Yesterday the President signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which I might add, was hooked onto the Defense appropriation to ensure its passage.
The passage of this law subjugates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by elevating one group over another. It also could make Double Jeopardy legal which would violate the 5th Amendment by trying someone for a murder and then again for what that person was thinking while carrying out the murder.
This could lead to an attack on religion as well. No more preaching against homosexuality from the bible because it could instigate the congregation to kill based on this belief. This is truly Orwellian.
Hopefully it is not long before this is struck down by the Supreme Court.
I, too, am disgusted by the crimes against Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. I am glad that those who perpetrated these villainous acts against Shepard are currently each serving two consecutive life sentences. They will never again see the light of day. Meanwhile, two of the three murderers of Byrd are awaiting their executions while the third is currently serving life in prison.
What must be realized, however, is that the fates of these five men are symbols of how the justice system in America worked without the need for a hate crimes act.
On October 7th, the Governator showed up at a Democratic Party dinner in San Francisco. In attendance was Tom Ammiano, who recently had drafted a bill to help San Francisco's port with finance issues. Arnold vetoed the bill with little to no explanation as to why. So Tom Ammiano did what any upset, frustrated liberal would do...yell "kiss my gay ass!" Not a smart thing to do to a guy who at one time in his life could bench press a small country.
Luckily for Ammiano, in response, Arnold sent a letter indicating why he vetoed the bill.
If you look at the left hand side, the first letters in each scentence spell the message Arnold was sending to his gay friend. And this is alot better than the physical punishment he could have dished out.
Obama continues to use the "blame the former president" strategy but it seems to be wearing off.
He recently criticized the Bush administration for leaving him the war in Afghanistan and for the way it was handled. He had Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs last week say that he has not made a decision about more troops because he is having to ask questions that no one else (the Bush administration) has asked before. As the President and we all know, the Bush administration did ask the hard questions which did plenty to help out the MESSiah.
Here are portions of the linked article so you don't have to read the whole thing and get caught doing it at work:
From mid-September to mid-November 2008, a National Security Council team, under the direction of General Doug Lute, conducted an exhaustive review of Afghanistan policy. The interagency group included high-ranking officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the office of the director of national intelligence, the office of the vice president, the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Its objective was to assess U.S. -policy on Afghanistan, integrating a simultaneous military review being conducted by CENTCOM, so as to present President Bush with a series of recommendations on how best to turn around the deteriorating situation there. The Lute group met often--sometimes twice daily--in a secure conference room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The Lute review asked many questions and provided exhaustive answers not only to President Bush, but also to the Obama transition team before the inauguration. "General Jones was briefed on the results of the Lute review, and that review answered many of the questions that Rahm Emanuel says were never asked," says Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. Jones and Hadley discussed the review, and Lute gave Jones a detailed PowerPoint presentation on his findings. Among the recommendations: a civilian surge of diplomats and other non-military personnel to the country, expedited training for the Afghan National Army, a strong emphasis on governance and credible elections, and, most important, a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy.
"Mr. Emanuel either did not know about our review or chose to lie about it," says Eliot Cohen, who served as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and was one of the principal participants in the Lute review. Virtually nobody believes Emanuel is clueless. In any case, the author of the review, Doug Lute, remains a senior Afghanistan adviser in the Obama White House.
On March 27, the president announced his new Afghanistan strategy--one that included many of the recommendations of the Bush administration's review. And that is another indignity. Not only did the Obama administration understand full well that the Bush administration had conducted a comprehensive assessment of Afghanistan, and not only had Jim Jones asked that the Bush review be withheld from the public--but Obama's "new" strategy bore an uncanny resemblance to that prescribed by the Lute review.
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer dropped the hammer on Obama last night on Bret Baier's show on Fox about his crying that it's all Bush's fault.
There is an article on the controversial Mormon Harry Reid in the Salt Lake Tribune. He is a Democrat and some say that his views are at odds with what the church teaches.
Here are some comments made by readers of the article:
I'm praying for a Reid defeat in 2010. How's that for faith?
He's wrong on illegal aliens and has sold his soul to agribiz and the casinos in complete disregard for his oath of office.
So did Hatch and Bennett.
May they all suffer the fate of Chris Cannon.
I am an active member of the LDS church, and I respect Harry Reid tremendously. I think we need more like him in the church. It is the Gail Ruzika types that scare and disappoint me in our church.
There are 3 people who will stand condemned before God at the judgement bar for their inaction regarding Harry Reid's excommunication while Dingy Hairy oversees in large part the destruction of the greatest nation on the face of the earth:
His Stake President
The local Area Authority
I think there are a lot of Mormons that feel the same way Reid does regarding the prop 8 issue. I know I do and I know a lot of family that secretly does but wont speak out afraid of being labeled as a "bad mormon". What really boggles my mind is how so many could support the prop 8 bill and take away this basic right from someone who prefers the same sex.
