and weed out the bad insurance companies), record smashing $1.6 trillion deficit in one year, incompetent and tax cheat appointees, dozens of lobbyists in the current "no lobbyists" administration, absence of transparency in the legislative process that was supposed to be on C-span, post-partisan leadership that is the most partisan in history, failed policies with Iran and North Korea, double-crossing allies like Israel, Poland, Check Republic, the surge of domestic Islamic Terrorists, pork in the Stimulus bill, failure to prevent huge bonuses to bank executives bailed out by TARP, tens of billions in TARP "loans" to GM, Chrysler and AIG that have no chance of being repaid, pandering to unions with special deals, pandering to trial lawyers on no tort reform, pandering to teachers unions by squeezing out charter schools and, through corruption and ignoring the majority of people, pushing through a disaster of a health care bill which will decrease the quality of care and add trillions to the national debt.
The potential collapse of the United States economy is owned by Obama. The snubbing of England, France, Germany and the entire European Union while favoring dictatorships in South and Central America and in the Middle East and Asia is owned by the would-be Third World Leader Barrack Hussein Obama. The failure to have a coherent realistic energy policy and a direction for energy independence that will not cause huge price and tax increases is owned by Obama.
The "Big Government" takeover of two-thirds of the American auto industry, of the largest insurance company, of the entire health care industry, of the student college loan program are all owned by Obama. While Wall street and the banking industry need better oversight and much more effective enforcement of existing regulations, Obama is trying to bring them under the government fold with very restrictive regulation.
NONE OF THIS IS BUSH, NONE OF THIS IS CHENEY.
THIS IS OBAMA THE FAILURE, THE LIAR, THE SOCIALIST !
Do they think that the public is too disinterested or stupid to not have noticed that Obama is in the White House, and the Democrats had a supermajority in congress for one year and still retain an overwhelming majority?
HERE'S THE NEWS FLASH! WE, THE PUBLIC, KNOW THAT BUSH IS NO LONGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CHENEY IS NO LONGER VP.
It's now March 2010 and Obama is in the White House and the Democrats have been in control for one year and two months.
So, Obama owns all of the past year's corruption, bribery, coercion, threats, government expansion, unemployment over 8%, deal making with big Pharma in ObamaCare, failure to allow healthcare insurance competition across state lines (which would really punish and weed out the bad insurance companies), record smashing $1.6 trillion deficit in one year, incompetent and tax cheat appointees, dozens of lobbyists in the current "no lobbyists" administration, absence of transparency in the legislative process that was supposed to be on C-span, post-partisan leadership that is the most partisan in history, failed policies with Iran and North Korea, double-crossing allies like Israel, Poland, Check Republic, the surge of domestic Islamic Terrorists, pork in the Stimulus bill, failure to prevent huge bonuses to bank executives bailed out by TARP, tens of billions in TARP "loans" to GM, Chrysler and AIG that have no chance of being repaid, pandering to unions with special deals, pandering to trial lawyers on no tort reform, pandering to teachers unions by squeezing out charter schools and, through corruption and ignoring the majority of people, pushing through a disaster of a health care bill which will decrease the quality of care and add trillions to the national debt.
The potential collapse of the United States economy is owned by Obama. The snubbing of England, France, Germany and the entire European Union while favoring dictatorships in South and Central America and in the Middle East and Asia is owned by the would-be Third World Leader Barrack Hussein Obama. The failure to have a coherent realistic energy policy and a direction for energy independence that will not cause huge price and tax increases is owned by Obama.
The "Big Government" takeover of two-thirds of the American auto industry, of the largest insurance company, of the entire health care industry, of the student college loan program are all owned by Obama. While Wall street and the banking industry need better oversight and much more effective enforcement of existing regulations, Obama is trying to bring them under the government fold with very restrictive regulation.
NONE OF THIS IS BUSH, NONE OF THIS IS CHENEY.
THIS IS OBAMA THE FAILURE, THE LIAR, THE SOCIALIST !
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Is Obama at War with America?
Is President Obama At War With America?
By Austin Hill
Mar 21, 2010 Townhall.com
-If a frontal assault on the foundational principals and values of American life can qualify as being “at war” - then yes, Barack Obama is in combat with our country. And while the belligerence of both his administration and his party’s congressional leadership have seemingly created a sense of alarm across the U.S., their apparent disregard for their own self-inflicted political damage is all the more staggering.
-Taking aim at America’s foundations has impacted us both here at home, and abroad. European allies France and England have both made note of our President’s “short shrift” treatment over the past fourteen months, while earlier this month French President Nicolas Sarkozy chastised Obama for his protectionist, anti-free trade policies ( “this is not the right way to behave” Sarkozy told our President). And just last week Vice President Biden took U.S.-Israel relations to a new low point by criticizing the nation on their own soil.
-But domestically, Obama’s greatest offense to American life is fundamentally economic in its nature. And at its root, his assault on our sensibilities is best described in terms that he himself has used to criticize others.
