Democrats vote to socialize health care, satisfying no one
Well as expected (as least by me) the Democratically controlled House of Representatives has passed legislation so complex, contradictory, and confusing that they likely have no real idea what is in it. By doing so, they have effectively moved our nation closer to socialization of health care; a goal they’ve had for 70 years.
Is anyone happy about this?
I venture to say, NO. Liberals will be dissatisfied because the bill doesn’t go far enough and potentially puts lots of money in the pockets of insurance companies. Conservatives (and anyone with good sense) will disapprove because it isn’t a good plan and besides, it probably isn’t really constitutional (something Congress, the Courts, and the Executive branch have longed ceased caring about).
Just so you know, the bill requires some things:
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
And that is just the beginning. May God have mercy on us all!
What the h3ll is wrong with this man? Obama gives “shout out” before addressing national tragedy
Somebody please bring the grown ups back!!!
By now you’ve heard the tragic news of the mass shooting that occurred in Ft. Hood Army Base in Texas. As of this writing there are twelve confirmed dead and thirty wounded, including a number of civilians. Officials have in custody Major Malik Nadal Hasan who was himself wounded as he attacking some of America’s finest. Fox News reports:
A military doctor who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at the Army’s Fort Hood that left 12 dead and at least 30 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night.
The news that the suspect, Major Malik Nadal Hasan, was alive and in stable condition, came as a sudden reversal of early reports that the gunman was among the dead.
Two other soldiers who were taken into custody as possible suspects were released Lt. Gen. Bob Cone told reporters Thursday evening.
"suspected" Ft. Hood shooter Major Malik Nadal Hasan
A female first responder who shot at Hasan and was previously thought to be dead, was also alive, Cone said.
Federal law enforcement officials say Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.
Cone said the injuries “vary significantly” among the victims wounded in the shooting. The victims include one civilian police officer.
The shooter’s cousin, Nader Hasan, told Fox News that their family is in shock.
“We are trying to make sense of all this,” Nader Hasan said. “He wasn’t even someone who enjoyed going to the firing range.”
He said his cousin, who was born and raised in Virginia and graduated from Virginia Tech University, turned against the wars after hearing the stories of those who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nader Hasan said his cousin, who was raised a Muslim, wanted to go into the military against his parent’s wishes — but was taunted by others after the terror attacks of Sept. 11.
He now is believed to have been behind the worst mass shooting at a U.S. military base in history.
We know he is a Muslim, but of course the media wants to make nice and doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers although I’m quite sure if the guy had been remotely Christian they would not have hesitated to mention it or have talking heads on discussing the resurgence of right wing extremism due to racism or something. As it is, the PC police are unwilling to note the obvious connections and raise the right questions. Even more disturbing than this however is the altogether frivolous and immature way our so-called president responded:
You know, the proper time for shout-outs is at concerts, basketball games, and when you win the academy awards, not when you’re about to comment on the massacre of American servicemen by a loony Muslim extremist on our own soil!!!
Ohhhh… It Ain’t my fault

All he needs is a theme song
President Obama is widely recognized as being the “coolest” president in recent history, certainly cooler than George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton, both of whom were variations on the theme of all American good ole’ boys even though they were both educated in Ivy League schools; something most real good ole’ boys can’t relate to. Mr. Obama has it all, according to his fans: good looks, a glamorous wife, pretty children, and the all too necessary strut. The only thing he’s missing to complete the image is a theme song.
Well, I’ve found one, thanks to the musical styling of Silkk the Shocker who released an album in 1998 called Charge It 2 da Game which contained a song whose refrain adequately describes Obama’s approach to the presidency (warning strong lyrics):
Indeed, whatever happens or will happen under President Obama, we can be assured that it ain’t his fault. From Ross Calvin at Reuters:
A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with — from the economy to the war in Afghanistan — are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
So a year almost a full year into the job and Obama is discovering that not only is the job is difficult, but it’s really Bush’s fault. His lack of leadership, the continued struggles in Afghanistan, the soured economy: all of it is Bush’s fault.