I don't agree with Reid on most of his politics, but I support his freedom to have an opinion regardless of religion. It would be one thing if he expressed his opinions in sacrament meeting, but he is expressing his opinion in the political world. Last time I checked, church and state is suppose to be seperate, but many LDS faithful fail to see that.
Just a side note: I can't help but notice that nearly every Mormon I know and who posts on these message boards who has an issue with the church's position on SSM - the problem stems from a personal relationship they have with a gay person ... an aunt, a brother, etc. There is no up front doctrinal analysis to come to that position. Rather, they have a loved one who has chosen that lifestyle so then they go and try to use the scriptures to justify the position they have taken. The scriptures are certainly an open book with lots of room for private interpretation. I can use the Book of Mormon to justify murder if I look at the experiences of Nephi and Teancum (who both killed men while they were unconscious) and others. But it still doesn't justify murder.
So if you are being honest with yourselves, can you honestly say that you came to your viewpoint after an open-minded analysis of God's revealed word before you were ever affected personally or did you come to your position after you were affected personally and you have since found sources to justify your newly gained pre-disposition of sympathy for your loved one?
As the video shows Obama has promised us that his administration will be the most transparent ...ever. That there will be "a new standard of openness."
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious! His has been the most darkened, smoke-filled backroom meeting administration to date.
No one read the stimulus bill before it was voted on. It was not posted online previous to its voting like he promised, and now the czars that don't need congressional approval are exempt from testifying before Congress.
Below are Obama's proposed renovations for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
October 23, 2009 Obama's Columbia thesis excerpt surfaces Denis Keohane Michael Ledeen at PJM reports on President Obama's Columbia college thesis, of which ten whole pages were made available to Joe Klein. The paper was entitled "Aristocracy Reborn," and Obama wrote this about the Constitution:
"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
What on earth does this President have to do to get the media coverage he so richly deserves!
In the Virginia Governor's race, Republican candidate Robert McDonnell wrote a graduate thesis twenty years ago that could be politically damaging to his campaign. That decades old thesis has been covered by the Washington Post on August 30 and again on September 1. It has been reported on in some depth across the spectrum of media outlets from NPR to US News to the CS Monitor to FOX and on and on!
Or maybe a decades old claim that the U.S. Constitution didn't give early Americans liberty but fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy doesn't deserve some questions, like what did you mean by that and when and how did your thoughts change -- if they did?
NEWS FLASH: Their music IS torture. To stay consistent, removing the music from Gitmo would mean that it'd have to be removed from the US airways as well. In fact that should be the priority. How many more people are tortured by this garbage when they enter a grocery store or accidentally flip the fm dial to a rock station than the 250 at Guantanamo? Most of the time the music is used not to punish but to keep terrorists from communicating. Detainees have it pretty good there anyway. Three squares a day that are halal approved that the cook has to jump through hoops to get, prayer rugs, and prosthetics. Yeah you read that right. In 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Gitmo and fitted with a prosthetic leg on the taxpayer's dime. And did you know that the average detainee gains 20 lbs? Those terrorists have it better than I do.
Contributes to offensive display of sexual perversion, child pornography, and anti-Catholic bigotry -- now being exhibited at Harvard University WARNING: Photos at the link below are offensive and pornographic. POSTED: October 21, 2009
"If you want to know what Americans can expect in public schools, look no further.
Kevin Jennings is Barack Obama's "safe schools" czar in the US Department of Education. He's also the founder of the national homosexual group GLSEN, which sets up "gay straight alliance" clubs in high schools and middle schools across America. GLSEN is officially supported by the Massachusetts Legislature.
Jennings is also a former member of the radical homosexual group "Act Up", and he contributed to this depraved and offensive museum exhibit on "Act Up" now at Harvard University.
This exhibit is a window into what the homosexual movement thinks of you, your children, religion, and America. It involves sexual perversion, child pornography, and anti-Catholic bigotry. And it's what your "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings supports.
It's at Harvard University's prestigious Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts from Oct. 15 through Dec. 23, 2009. Mass Resistance was there for the opening night. It was pretty disturbing."
We know that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin can hunt, and even field-dress a moose, but how will she take to poachers on her book sales? Start-up publisher OR Books has announced plans to publish Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare, a collection of essays about the maverick Republican with a title — and cover design — remarkably similar to Palin’s upcoming memoir. What’s more, OR’s paperback tome will be released on Nov. 17, the same day that Palin’s own Going Rogue: An American Life hits shelves — and one day after Palin’s just-announced, first-ever appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show. (Thanks Gateway Pundit.) This is just a testament to the fact that they are scared of her and her influence on middle America. Like her or not she is a force on the political stage and will be around for the 2012 race.