-In a quickly produced campaign commercial back in the Fall of 2008, candidate Obama addressed the then- melting down American financial system, stating that “this crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism, and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary…” At that moment in time, long-standing American financial institutions were being crushed, mostly by their overexposure to sub-prime mortgages, while the stock market was tumbling precipitously.
-Was “cronyism” in the financial system really our problem back then? Arguably it was one of many problems at that time, although Obama’s insinuation that our capitalistic free market economy is “un-regulated” was phony (completely un-regulated capitalism does not exist).
-But today, cronyism is so flagrant and blatant at the highest ranks of our government, that the President and the congress have lost the confidence and the trust of both America’s cultural “right” and “left.” The stunning, “we’ll-stop-at-nothing” fight to take-over the healthcare industry and the medical profession has put Obama-styled cronyism on full display – and therein lies the greatest assault on America.
-The cronyism, however, didn’t begin with the healthcare fight. After taking office, President Obama got to work right away buying-off people who would serve his interests, as he continued the destructive precedent established by George W. Bush and handed over billions of our tax dollars to Chrysler and General Motors. He then established his special “Automotive Task Force,” and appointed as the head of the task force Steve Rattner, a Wall Street investor with no experience in the car business but with lots of experience in raising campaign money for Obama and Democrats.
-When GM and Chrysler ended-up in bankruptcy, President Obama insisted that everybody involved needed to “sacrifice,” yet the only people to experience a loss were the companies’ secured creditors. The Obama Administration used the full power of the White House to force the creditors to accept debt payment of thirty cents on the dollar, and then during the “re-structuring” of the companies managed to have chunks of each corporation “gifted” to the United Auto Workers Union (the UAW currently owns about 17% of GM, and slightly over 50% of Chrysler).
-President Obama had a good reason to provide “gifts” to the UAW – labor union members frequently make great, loyal, campaign foot soldiers for Democrats. And for this reason it was no surprise when President Obama negotiated an exemption from the mandates of his nationalized healthcare plan for UAW members – they already receive healthcare benefits, and it made no sense to entangle into government healthcare a group of people who could be politically beneficial to Barack Obama.
-Then there are the “gifts” to individual members of Congress. The “Louisiana purchase” with Senator Mary Landrieu and the “Cornhusker kickback” happened months ago. Yet all within the last week, we saw Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich go from a “no” to a “yes” vote on Obamacare after his wife was given a job working for Michelle Obama. And the Obama Administration used the power of the Department of the Interior to expand California’s water allocations, in exchange for the votes of on-the-fence Representatives Costa and Cardoza.
-And why, exactly, does the Obamacare agenda require all Americans to buy health insurance? Using the force of government to create more “demand” for their product was a great way for President Obama to garner the political support of the insurance industry.
-Yet at the epicenter of all of this – all the bribes, manipulations, and heavy-handed mandates – is the narrow, political self-interest of one man: Barack Obama. America’s cultural “right” decries the loss of freedom and the rise of abusive government, while the “left” decries a government that lines the pockets of for-profit corporations (companies that are presumed to be “greedy”), all for the benefit of one self-serving politician.
-This is the assault on America’s foundational principals and values. It is the assault of governmental cronyism, on our basic understandings of what is right, and fair.
By Austin Hill
Mar 21, 2010 Townhall.com
-If a frontal assault on the foundational principals and values of American life can qualify as being “at war” - then yes, Barack Obama is in combat with our country. And while the belligerence of both his administration and his party’s congressional leadership have seemingly created a sense of alarm across the U.S., their apparent disregard for their own self-inflicted political damage is all the more staggering.
-Taking aim at America’s foundations has impacted us both here at home, and abroad. European allies France and England have both made note of our President’s “short shrift” treatment over the past fourteen months, while earlier this month French President Nicolas Sarkozy chastised Obama for his protectionist, anti-free trade policies ( “this is not the right way to behave” Sarkozy told our President). And just last week Vice President Biden took U.S.-Israel relations to a new low point by criticizing the nation on their own soil.
-But domestically, Obama’s greatest offense to American life is fundamentally economic in its nature. And at its root, his assault on our sensibilities is best described in terms that he himself has used to criticize others.
-In a quickly produced campaign commercial back in the Fall of 2008, candidate Obama addressed the then- melting down American financial system, stating that “this crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism, and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary…” At that moment in time, long-standing American financial institutions were being crushed, mostly by their overexposure to sub-prime mortgages, while the stock market was tumbling precipitously.
-Was “cronyism” in the financial system really our problem back then? Arguably it was one of many problems at that time, although Obama’s insinuation that our capitalistic free market economy is “un-regulated” was phony (completely un-regulated capitalism does not exist).
-But today, cronyism is so flagrant and blatant at the highest ranks of our government, that the President and the congress have lost the confidence and the trust of both America’s cultural “right” and “left.” The stunning, “we’ll-stop-at-nothing” fight to take-over the healthcare industry and the medical profession has put Obama-styled cronyism on full display – and therein lies the greatest assault on America.