So why did he want this job? The responsibility of a president is to solve problems, not to pass the buck. Ed Morrisey at Hot Air says it better than most:
Obama wanted to be President, not to lead, but just to win. Now that he has won, he has no core set of governing principles other than what impacts Barack Obama. He has offered no leadership on any part of his agenda all year long, content to have Nancy Pelosi run it for him. His foreign policy thus far consists entirely of making himself personally popular with the world. On Afghanistan, Obama has thus far allowed Robert Gates and David Petraeus to make his decisions, only balking at the moment because the McChrystal strategy puts him at odds with his base, which could erode his popularity.
We’ve complained a number of times about the cult of personality that surrounds Obama, but as Todd implies with this answer, it’s really all Obama has.
Well said Ed (rhymes doesn’t it?). Eventually though, Obama will have to take some ownershipas William Hughes at the Camden County Conservative Examiner notes in discussing Obama’s campaigninf for Jon Corzine:
At some point our president is going to have to man up and take responsibility. Yes, we get it, George Bush was a horrible monster that sought to kill us all. Even if, however, the wily cowboy from Texas burned the entire nation to the ground, it wouldn’t warrant the constant self-pity and school-girl like whining that emits from the mouth of the great scripted one every time he stutters, er, speaks.
His argument in defense of his own ineptitude and nefarious socialist dealings is weak enough. When you use it to defend a four year incumbent governor, who succeeded another four year Democratic governor, you then have to ignore 8 years of Democratic governance in order to blame the mess on someone else. Try that next time you get into trouble at work. Blame it on the person who held your job 8 years prior to you and see how that goes.
Yep go ahead and try it. And don’t let the door hit you on your way out the door.
Speaking truth to power
One of the most important functions of the American media is to hold to account elected officials of whatever stripe for their words and actions. The Obama administration has received tremendously favorable press coverage from the outset of his campaign and continuing into his presidency. This however is apparently not enough to satisfy them as they have launched a well known attack against Fox News for what they call biased and distorted reporting. Fine, Fox News may or may not be biased, and we can talk about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the president’s actions against them. What we cannot do however, is pretend that the Fox News network is somehow a “power” to be spoken up against, as Obama flak Valerie Jarrett suggests in this CNN interview with Campbell Brown:
CNN, apparently tiring of being too obviously in the tank for Obama and weary of outright lies from the administration, was sharp enough to note Jarrett’s inconsistency:
To the question of whether Fox News is biased, Jarrett replied: “Well, of course they’re biased. Of course they are.”
But when Brown followed up by asking Jarrett if she thinks MSNBC is biased, she quickly downplayed her original remark. “Actually, I don’t want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis,” she said. “When we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion….
“We’re actually calling everybody out. So this isn’t anything that’s simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding,” said Jarrett.
Well that’s nice, but as noted on Hot Air, what is truly shocking is that the senior advisor to the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful political person on the planet, is talking about “speaking truth to power.” Ms. Jarrett, YOU ARE THE POWER!!
It is a stunning development, comedic if not so tragic, to see the exceedingly thin skin of the Obama administration be exposed. Here we have a man who hold the nuclear codes for the nations arsenal at his disposal, for whom entire city blocks are routinely shut down to accommodate his date nights, and for whose words entire nations wait to determine their diplomatic response. And yet his panties are in a twist because GLENN BECK doesn’t like him?? I mean seriously? How spoiled and childish can one be? And how obtuse must be Ms. Jarrett and grievance minded her boss, Mr. Obama, to be using phrases like, “speaking truth to power?”
The phrase speaking truth to power is useful when one is oppressed, or when truth is somehow being systematically suppressed by those in power. In this case, it is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the dozens of talk radio hosts from Michael Savage, to Limbaugh, to Phil Valentine, who are in that position. You Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett, ARE the power to whom TRUTH must be spoken. It is obvious that Obama has never had to endure anything other than sycophantic approval from his admirers and little but muted critique from his detractors. Not even John McCain in his campaign brought any big guns to bear against Obama, preferring instead to run a muddled and unfocused campaign that few can remember and which led unsurprisingly to Obama’s election.
Mr. President, it is time to grow up!
Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton
Yes, I know I’m late on this, but things have been busy and updating this blog has not been top priority. In any event you know by now the pettiness of the Obama White House continues to astound even me. Anita Dunn, White House communications director famously derided the Fox News Channel (known on the left as Faux News).
Unsurprisingly the highly rated cable news network, who does indeed buy ink by the barrel (metaphorically speaking) lost no time in defending itself against Dunn’s (and by extension Obama) outrageous comments.