You have probably heard by now that the White House Communications Director. Anita Dunn, gave a graduation speech to some high schoolers where she proclaimed that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers. It's kind of funny because she says that Mao was a good example of finding your own path and doing your own thing even though Mao was one of the biggest collectivists to walk the earth.
Mao also killed 70 million of his own people...IN PEACE TIME!
Well now there are shops in DC and elsewhere selling Obama/Mao shirts. No doubt they will be everywhere just like Che shirts.
Obama wants to interfere in states affairs by using our money to bailout states in this economic crisis but now is taking a hands off approach when it comes to marijuana laws.
Feds to stop prosecuting medical marijuana users
Oct 19, 5:03 PM (ET)
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.
Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
The guidelines issued by the department do, however, make it clear that federal agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes.
The memo advises prosecutors they "should not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes. "It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
By the government's count, 14 states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Some medical marijuana advocates say Maryland shouldn't be included in that group, because the law there only allows for reduced penalties for medical marijuana usage.
California stands out among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries - businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.
Advocates say marijuana is effective in treating chronic pain and nausea, among other ailments.
Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.
The memo spelling out the policy was sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
The memo written by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.
"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."
The change has critics, including lawmakers who see it as a tactical retreat in the fight against Mexican drug cartels.
"We cannot hope to eradicate the drug trade if we do not first address the cash cow for most drug trafficking organizations - marijuana," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Administration officials said the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity.
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.
And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.
Joe Biden is known for his analysis on foreign policy and that's why Obama chose him as his VP. He was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee afterall. Now the media seems to be pushing him on us in a major way just at a time when Obama is being told by McCrystal that more troops are needed. Do you see what is going on here? Since Biden doesn't back McCrystal the media is putting him on a pedestal and elevating him above McChrystal, so we don't think that the MESSiah is making a blunderous move by waiting to send more troops or by not sending them at all. Biden's ideas on Iraq on other things though have been proved wrong or have been almost comical if they weren't so serious. The first one was at the Democratic National Convention when he gave a speech and said that Obama had called for additional battalions in Iraq when he in fact had called for additional brigades. A slip of the tounge? Maybe. But for a guy who's known for his f. policy experience this is pretty embarrassing. The second Shortly after 9/11 in a meeting discussing what must be done about the attack Biden is said to have begun a monologue about what must be done and what his comittee must do. Immediately after the rant he said "i'm groping here." He admittedly doesn't know what to do in this type of a situation. After this he came to the conclusion that we needed to send a check for $200 million to Iraq! Three is that he repetedly said that the surge in Iraw wouldn't work and it did. Four. On Meet The Press on Sept. 9 2007 Biden says that there will never be a central government in Iraq, "absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that." Wrong there too. Five. On Sept. 26 2007 Biden put forth an amendment that would divide Iraq into 3 sections. One for the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia. Then in the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader, declared, “This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions.” The crowd met his statement with refrains of “Death to America.”
Biden is not as knowledgeable on foreign policy as the media portrays.
You may have noticed that Rush Limbaugh was part of a group that wanted to buy the St. Louis Rams but was told no because of some racist comments that no one can prove he said. Well back in '05 a Billionaire named George Soros wanted to purchase a baseball team called the Washington Nationals and there was some pushback from some conservatives because he is a huge leftist who's billions fund some of the most radical leftist organizations like America Coming Together and The Center for American Progress. The leftys immediately came to his defense. Heres the article thanks to Sweetness and Light :
Soros Wasn’t Cut From MLB/Nats Bidding October 16th, 2009 From the archives of a memory free Washington Post:
Soros’s Nats Bid Irks Republicans Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Major League Baseball hasn’t narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league’s antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team.
"It’s not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it’s one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."
Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that "Major League Baseball understands the stakes" if Soros buys the team. "I don’t think they want to get involved in a political fight." Democrats weren’t about to let the broadsides go unanswered.
"Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) asked. "So Congress is going to get involved in every baseball ownership decision? Are they next going to worry about a manager they don’t like? I’ve never seen anything as impotent as a congressman threatening the baseball exemption. It gets threatened half a dozen times a year, and our batting average threatening the exemption is zero."
Davis didn’t return calls to his office, but spokesman Robert White said, "The point [Davis] was making was how it would look if Major League Baseball sells the hottest team in the market to a guy who spent more money than the gross domestic product of Colombia to legitimize drugs."
Davis chairs the Committee on Government Reform, which recently held high-profile hearings on steroid use in professional and amateur sports.
Soros has supported the legalization of some drugs as a way to combat their illegal abuse. A Soros spokesman, Michael Vachon , said the financier was out of the country and declined to comment.
Washington entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky , who heads the bidding group that Soros joined, said in an e-mail: "America’s pastime should be protected from the rhetoric of partisan politics. It’s unfortunate that the negativism that permeates national politics today is infecting Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals."