-The cronyism, however, didn’t begin with the healthcare fight. After taking office, President Obama got to work right away buying-off people who would serve his interests, as he continued the destructive precedent established by George W. Bush and handed over billions of our tax dollars to Chrysler and General Motors. He then established his special “Automotive Task Force,” and appointed as the head of the task force Steve Rattner, a Wall Street investor with no experience in the car business but with lots of experience in raising campaign money for Obama and Democrats.
-When GM and Chrysler ended-up in bankruptcy, President Obama insisted that everybody involved needed to “sacrifice,” yet the only people to experience a loss were the companies’ secured creditors. The Obama Administration used the full power of the White House to force the creditors to accept debt payment of thirty cents on the dollar, and then during the “re-structuring” of the companies managed to have chunks of each corporation “gifted” to the United Auto Workers Union (the UAW currently owns about 17% of GM, and slightly over 50% of Chrysler).
-President Obama had a good reason to provide “gifts” to the UAW – labor union members frequently make great, loyal, campaign foot soldiers for Democrats. And for this reason it was no surprise when President Obama negotiated an exemption from the mandates of his nationalized healthcare plan for UAW members – they already receive healthcare benefits, and it made no sense to entangle into government healthcare a group of people who could be politically beneficial to Barack Obama.
-Then there are the “gifts” to individual members of Congress. The “Louisiana purchase” with Senator Mary Landrieu and the “Cornhusker kickback” happened months ago. Yet all within the last week, we saw Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich go from a “no” to a “yes” vote on Obamacare after his wife was given a job working for Michelle Obama. And the Obama Administration used the power of the Department of the Interior to expand California’s water allocations, in exchange for the votes of on-the-fence Representatives Costa and Cardoza.
-And why, exactly, does the Obamacare agenda require all Americans to buy health insurance? Using the force of government to create more “demand” for their product was a great way for President Obama to garner the political support of the insurance industry.
-Yet at the epicenter of all of this – all the bribes, manipulations, and heavy-handed mandates – is the narrow, political self-interest of one man: Barack Obama. America’s cultural “right” decries the loss of freedom and the rise of abusive government, while the “left” decries a government that lines the pockets of for-profit corporations (companies that are presumed to be “greedy”), all for the benefit of one self-serving politician.
-This is the assault on America’s foundational principals and values. It is the assault of governmental cronyism, on our basic understandings of what is right, and fair.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Why Civilian Trials of Islamic Terrorists Can Damage The War on Terror
In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Victoria Toensing (former chief counsel for Senate Intelligence committee) cited four reasons why trying terrorists in civilian courts is dangerous and not applicable post 9/11. Constitutional protections have evolved since WW2 for civilian criminals like bank robbers but were never meant for enemy combatants like the Islamic Terrorists.
1. 1963: the Supreme Court formulated the Brady rule which requires the prosecution to give access to every witness and piece of evidence that might directly or indirectly place into question a witnesses credibility. This can lead to sensitive intelligence information being turned over to the terrorist and passed on to their network like Al Qaeda. The civilian trial of 9/11 hijacker Zacarious Moussaoui dragged on for three-and-a- half years while he demanded access to other captured terrorists. KSM and other captured terrorists are sure to take advantage of the Brady rule.
2. 1975: the supreme Court ruled that defendants in civilian trials have the right to represent themselves. Moussaoui took advantage of this rule and used the court as a platform for spewing his propaganda. KSM and others can demand to represent themselves and use the court for a platform for propaganda.
3. 1980: the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) allows defense attorneys who have security clearance to be given classified documents, but does not allow for a defendant representing himself. So, Moussaoui was demanding such documents. The would have had to dismiss the case or order the documents turned over. In the Moussaoui case, he pleaded guilty before documents were turned over but in the upcoming KSM and other civilian trials, the CIPA can be used to give Al Qaeda access to classified documents.
4. There is a century old "exclusionary rule" which prohibits the prosecution from using credible evidence if the police erred in any way in collecting the evidence. So, a terrorist captured in a foreign land might have physical evidence thrown out if their was no search warrant or if he was not given Miranda warnings or if hearsay evidence was collected in the foreign country.
These protections for civilian criminals would not be available to enemy combatants and war criminals being tried in military courts. In 2008, the Supreme Court sanctioned military commission procedures under the Military Commission Act.
Until 9/11, various administrations were uncertain how to handle terrorists and the United States had not understood that we were at war with Islamic Terrorism. Even after 9/11, there was ambiguity on how to prosecute terrorists, but this has been clarified but the Military Commission Act and now there is absolutely no reason to bring enemy combatants and war criminals to trial in civilian courts except for political pandering to the left-wing and ACLU types in America.
It is insane to think that Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups would change their beliefs about killing Americans and perhaps lay down their arms if they saw that their captured comrades were receiving a "fair" civilian trial rather than a military trial.