From Fox News:
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
“It’s astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming,” Clemente said. “It seems self-serving on their part.”
Self serving indeed, and a very bad tactical move exposing again the thin skin of an administration so coddled by the media that CNN has taken to “fact checking” a Saturday Night Live skit.
Fox News, from its business anchors to its commentators, launched a full scale retaliation that will certainly be more effective than anything the White House can muster. Obama’s persona is powerful, but when you get Neil Cavuto riled up, you know you’re in trouble:
That’s right. Neil Cavuto, who used to work for CNBC before coming to Fox and who hosts a business program. When you get folks like that ticked off at you, you’re in trouble.
The real story here is not Cavuto, nor even Fox News, but rather the increasingly obvious ineffectiveness of Obama’s White House which cannot seem to function on anything other than unadulterated adoration from the press corps. His predecessor Bush received terrible press coverage throughout both terms of his presidency and was a terrible public speaker, but he never, despite this, demeaned the office of the presidency by getting the White House involved in arguments with the press corps over coverage.
Here Obama slams Fox News personally, which is a silly strategy and makes him look (or rather reveals) his petty thin skinned sensitivity.
Obama is a whiner. He employs people who complain, and the totality of his approach to the world is based on whining and complaint. Everything is someone else’s fault in his world. He functions as a man who has never or rarely had anyone tell him the truth about himself or question his “good intentions.” Obama, it’s time to grow up.
WHAT. THE. H3LL. Obama receives Nobel Peace Prize for….??
What exactly?
You’re not sure. I’m not sure either. When I turned on the television this morning I saw the crawling headline across the bottom of the screen and said to my roommate (I’m on a business trip), “Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.” Unlike me, he is a dedicated supporter of Obama and his response was, “This must be some kind of joke.”
Joke indeed. But alas, it is no joke.
OSLO (AP) – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama’s name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Now I don’t know much about winning prizes, but in general awards are given in light of some actual accomplishment rather than in a speculative hope about what someone might possibly accomplish at some point. Mr. Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the United States of America has accomplished precisely nothing that can be cited as evidence that he is a man of peace. Nothing that is other than talking in soft tones about nice things.
The prize itself, established by scientist and industrialist Alfred Nobel, was to be given, “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”
I’m having difficulty finding Obama anywhere in that description. In fact, the political left in this country are rather disquieted by Obama’s continued support for G.W. Bush’s policies in Iraq and the potential escalation in Afghanistan, neither of which evince much of a propensity towards peacemaking on Obama’s part. However the committee seems to have been influenced by the school of thought that encourages giving A’s for effort.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. “In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”
He added that the committee endorsed “Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’”
Um… yeah. So basically the committee is awarding him for being NOT George Bush, whom everyone hated. Even on the left there seems to be a great deal of incredulity about the whole thing.
Why else give him the honor now? Whatever one might feel about Obama, he has not earned this singular award. Few American presidents have received it and of those who have it was bestowed after they’d been engaged in something special. Theodore Roosevelt had helped to negotiate peace in the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson had tirelessly worked for the creation of the League of Nations — a struggle that was blamed for causing the serious stroke he suffered, which left him disengaged in the last years of his presidency.
Jimmy Carter received the Peace Prize after he left office, but in the wake of huge achievements monitoring worldwide elections and in his efforts with Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the poor.
Former Vice President Al Gore got the prize after years of working for the environment. And whether you appreciated Henry Kissinger’s getting the award it was in response to his efforts to effect a peace in the Vietnam War.
So, at the moment, I believe it is enormously premature for Obama to be getting this great tribute, which to a certain extent cheapens the prior recipients and the work all of them performed over so many years.
At that’s from a guy who supports him! Well since it is a prize, let’s at least consider those people our illustrious and unaccomplished president beat out for the award. They are probably all slackers with razor thin accomplishments. From the Weekly Standard blog:
Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.
“Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”
“Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.’”
“Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.”
Ahh now I see it. It is so obvious that none of these people deserved the award.
It’s not “rape-rape; it depends on your defintion of “is” and now this…
How now brown cow?
The milk of dissimulation, deceit, and dishonesty continues to flow to nourish liberals souls distracted and defeated by the definite deflation of the rapidly diminishing fortunes of “Teh Greatest President Evah.” Fresh on the heels of nothing in particular, President Jimmy Carter of race-baiting anti-Semitic fame came fresh from retirement to remind everyone why no wants to hear from him.