Baseball is interviewing lead members of the eight groups that have filed bids to buy the Nationals, who are owned by the league. Most of the bids are believed to range between $300 million and $400 million, with a couple exceeding $400 million, according to sources familiar with the sale process.
"We’re going to act and make a decision in the best interest of the franchise and the best interests of the game," MLB spokesman Rich Levin said.
As far as we know, Mr. Ledecky (who is a conservative) did not drop Mr. Soros from his team of investors.
As it turns out, the Nationals were sold to another group.
But there are no reports to indicate that the involvement of Mr. Soros has any bearing on the decision.For the record, Mr. Soros was one of the chief investors in MLS when the soccer league was launched in 1996. His company was involved in running the D.C. United team.
(Which is kind of an ironic name, when you think about it.)
I wasn't for the Bush bailouts when they happened but they did happen as have Obama's. Now the market has bounced back some (I think it'll take anouther dip). Since Bush initiated the bailout plans, should'nt he get some credit for the rebound? I doubt that the MESSiah will mention it next time he gives a speech about the economy.
Here is Ann Coulter's latest post to her website. Or I've posted it below for your convienience. I've also highlighted the high points.
The whole thing is worth reading.
Natural-Born Losers by Ann Coulter
The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.
What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" while the war in Iraq was a "war of choice." (Oh, and as long as you're back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay "school safety" czar.)
The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.
As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.
By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.
It's always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator -- Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) -- or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders -- Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.
Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq's countryside was susceptible to America's overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq's oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it's not just oil: They're basically sitting on top of most of the world's proven reserves of cab drivers.)
By contrast, there aren't a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only "carrot" we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.
But Democrats couldn't care less about military strategy -- at least any "strategy" that doesn't involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.
Liberals sneered at Bush's description of Iraq as the "central front of the war on terror" and a step toward the "democratization of the Middle East" -- as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times -- because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.
Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq ... to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military.Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.
Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)
Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq -- and then they stopped because of Obama's indifference. Sadly for them, America's foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.
During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a "war of choice" and Afghanistan a "war of necessity" for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.
But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too.As Frank Rich points out: "Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention."
Now they notice.
Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare -- something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.
Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.
The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals' and certainly not Bush's. It was Obama's meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity" during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq -- a good battleground for the U.S. -- to Afghanistan -- a lousy battlefront for the U.S.
And it was Obama's idea to treat war as if it's an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm's way.
A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an "unwinnable war." I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.
Big Hollywood informs us that on the 10 Sept. The Entertainment Industry Foundation released a press release informing all that from Oct. 19-25th, 60+ networks will show programs on the power and benefits of service and that this will be wave one of three.
There is not a place I hate more than the DMV, (except the Dentist). I wait in line to get a ticket. Then I wait in line to have your ticket called. Then when I get to the counter I am told that you just waited in vain because my line was the wrong line. Then it's back to the ticket line and the process starts again. Once I finally get to the right counter they tell me I have forgotten the proper paperwork! Arrh! I'm glad I took work off for all that.
I say this because all those arguments we conservatives made about government run health care would be like going to the DMV and having to wait for hours just to see the wrong person have come true. In the HELLthcare bill it says that the DMV is a place where we can purchase our health care.
Why not put in the bill the mandate that dentists have offices at the DMV as well so that I can cram everything I hate into one living hell of a day?
The most revelatory passage in the so-called “plain English” version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles. This is no joke. If this bill becomes law, it will be the duty of the U.S. secretary of health and human services or the state governments overseeing federally mandated health-insurance exchanges to ensure that you can get your health insurance at the DMV.
You also will be able to get it at Social Security offices, hospitals, schools and “other offices” the government will name later.
Page 19 of the committee’s “plain English” text says: “The Secretary and/or states would do the following: ... Enable customers to enroll in health care plans in local hospitals, schools, Departments of Motor Vehicles, local Social Security offices, and other offices designated by the state.”
This is the bill’s most revelatory passage because it sublimely symbolizes the bill’s true aim: a government takeover of the health care system.
You do not get food at the DMV. You do not even get auto insurance at the DMV. But under what The Associated Press inaptly calls the Finance Committee’s “middle-of-the-road health care plan,” you will get health insurance at the DMV.
What will the DMV and health care have in common if this bill is enacted? Government will control both.
A couple of weeks ago, the Finance Committee voted down the public option—a health insurance plan run directly by the government. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and all three House committees working on the bill had included the public option in their versions. So, the establishment media made much of the fact that the Finance Committee did not.
But the omission is almost meaningless.
The public option is only one lane on the road to socialized medicine. Government subsidies and government regulations are two others—and they run like a super highway through the Finance Committee bill.
The bill orders all states to create an “exchange” where companies offering government-approved plans can sell health insurance. Americans earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($103,000 for a family of five) would be eligible for federal subsidies in the form of a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance—but only if they buy one of the government-approved plans in the government-created exchange.