1. 1963: the Supreme Court formulated the Brady rule which requires the prosecution to give access to every witness and piece of evidence that might directly or indirectly place into question a witnesses credibility. This can lead to sensitive intelligence information being turned over to the terrorist and passed on to their network like Al Qaeda. The civilian trial of 9/11 hijacker Zacarious Moussaoui dragged on for three-and-a- half years while he demanded access to other captured terrorists. KSM and other captured terrorists are sure to take advantage of the Brady rule.
2. 1975: the supreme Court ruled that defendants in civilian trials have the right to represent themselves. Moussaoui took advantage of this rule and used the court as a platform for spewing his propaganda. KSM and others can demand to represent themselves and use the court for a platform for propaganda.
3. 1980: the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) allows defense attorneys who have security clearance to be given classified documents, but does not allow for a defendant representing himself. So, Moussaoui was demanding such documents. The would have had to dismiss the case or order the documents turned over. In the Moussaoui case, he pleaded guilty before documents were turned over but in the upcoming KSM and other civilian trials, the CIPA can be used to give Al Qaeda access to classified documents.
4. There is a century old "exclusionary rule" which prohibits the prosecution from using credible evidence if the police erred in any way in collecting the evidence. So, a terrorist captured in a foreign land might have physical evidence thrown out if their was no search warrant or if he was not given Miranda warnings or if hearsay evidence was collected in the foreign country.
These protections for civilian criminals would not be available to enemy combatants and war criminals being tried in military courts. In 2008, the Supreme Court sanctioned military commission procedures under the Military Commission Act.
Until 9/11, various administrations were uncertain how to handle terrorists and the United States had not understood that we were at war with Islamic Terrorism. Even after 9/11, there was ambiguity on how to prosecute terrorists, but this has been clarified but the Military Commission Act and now there is absolutely no reason to bring enemy combatants and war criminals to trial in civilian courts except for political pandering to the left-wing and ACLU types in America.
It is insane to think that Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups would change their beliefs about killing Americans and perhaps lay down their arms if they saw that their captured comrades were receiving a "fair" civilian trial rather than a military trial.
Charlie Tax Cheat Replaced The Crooked Adam Clayton Powell
Charlie Rangel got elected to Congress representing a district in upper Manhattan when he ran against the very popular but very crooked Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr who had been exposed in a number of scandals involving bribery and misuse of funds.
Teh voters replaced one crook with another crook.
Rangel saw the same opportunities for bribery, tax evasion and special favors that Adam Clayton Powell embraced, and Rangel took advantage of these opportunities to screw the people of his district and the taxpayers.
The remaining question is whether Rangel will go to prison or at least lose his seat in Congress, as he deserves, or will he somehow slither away under the protection of his Democratic cronies in Congress and in the Justice Dept. and be shielded by protests from the Congressional Black Caucus.
Who knows? Rangel might even be viewed as a hero in his district and get re-elected, as Powell was for many years.
Even though the voters of his district knew he was a crook, the voters were proud that Powell was THEIR CROOK BEATING THE SYSTEM.
Will Charlie Tax Cheat be viewed the same way?
Teh voters replaced one crook with another crook.
Rangel saw the same opportunities for bribery, tax evasion and special favors that Adam Clayton Powell embraced, and Rangel took advantage of these opportunities to screw the people of his district and the taxpayers.
The remaining question is whether Rangel will go to prison or at least lose his seat in Congress, as he deserves, or will he somehow slither away under the protection of his Democratic cronies in Congress and in the Justice Dept. and be shielded by protests from the Congressional Black Caucus.
Who knows? Rangel might even be viewed as a hero in his district and get re-elected, as Powell was for many years.
Even though the voters of his district knew he was a crook, the voters were proud that Powell was THEIR CROOK BEATING THE SYSTEM.
Will Charlie Tax Cheat be viewed the same way?
The Lying Hypocrite. Guess Who.
1. In response to a question on the “nuclear option” (how Democrats in 2005 characterized then-President Bush’s attempts to use reconciliation):“He hasn’t gotten his way…uh…and that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate uh forever and uh what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian uh absolute power on on either side and that’s just not what the Founders intended.”Senator Barack Obama, on 4/26/05,
2.At the National Press Club on April 26, 2005, then-Sen. Barack Obama, was asked about a move being discussed by Senate Republicans, then in control, to change the Senate rules so as to require a mere majority vote rather than the 60 votes necessary to end a potential filibuster. “You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward,” then-Sen. Obama told the audience.
3. "Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes," then-Sen. Barack Obama said in December of 2005.
4. The reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning," Obama said on the Senate floor during a debate over changes to the federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, adding that the use of reconciliation to deal with those changes meant that "A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt."