So now we see that calling people racists really isn’t calling people racist when you simply say that what you said wasn’t at all what you said and well, you know it doesn’t really matter that we can all just go check the video and see exactly what it was that you said. After all, it depends on what your definition of “is” is…
Uh huh.
I’m so glad we got that all straightened out. Clearly the former President (whom I’m glad to have been young enough not to have had the misfortune of having voted for) has received marching orders from somewhere or someone, perhaps in the counsels of his own mind freed now at 85 to give full vent to whatever random thoughts might pour forth.
There was a time when we were spared these sorts of excesses by former presidents who were decent enough to silently and with dignity shuffle off to whatever presidential library or foundation they might happen to have and then die conveniently in their sleep so that we could have a big state funeral where everyone could lie and pretend to like them who didn’t.
Of course in another world, Carter would never have been president and absurdities such as these would be rightly considered the incoherent ramblings of “old uncle Jimmy, please forgive him you know he’s getting on in years,” as we politely changed the subject around the dining room table or someone interjected with a “pass the peas please” to spare old uncle Jimmy the embarrassment of having to acknowledge even in a minor way his presence.
Alas, this is not the world in which we live and we get instead the opportunity to see full on the rank dishonesty that underlies much of how Washington politicians generally and liberals specifically conduct themselves. Prior to the days of self publishing, YouTube, and teh interwebs, things such as this would politely have been swept under the rug by the media establishment in hopes of maintaining a death-like grip on information and preventing the hoi polloi from disturbing the waters. Now we are in a different era, and everyone can plainly see that “Is” means “Is,” “Rape” is “Rape” and calling people racist is nothing but a callow and cowardly political ploy.
In defense of the indefensible

Admitted child rapist Roman Polanski
For some things there really is no defense. Things like the drugging, rape, and sodomy of an underage girl by a middle-aged pervert followed by years on the lam. And yet, incredibly, there are those who would lend their voice and position to defend the indefensible by stretching the definition of rape to kinda sorta rape-rape.
Well if that don’t beat all. One would think that the drugging, rape, and sodomy of a child would be enough to meet the necessary standard of indecent behavior but for some, there clearly is no line unworthy of trespass. I am grateful however for main street liberals (with whom I often disagree) for not falling in line behind this abominable apologetic. From The Confluence:
If we step back from arguing about Polanski himself and look at what is happening right now, you see a bunch of prominent people defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child. Most or all of those people are associated with the liberal/progressive politics and the Democratic party. Some of them endorsed Barack Obama and donated to his campaign.
Argue all you want about defending Polanski’s constitutional rights, but if you defend Polanski you are defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child. How do you think that will play with the magical “swing” voters in middle America?
If Obama’s Department of Justice and Secretary of State Clinton wimp out on this and don’t do everything they can to bring Polanski to justice, they will be handing the issue to the conservatives all gift-wrapped with a nice bow on it. The conservatives will say:
“Liberal Democrats defended a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child!”
The worst part is that they will be telling the truth.
Like ACORN’s enablement of child trafficking, this is NOT a partisan issue
ACORN is an organization with a toxic corporate culture that attracts or fosters morally reprehensible behavior. At worst, it is as corrupt and contemptible as ongoing allegations of widespread voter registration fraud, tax code violations, and contribution fraud would suggest.
Lashing out at everyone from the filmmakers to George Bush, Karl Rove, and the right in general will not make this scandal disappear. And neither will shameful incidents of media malpractice, feminist silence, and false equivalencies from the liberal blogosphere. Any degree of support for child sex slavery is indefensible. Period.
Perhaps I should have titled this piece, “Child Sex Trafficking Shouldn’t Be A Partisan Issue.” It shouldn’t be, and yet, for some, it’s acceptable to look the other way when it threatens to undermine a liberal organization.
And the beauty and artistry of a man’s work cannot cover for the egregious crime he committed. It saddens me that even such horrors as child trafficking and rape become politicized.
UPDATE: 100 filmmakers sign petition defending Polanski

This is NOT acceptable... I don't care who you are


that the race politics of the Democratic Party aren’t really serving their interests. Again the Black Informant:
Recent Comments