The government will not pay this subsidy to the individuals purchasing insurance. The U.S. Treasury will pay it directly to the government-approved insurance providers.
“The Treasury would pay the premium credit amount to the insurance plan in which the individual is enrolled,” says the committee’s “plain English” text.
Four different levels of insurance plans will be available in the exchange—Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. But every year, the secretary of health and human services will determine what services need to be offered by these government-approved and government-funded plans.
“The Secretary of HHS,” says the “plain English” text, “would be required to define and update the categories of covered treatments, items and services within the benefit classes no less than annually through a transparent and public process that allows for public input, including a public comment period.”
Under this bill, the government commands individuals to secure insurance for themselves and their dependents. “In order to insure compliance, individuals would be required to report on their Federal tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage for themselves and all dependents under age 18,” says the text.
The government would enforce this mandate with a fine. “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax of $750 per adult in the household,” says the text.
The bill does not similarly order businesses to provide employees with health insurance. However, people who get insurance through their employer will not be eligible for the federal subsidies.
And here is the whip the government will use to drive most Americans into government-approved, government-subsidized, government-controlled health insurance: An employer that decides not to provide health insurance for its workers will be required to pay a fee to the government for each of its workers that receives a federal subsidy. But the total paid to the government by any employer will be capped at $400 times the total number of that employer’s workers.
Even though this fee will not be tax deductible, it will be far cheaper for a business to pay the government $400 per worker than to pay a private insurance company thousands per worker for an insurance plan.
The Finance Committee has created an irresistible incentive for American businesses to drop their workers off at the DMV where they can enroll in government-funded, government-approved, government-regulated health insurance plans.
According the the story below, a majority of the Oslo committee was not on drugs when they made their dicision about Obama winning the Peace Prize.
Majority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize' (AFP) – 2 hours ago
OSLO — Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.
"VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama," the newspaper said.
In a surprise move last Friday, the Nobel committee attributed the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama less than nine months after he had taken office.
The committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament, honoured Obama for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"The committee was unanimous," its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.
But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.
It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections.
The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.
The members of the committee represent their parties but do not sit in Norway's parliament.
"Each year, we start with many candidates and many different points of view and agree as the discussions move along. This year was no exception," Lundestad commented Thursday.
The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee's final decision.
Obama himself said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the prize.
Just when you thought the Democraps couldn't get any lower than they are right now they pull a stunt like this one. They inserted a hate crimes bill which can and will prevent free speech by limiting what does or has potential to provoke a hate crime. This would include sermons and the Bible, calling someone "yella" (yellow as in scared), and make guilty kids who call other kids "gay" on the playground. This hate crimes bill was put into another bill that was to fund out fighting troops. So what the DEMONcrats have done is force the Republicans to vote against the hate crimes bill and thereby vote for not giving our troops the needed funds to continue the war efforts or they can vote to fund the war and take away our free speech. Those Republicans who then don't vote for these bills will be pointed out come election time as anti-war politicians. This is a shameless act and deserves a place in the Eighth Circle of Hell.
Dems undermine free speech in hate crimes ploy By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent October 13, 2009 (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
What does a hate crimes bill have to do with money for U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Nothing, except that the National Defense Authorization Act, which will win final passage in Congress and be sent to the president's desk this week, also contains the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which Democrats placed inside the defense measure over Republican objections.
The crime bill -- which would broaden the protected classes for hate crimes to include sexual orientation and "gender identity," which the bill defines as a victim's "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics" -- passed the House earlier this year as a stand-alone measure. But it's never had the votes to succeed by itself in the Senate. So over the summer Democrats, with the power of their 60-vote majority, attached it to the defense bill.
Republicans argued that the two measures had nothing to do with each other. Beyond that, GOP lawmakers feared the new bill could infringe on First Amendment rights in the name of preventing broadly defined hate crimes. The bill's critics, including many civil libertarians, argued that the hate crimes provision could chill freedom of speech by empowering federal authorities to accuse people of inciting hate crimes, even if the speech in question was not specifically related to a crime.
Republican Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment saying the bill could not be "construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the First Amendment" and could not place any burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights "if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."
The Senate passed Brownback's amendment. After that, several Republicans, their fears allayed, voted for the whole defense/hate crimes package, which passed the Senate last July.
Meanwhile, on the House side, representatives passed their own version of the defense authorization bill, which did not contain the hate crimes measure.
Then it was time for the House and Senate bills to go to a conference committee, where the differences between them would be ironed out. That's where the real action began.
First, the committee -- controlled by majority Democrats, of course -- inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback's amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates ... a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.
That means your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not.
The bill was finished. When it was returned to the House last week for final passage, there was just one vote; lawmakers could either vote for the whole package or against it. They could vote to fund the troops, which would also mean voting for the hate crimes bill, or they could vote against the hate crimes provision, which would also mean voting against funding the troops.