THE LYING HYPOCRITE
2.At the National Press Club on April 26, 2005, then-Sen. Barack Obama, was asked about a move being discussed by Senate Republicans, then in control, to change the Senate rules so as to require a mere majority vote rather than the 60 votes necessary to end a potential filibuster. “You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward,” then-Sen. Obama told the audience.
3. "Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes," then-Sen. Barack Obama said in December of 2005.
4. The reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning," Obama said on the Senate floor during a debate over changes to the federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, adding that the use of reconciliation to deal with those changes meant that "A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt."
THE LYING HYPOCRITE
Hysteria and Hypocrisy of the Left in Criticizing Liz Cheney
It is apparent that many critics never even heard Liz Cheney's remarks about the "Al-Qaeda Seven" attorneys recently appointed by Eric Holder to the Justice Department. It's unfortunate that Liz Cheney chose to make her points in such a melodramatic way, but the message should not be ignord.
1. Liz Cheney NEVER said that the Islamic terrorists should not have lawyers.
2. She NEVER said that lawyers from Holder's firm or any firm should not give their time pro bono, or with a fee, to defend Al-Qaida terrorists.
3. She DID say that there should be military trials and not civilian trials.
4. She NEVER said that lawyers who defended the Islamic terrorists could not work for the Justice Dept.
5. She DID say that the identity of these lawyers should be made public and their views and values regarding Islamic Terrorism should be questioned and made public because these Justice Department lawyers can influence policy and procedures.
Many Lefties, who are now so offended by Liz Cheney's comments,were outraged when attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee gave legal advice to Dick Cheney about anti-terrorism methods when these two worked for the Justice Department. The Lefties called for the disbarment of Yoo and Bybee.
Evidently, the Lefties (Liberals, Progressives, socialists) believe that it is important and ethical to defend Islamic terrorists, without questioning the views of the attorneys involved, but giving advice on anti-terrorism methods to be used against Islamic Terrorist is cause for disbarment.
1. Liz Cheney NEVER said that the Islamic terrorists should not have lawyers.
2. She NEVER said that lawyers from Holder's firm or any firm should not give their time pro bono, or with a fee, to defend Al-Qaida terrorists.
3. She DID say that there should be military trials and not civilian trials.
4. She NEVER said that lawyers who defended the Islamic terrorists could not work for the Justice Dept.
5. She DID say that the identity of these lawyers should be made public and their views and values regarding Islamic Terrorism should be questioned and made public because these Justice Department lawyers can influence policy and procedures.
Many Lefties, who are now so offended by Liz Cheney's comments,were outraged when attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee gave legal advice to Dick Cheney about anti-terrorism methods when these two worked for the Justice Department. The Lefties called for the disbarment of Yoo and Bybee.
Evidently, the Lefties (Liberals, Progressives, socialists) believe that it is important and ethical to defend Islamic terrorists, without questioning the views of the attorneys involved, but giving advice on anti-terrorism methods to be used against Islamic Terrorist is cause for disbarment.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
What Obama Didn't Tell, or Lied About, in Latest Health Care Bill
Here are aspects and consequences of Obama's revised Senate version of the bill that he introduced Monday, March 1st. This is some of WHAT OBAMA DIDN'T TELL, OR LIED ABOUT, to the American people in the Health Care Summit and in his 120 or so speeches and interviews about ObamaCare.
1. The bill will cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years and the revenue will be $1 trillion. What he doesn't say, lying by omission, is that INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL BE FORCED TO INCREASE to help cover 30 million more people.
2. Half of this $ 1 trillion revenue will be a $500 BILLION CUT IN MEDICARE. There is no amount of double talk that can hide the fact that Seniors will get worse and rationed care. The basic economics for running hospitals and doctors offices will force these outcomes.
3. The other half of the $1 trillion revenue will come from INCREASES IN TAXES, income taxes, capital gains taxes, medical device taxes and certain medical procedures taxes. Only part come from allowing the Bush cuts to expire, the rest is further Obama tax increases.
4. Many of the 30 million added to the rolls AS WELL AS many now having employer insurance or self-insurance will get government subsidized insurance which is covered in part by the Medicare cuts and the increased taxes, but also by an AVERAGE INCREASE IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF $2000 which will fall back on employers and individuals.
5. YOUNG PEOPLE who do not want insurance will be FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE AT ABOUT $8000 per year unless they fall into a low income category so that others wind up paying for them as described above. A PENALTY OF 2.5% OF INCOME will be assessed against those that refuse to buy insurance.
6. Obama's claim that the revenues and expenses will balance over the first ten years is a trick; OBAMA IS COUNTING 10 YEARS OF REVENUE BUT ONLY 6 YEARS OF BENEFITS PAID OUT; no benefits for first four years.
7. AFTER FIRST TEN YEARS OBAMACARE GOES INTO HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING UNLESS TAXES ARE RAISED significantly to cover about $1 trillion OR HEALTH CARE IS FURTHER RATIONED FOR EVERYONE. All this time, premiums are higher than they are now because of the huge government subsidization.
8. Health care will no longer remain in the private sector; the bill CREATES 118 NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. An huge bureaucracy will be sitting on top of, and CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT AND DECISION ABOUT HEALTH CARE while bloating government even further.
9. The CBO scoring of the bill is a fake, it is a shell game that the CBO is forced to follow. The CBO must score a bill with all of the clauses as given to them. Rep. Paul Ryan and others have pointed out many of the false assumptions and phony accounting tricks used by Obama and the Democrats. When the GIMMICKS IN ACCOUNTING are removed, then the best estimates are that the REAL COST of Obama's bill will be $2.3 trillion over a decade. Warren Buffett characterized the bill as a FAILURE because it will not bend the cost curve down.
SEE MY POSTING ON SUNDAY FEBRUARY 28, 2010 WITH REP. PAUL RYAN'S ANALYSIS AND DETAILS OF OBAMA'S ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS.
1. The bill will cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years and the revenue will be $1 trillion. What he doesn't say, lying by omission, is that INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL BE FORCED TO INCREASE to help cover 30 million more people.
2. Half of this $ 1 trillion revenue will be a $500 BILLION CUT IN MEDICARE. There is no amount of double talk that can hide the fact that Seniors will get worse and rationed care. The basic economics for running hospitals and doctors offices will force these outcomes.
3. The other half of the $1 trillion revenue will come from INCREASES IN TAXES, income taxes, capital gains taxes, medical device taxes and certain medical procedures taxes. Only part come from allowing the Bush cuts to expire, the rest is further Obama tax increases.
4. Many of the 30 million added to the rolls AS WELL AS many now having employer insurance or self-insurance will get government subsidized insurance which is covered in part by the Medicare cuts and the increased taxes, but also by an AVERAGE INCREASE IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF $2000 which will fall back on employers and individuals.
5. YOUNG PEOPLE who do not want insurance will be FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE AT ABOUT $8000 per year unless they fall into a low income category so that others wind up paying for them as described above. A PENALTY OF 2.5% OF INCOME will be assessed against those that refuse to buy insurance.
6. Obama's claim that the revenues and expenses will balance over the first ten years is a trick; OBAMA IS COUNTING 10 YEARS OF REVENUE BUT ONLY 6 YEARS OF BENEFITS PAID OUT; no benefits for first four years.
7. AFTER FIRST TEN YEARS OBAMACARE GOES INTO HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING UNLESS TAXES ARE RAISED significantly to cover about $1 trillion OR HEALTH CARE IS FURTHER RATIONED FOR EVERYONE. All this time, premiums are higher than they are now because of the huge government subsidization.
8. Health care will no longer remain in the private sector; the bill CREATES 118 NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. An huge bureaucracy will be sitting on top of, and CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT AND DECISION ABOUT HEALTH CARE while bloating government even further.
9. The CBO scoring of the bill is a fake, it is a shell game that the CBO is forced to follow. The CBO must score a bill with all of the clauses as given to them. Rep. Paul Ryan and others have pointed out many of the false assumptions and phony accounting tricks used by Obama and the Democrats. When the GIMMICKS IN ACCOUNTING are removed, then the best estimates are that the REAL COST of Obama's bill will be $2.3 trillion over a decade. Warren Buffett characterized the bill as a FAILURE because it will not bend the cost curve down.
SEE MY POSTING ON SUNDAY FEBRUARY 28, 2010 WITH REP. PAUL RYAN'S ANALYSIS AND DETAILS OF OBAMA'S ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Obama Tries to Sneak Around SupermajorityRule by Using Reconciliation
Those that say there is no foundation in the Constitution for requiring a "super-majority" are simply ignorant! Super-majorities are not a new idea, they appear in the Constitution with two-thirds of both Houses to propose a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of both Houses to over-ride a president's veto, two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty and three-quarters of state legislatures to adopt a constitutional amendment.
Until 1917 unlimited debate was allowed in the Senate. In 1917, the Senate adopted Rule 22 which stated that two-thirds of theSenate ("SUPERMAJORITY" ) could end a debate ("filibuster"). In 1975 Senate Rule 22 was changed to a three-fifths "supermajority" (sixty votes) could end a debate ("filibuster").
The right for the Senate to create such a rule traces back to the Constitution, Article 1, section 5 which states “Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings.” It was under this constitutional clause that the Senate imposed on itself a "super-majority" rule to end debate. The Senate also set the rule that a majority of 1 is all that is needed to "RECONCILE" budget matters. Obama's modified 2700 page Senate Health Care Reform bill, ("ObamaCare"), is far far from a simple budget matter, it establishes many mandates, agencies, procedures, in fact, an entire national structure for health care involving the government, insurance companies, medical professionals and patients, most of which has nothing to do with approving a budget. So, Obama is trying to ram through ObamaCare by steamrolling over the established constitutional Senate rules and lying that "reconciliation" can be used.
Barack Obama 4/25/05 said: “The President (Bush at the time) hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED".