At decision time, 131 of the Republicans most opposed to the hate crimes measure voted against the whole bill. Their vote "against the troops" will no doubt be used against them in next year's campaign, which was of course the Democratic plan all along.The bill passed anyway, with overwhelming Democratic support. Now it's the Senate's turn. Like the House, there will be just one vote. Although some Republicans will balk, the bill will be passed there, too, with big Democratic support.
In the past, Democrats knew they couldn't get away with a trick like stuffing a hate crimes bill into a defense measure because there was a Republican president to threaten a veto. But now, President Obama says he'll proudly approve the improbable combination of national defense and hate crimes.
"I will sign it into law," the president told a cheering crowd at the gay activist group Human Rights Campaign on Saturday. "Together we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America."
Actually, we will have moved closer to that day when lawmakers use stealthy, behind-closed-doors maneuvers to chip away at fundamental constitutional rights. Ask Republicans how it happened, and they say simply, "Elections have consequences." They're right.
This is Dalia Mogahed. She is Muslim and is a proponent of Sharia Law. Sharia law says that a womans testimony in court is worth half that of a man (Koran 2:282). It also says that the son's inheritance should be twice that of a daughter (4:11). Also embeded in Sharia Law is that a husband can beat his wife (4:34), and that marriage to a pre-pubescent girl is fine and dandy (65:4). Still more are that “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relations] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” Sharia is in direct contrast to our Great Constitution which says that all are equal and should be treated as such. She has admitted that our law is "man-made" even though the majority of Americans believe otherwise, and that Sharia should be the "source of legislation." Dalia Mogahed is one member on the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. So not only are communists in the White House but now Muslims. Thanks to Robert Spencer and HumanEvents.com
Here is a clip of Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts. He employs around 20,000 people made up of 120,000 families who he insures himself. This guy knows a few things about jobs and business. Governor Granholm never refutes what Wynn says about government not increased the standard of living of people at anytime in history. She just says well we have Social Security and the minimum wage both of which are not needed and have decreased jobs. What does she know about job creation anyway. She presides over a state with a 200,000 job loss in 2009 which helped with the 15.2% unemployment, which is the highest in the US. And all this with the aid of 3.7 Billion in stimulus money. No one should be taking her seriously. FOX had her on their network just to be fair and balanced but as you will see by this video there was an unbalance in knowledge. I place the Governor in the Eighth Ring.
Young Hamlet's Agony By Charles Krauthammer Friday, October 9, 2009
The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.
When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.
"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."
Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.
Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.
So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?
Perhaps provide the resources to win it?
You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.
That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.
No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."
Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.
The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama's own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it's McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged.
The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm's-length use of cruise missiles, Predator drones and special ops.
The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of "counterterrorism" in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.
When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- "counterinsurgency," meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.
Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.
Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?
Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today. It was a shock to most because he took office two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Hmmm. The Norwegian Committee said he won because, "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Values and attitudes? Values and attitudes are why his approval rating is sinking like a stone. While the Committee is at it why not give it to Hugo or Gaddafi. . Can we really take the Nobel Committee seriously now? They recently gave it to Albert Gore. I mean come on. Oh yeah, and Jimmy "The Hemorrhoid" Carter. The news shouldn't even cover these nominations or awards anymore because they're stacked.
You may remember that Utah Junior Senator Bob Bennett recently wrote a book about his faith to garner up support before the 2010 election. Shameful. Well now he wants to take $5 Million from our fighting soldiers and give it to a little company in Utah who he may have ties to to make video scrapbooks for the troops. A cousin of his is a former Miss Utah (Sharlene Wells Hawkes), who with her prominence, has lobbied on behalf of this company for the $5 Million, is also the Executive Vice President of the company. This company has made these video scrapbooks before for a branch of the Armed Services and it was funded by donations and the like. What is Bob and Sharlene thinking? I think these actions merit a place in Circle Eight. This article calls it treasonous, do you?
Ayers ghostwrote Obama's 'Dreams' and media silence is deafening October 1, 3:10
Perhaps one of the biggest political stories of the year is being completely overlooked by the Obama-struck mass media. A new biography by veteran author Christopher Andersen, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," reveals that former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers wrote most, if not all of President Obama’s book "Dreams From My Father." In a series of American Thinker articles over the past year, PhD author and columnist, Jack Cashill has been asserting just that. But while he found striking similarities between the two men’s writing styles he could never conclusively prove Ayers' ghost authorship. Andersen’s book does. Cashill relates: "relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published -- just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams.
"With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from 'his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.' Despite a large advance, Obama found himself 'hopelessly blocked.’ After four futile years of trying to finish, Obama ‘sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.' This he did 'at Michelle’s urging.'"
Andersen explains their rationale: "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be?"
I don't know, but it was certainly considered a secret by candidate Obama, and the media bent over backwards to keep it that way.
This was not the first time Mr. Obama was "blocked" either. Shortly after he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, an aggressive literary agent named Jane Dystel secured a $125,000 advance from Simon & Schuster for him to write his book. An astounding sum for a first-time author, he never delivered. After years of waiting, the publisher dropped him.
Dystel then secured him a second advance for $40,000 from Random House, and in 1995 "Dreams" was finally published. After gaining his U.S. Senate seat, Mr. Obama summarily dumped Dystel in favor of someone cheaper. She was understandibly infuriated. It is worth noting that as president of the Harvard Law Review, Mr. Obama wrote one short article. For such a supposedly gifted writer this is truly odd. And as Cashill has noted, Obama's few other writing samples are "sophomoric".
Furthermore, "president" of the Law Review is not the same as "editor" of the Law Review. Being editor requires a commanding knowledge of both writing skills and law. It is a very demanding job. Being president, on the other hand, is more of a figurehead position.
Andersen concludes: "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."
During his campaign, candidate Obama took great pains to distance himself from Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the many other radicals he knew. But investigation by many independent journalists overcame the media blackout to reveal extensive connections between the two men. It is old news now that Ayers and Obama served on the boards of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund together, but in total, Obama worked with Ayers and other radicals on least six related non-profit boards and shared the same office for three years with Ayers and fellow radicals, Susan and Mike Klonsky.
Now this latest revelation about Ayers' ghostwriting suggests that not only did they work together, but Ayers essentially gave Obama his voice. All this has somehow been lost on mass media's intrepid investigative journalists. Nary a peep.
Barack Obama is no literary giant. Furthermore, his steadfast refusal to provide any concrete information about any details of his past, his college grades, past job performance, or even voting record in the Illinois Senate, makes one wonder if Mr. Obama has any qualifications -- besides a polished public persona -- at all.
He is looking more and more like a mere construct, a carefully crafted mouthpiece for a cabal of anonymous radicals furiously working to secure a permanent foothold in the halls of power. Consider just a few of his "Czar" picks:
Kevin Jennings the openly homosexual "Safe Schools Czar" who encouraged pedophilia;
Cass Sunstein, the "Regulatory Czar" who believes, among other things, that animals should have the right to sue humans in court;
Van Jones, like Ayers, a self-described communist, fortunately resigned under a cloud. As "Green Jobs Czar," Jones was to distribute stimulus money based on formulas worked up by the Apollo Alliance, run in NY by Jeff Jones. No relation to Van, Jeff is an old Weather Underground friend of Bill Ayers.
Valerie Jarrett -- the "other side of Obama’s brain," -- has spent a lifetime working with and around the American Communist Party and is thoroughly plugged-in to Chicago radical networks. Valerie is the one who recruited Van Jones.
The list goes on and on. The challenge is finding anyone even remotely moderate.
Obama’s early denial of Ayers is ringing ever hollower. Rather than being just "some guy in my neighborhood," Ayers and Obama are fused at the hip. And Ayers is typical of the rabid, anti-American lunatics Barack has surrounded himself with.
Meanwhile, the media silence is deafening.
God help us.
What if this were John McCain and the ghost writer for his memoir was Timothy McVeigh? The media would be frothing at the mouth and there would be 24 hour news coverage.
Congress’ Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare - CONFIRMED Posted October 7th, 2009 at 12.38pm in Health Care. At www.Heritage.org
Leaders in the House and Senate have a plan to pass President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care plan by Thanksgiving without any significant participation by the American public. CNS News has confirmed the details in our September 22nd titled “Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress’ Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform.” Nicholas Ballasy reports “a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told CNSNews.com that it is ‘likely’ that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a ‘shell’ for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.”
This story confirms the four part scenario that would railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people.
The four stage plan to pass Obamacare has been publicly confirmed and is ready to be implemented. The following is a comprehensive update: Step One: “The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday.” Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. Foxnews.com is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee’s Vapor Bill. Senate Finance Committee’s progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.
Step Two: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. CNSnews.com has confirmed that “the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people. This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.
Step Three: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.
Step Four: This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE.
The final step in this plan is for the House to take up Obama care, without amending the legislation, and then sending that bill directly to the President for his signature. Matt Cover at CNSnews.com reports “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) won’t rule out having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to President Barack Obama without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in the House and Senate–and a longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says.” This scenario is in the process of being implemented and, if successful, it will result in Obamacare being on the President’s desk in time for Thansgiving with minimal participation of the American public. The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can’t see the bill. “When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama’s signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn’t been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office.” The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress’ health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy.