The Hypocrisy of Obama!
The Framers of the Constitution also recognized the value of super-majority votes. James Madison wrote (in The Federalist papers) that super-majority votes serve as a “shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures.”
Until 1917 unlimited debate was allowed in the Senate. In 1917, the Senate adopted Rule 22 which stated that two-thirds of theSenate ("SUPERMAJORITY" ) could end a debate ("filibuster"). In 1975 Senate Rule 22 was changed to a three-fifths "supermajority" (sixty votes) could end a debate ("filibuster").
The right for the Senate to create such a rule traces back to the Constitution, Article 1, section 5 which states “Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings.” It was under this constitutional clause that the Senate imposed on itself a "super-majority" rule to end debate. The Senate also set the rule that a majority of 1 is all that is needed to "RECONCILE" budget matters. Obama's modified 2700 page Senate Health Care Reform bill, ("ObamaCare"), is far far from a simple budget matter, it establishes many mandates, agencies, procedures, in fact, an entire national structure for health care involving the government, insurance companies, medical professionals and patients, most of which has nothing to do with approving a budget. So, Obama is trying to ram through ObamaCare by steamrolling over the established constitutional Senate rules and lying that "reconciliation" can be used.
Barack Obama 4/25/05 said: “The President (Bush at the time) hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED".
The Hypocrisy of Obama!
The Framers of the Constitution also recognized the value of super-majority votes. James Madison wrote (in The Federalist papers) that super-majority votes serve as a “shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures.”
Obama's Performance at The Health Care Summit Was Revealing
Obama will try to ram through ObamaCare; in his mind it's meant to be the CENTER PIECE OF HIS LEGACY in the overall transforming America. It's what he promised when not enough people were listening.
But now we all know THE REAL OBAMA AS REVEALED IN THE HEALTHCARE SUMMIT with no teleprompters.
Even with lots of preparation, Obama, in the role of "MODERATOR" and seeking "BIPARTISANSHIP" acted CONDESCENDING, ELITIST, DEFENSIVE, ARGUMENTATIVE AND EVASIVE.
Not the kind of leader that anyone would want to work for in business or public service.
At times, OBAMA tried to appear "ACADEMIC" and PHILOSOPHICAL but he HAD FACTS WRONG and LIED by omission and commission.
In the end, we saw the real Obama, a CHICAGO-STYLE politico COERCING, BRIBING, THREATENING, APPEASING SPECIAL INTERESTS, and IGNORANT of, OR simply IGNORING, FACTS.
Just WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT from a spoiled brat who was always told he was the smartest one in the room (but wasn't really), who had his way paid and paved for him, and who was always surrounded and protected by those using him and by sycophants.
Now we know that OBAMA DOESN'T JUST USE TELEPROMPTERS, he hides behind teleprompters; HE NEEDS TELEPROMPTERS to perpetuate that phony "Hope-Change" image
But now we all know THE REAL OBAMA AS REVEALED IN THE HEALTHCARE SUMMIT with no teleprompters.
Even with lots of preparation, Obama, in the role of "MODERATOR" and seeking "BIPARTISANSHIP" acted CONDESCENDING, ELITIST, DEFENSIVE, ARGUMENTATIVE AND EVASIVE.
Not the kind of leader that anyone would want to work for in business or public service.
At times, OBAMA tried to appear "ACADEMIC" and PHILOSOPHICAL but he HAD FACTS WRONG and LIED by omission and commission.
In the end, we saw the real Obama, a CHICAGO-STYLE politico COERCING, BRIBING, THREATENING, APPEASING SPECIAL INTERESTS, and IGNORANT of, OR simply IGNORING, FACTS.
Just WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT from a spoiled brat who was always told he was the smartest one in the room (but wasn't really), who had his way paid and paved for him, and who was always surrounded and protected by those using him and by sycophants.
Now we know that OBAMA DOESN'T JUST USE TELEPROMPTERS, he hides behind teleprompters; HE NEEDS TELEPROMPTERS to perpetuate that phony "Hope-Change" image
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Mind of a Socialist
OBAMA'S PRIMARY MOTIVATION for health care reform is for the government to take control of this segment of the economy, along with education and energy. This is the game plan for all SOCIALIST governments. This will create more government jobs and increase the power of government through controlling the money. This will enable the socialist Obama to reward (bribe) those who give campaign contributions and vote for him while punishing those that oppose him.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to redistribute the cost along lines of ability to pay rather than equal cost for equal health services. Higher taxes ("fees") are to be used for redistribution and for coercion of opponents.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to have everyone get a comparable level of health care no matter how bad that care is, even if this means degrading the overall level of health care.
OBAMA IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT OF EVERY SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to redistribute the cost along lines of ability to pay rather than equal cost for equal health services. Higher taxes ("fees") are to be used for redistribution and for coercion of opponents.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to have everyone get a comparable level of health care no matter how bad that care is, even if this means degrading the overall level of health care.