Harry Reid was at a Latino Gala on the 17th of September and was quoted as saying this about what he plans to do with the Baucus Bill to get it passed:
The bill that came out of the Finance Committee isn’t something that is going to get the immediate approval of everybody in America or every senator, but it's a part of the process. That bill will go now to full committee. They will have a markup. They’ll report a bill out of that committee and then I will take that bill and the bill from the HELP Committee and put it together and bring it on the floor. That’s the bill we need to focus on what's happening now is just part of the process.
He has just admitted what his plans are to pass this bill. He couldn't get any more blatant. Hes just going to by-pass the American people who overwhelmingly don't want this passed and ram it down our throats. I hope the Nevadans wake up and vote this clown out.
WOULD YOU OR YOUR COMPANY LIKE TO SPONSOR THE NEXT INSTALLMENT OF 'LIBERAL LIES ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE'? SEE MY WEB SITE FOR DETAILS! PART 7 October 7, 2009
(18) America's lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.
President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.
These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We're 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a "life expectancy" problem than a "Democratic math competency" problem.
But also, as described in last week's column, the citizenry's health is not the same thing as the citizenry's health care system.
Besides America's high rate of infant mortality -- based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care -- Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.
Liberals shouldn't have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: "We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets." I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.
Somewhat surprisingly to those of us who have long admired France for its humanitarian smoking laws, until the mid-1980s, Americans had had the highest rate of smoking in the developed world. This makes patriotic Americans like me wonder if there's a way to get Michael Moore to start smoking. (You know, just to keep his weight down or whatever.)
To be fair, the French are still being exposed to large amounts of smoke due to all the cars being set on fire by Muslims.
In 2003, America led the world in smoking-related deaths among women -- followed by Hungary. Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization's comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women's life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place.
Americans are also more likely to die in military combat than the whimpering, pant-wetting cowards our military has spent the past 70 years defending -- I mean, than "our loyal European allies." This is a health risk Europeans have managed to protect themselves against by living in a world that contains the United States military.
These are risk factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. To evaluate the quality of our health care, you have to compare apples to apples by looking at outcomes for specific medical conditions.
Although the United States has a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes compared to Europe -- because of lifestyle choices and genetics -- it also has better survival rates across the board for all these medical problems.
The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease.
A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close -- and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.
For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.
European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.
In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.
Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.
There are no national registries for heart disease, as there are for cancer, making survival-rate comparisons more difficult. But treatments can be measured and, again, Americans are far more likely to be on medication for heart disease and high cholesterol -- medications that extend the lives of millions, developed by those evil, profit-grubbing American drug companies.
To get to the comparison they like (America is not as good as Sweden!), liberals have to slip in the orange of "life expectancy," and hope no one will mention monster truck races, Krispy Kremes and Virginia Slims. As the old saying goes: Life doesn't last longer in socialist countries; it just feels like it.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
This guy should be in jail. Not for his above views but because he knew about a child in pederasty and did not mention it to anyone or do anything about it! This is a sin of ommission and earns him a seat in circle eight. I hope this guys ends up like Van Jones.
Slowbama is still hesitant to send more troops to Afghanistan where Gen. Stanley McChrystal says they are necessary for a victory there. By the time he figures out what he must do there he'll have a Vietnam II on his hands. This is infinetly more complex than picking a dog out and that took him 6 months.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday ruled out shrinking the Afghanistan war to a counterterrorism campaign. Yet he did not signal whether he is prepared to send any more troops to the war zone—either the 40,000 his top commander wants or a smaller buildup, according to several officials. House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.
Obama is examining how to proceed with a worsening war that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned—eight years on Wednesday.
Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.
The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.
Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops—closer to 10,000 than 40,000—according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.
The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.
"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."
What's clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep al-Qaida terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.
Several lawmakers described the exchanges as helpful and open. Different views emerged over just how much backing the president will get.
"The one thing that I think was interesting is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said, 'Whatever decision you make, we'll support it,' basically," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "So we'll see."
The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said later: "I think Republicans will be able to make the decisions for themselves." But he added that Obama is likely to get significant Republican support if he follows the advice of his military commanders. Boehner agreed, saying "my colleagues on the House side will be there to support" Obama if he stays true to the mission of denying a haven for al-Qaida terrorists or Taliban militants who are fiercely fighting coalition forces.
Obama's emphasis on working off a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to "dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate," as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.
The president made clear he would not "double down" in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.
"Half measures is what I worry about," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's opponent in last year's election. He said Obama should follow the recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country—similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop "surge" in Iraq. He also prodded Obama to act.
"It's pretty clear that time is not on our side," said McCain, one of the many lawmakers who met with the president.
Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping. It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.
The White House said Obama won't base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.
"The president is going to make a decision—popular or unpopular—based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.
Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Jim Kuhnhenn, Anne Flaherty, Anne Gearan, Jennifer Loven, Robert Burns, Philip Elliott and Charles Babington contributed to this report. Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.