OBAMA IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT OF EVERY SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.
Truth About Bush's Deficit in Last Year in Office
The often quoted Bush $1.3 trillion deficit is a huge distortion and a quirk of the government budget process; Obama and the Democrats know this but they continue to lie about it anyhow. Many others quote the $1.3 trillion figure out of ignorance.
The truth is that Bush had a real deficit of about $600 billion. THEN THE TARP FUNDS OF $700 BILLION, WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A LOAN NOT SPENDING, WERE ADDED TO THE BUSH BUDGET AS IS THE STANDARD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICE. EVEN THOUGH $500 BILLION HAS BEEN REPAID, THE "BUSH DEFICIT" DOES NOT GET CREDIT FOR THIS. THE $200 BILLION THAT IS NOT BEING REPAID IS PRIMARILY FROM AIG, GM AND CHRYSLER, all of whom who Obama continued to bailout and excuse repayments.
Of course, Obama wants to continue to recycle the TARP funds since he views this as "free money" that was assigned to the Bush deficit. Obama can even absorb other losses with this TARP money and it still will not be assigned to his budget as it rightfully should be.
The truth is that Bush had a real deficit of about $600 billion. THEN THE TARP FUNDS OF $700 BILLION, WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A LOAN NOT SPENDING, WERE ADDED TO THE BUSH BUDGET AS IS THE STANDARD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICE. EVEN THOUGH $500 BILLION HAS BEEN REPAID, THE "BUSH DEFICIT" DOES NOT GET CREDIT FOR THIS. THE $200 BILLION THAT IS NOT BEING REPAID IS PRIMARILY FROM AIG, GM AND CHRYSLER, all of whom who Obama continued to bailout and excuse repayments.
Of course, Obama wants to continue to recycle the TARP funds since he views this as "free money" that was assigned to the Bush deficit. Obama can even absorb other losses with this TARP money and it still will not be assigned to his budget as it rightfully should be.
Charlie "Tax Cheat" Rangel and Nancy "Drain The Swamp" Pelosi
Pelosi pledged to run the most ethical congress in history. She was going to "DRAIN THE SWAMP" as in almost everything, PELOSI IS ONE OF THE MOST UNETHICAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, lying and distorting the truth so often, bringing pork to her district to benefit her husbands real estate investments,handing our pork to supporters in her district and elsewhere and using her position to milk the taxpayers of tens of millions on her travel and parties.
Why is it a surprise that Pelosi will NOT RISK ANTAGONIZING THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS (Rangel was a founder) by insisting on rapid hearings and severe sanctions for Charlie The Tax Cheat Rangel who has clearly committed a number of unethical, if not criminal, acts?
Rangel makes a meaningless gesture, NOT RESIGNING HIS CHAIRMANSHIP of the House Ways and Means Committee, BUT MERELY TAKING A "LEAVE OF ABSENCE".
Meanwhile, Rangel and Pelosi both come from districts with "safe" demographics, so they can do just about anything and get reelected time and again.
Once the 2010 elections are over and his chairmanship can no longer be used for criticizing the ethics of the Democrats, Charlie Tax Cheat will be back in the Chairmanship if the Democrats retain the majority, ending his "leave of absence".
Meanwhile, WHAT IS GOING THROUGH THE MINDS OF THE VOTERS IN THE DISTRICTS OF PELOSI (CA), RANGEL (NY) and BARNEY FRANK (MA), that these three keep getting elected. These politicians are corrupt way above the common congressman and have acted for self-interest above all and have done enormous harm to the country pushing or blocking legislation to favor their special interests and personal friends or relatives. How can these three have "safe seats"? What is wrong with the people in those districts?
Why is it a surprise that Pelosi will NOT RISK ANTAGONIZING THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS (Rangel was a founder) by insisting on rapid hearings and severe sanctions for Charlie The Tax Cheat Rangel who has clearly committed a number of unethical, if not criminal, acts?
Rangel makes a meaningless gesture, NOT RESIGNING HIS CHAIRMANSHIP of the House Ways and Means Committee, BUT MERELY TAKING A "LEAVE OF ABSENCE".
Meanwhile, Rangel and Pelosi both come from districts with "safe" demographics, so they can do just about anything and get reelected time and again.
Once the 2010 elections are over and his chairmanship can no longer be used for criticizing the ethics of the Democrats, Charlie Tax Cheat will be back in the Chairmanship if the Democrats retain the majority, ending his "leave of absence".
Meanwhile, WHAT IS GOING THROUGH THE MINDS OF THE VOTERS IN THE DISTRICTS OF PELOSI (CA), RANGEL (NY) and BARNEY FRANK (MA), that these three keep getting elected. These politicians are corrupt way above the common congressman and have acted for self-interest above all and have done enormous harm to the country pushing or blocking legislation to favor their special interests and personal friends or relatives. How can these three have "safe seats"? What is wrong with the people in those districts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)