Skip navigation

Category Archives: THE IDIOTS ON THE LEFT

Obama Biden Watch – Volume 1 Issue 1 – January 2009

In This Issue:

  • Obama’s Inaugural Address Falls Flat?
  • Change We Can Believe In? Looks Like the Usual Suspects!
  • Obama’s First Actions Not Making America Safer
  • Geithner’s Tax Problems
  • Obama-Blagojevich Report Contradicts Public Record
  • Political Panetta at CIA?
  • Pelosi’s Power Grab
  • Bill Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary
  • Citizens United Productions Presents: Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny Documentary
  • Final Thoughts from Citizens United President David N. Bossie

Stay tuned for more updates as we will be updating this site frequently.

Copyright 2009 by Citizens United

ANOTHER IGNORANT DAMNACRAT

And those dammed Democrats think they know more than the rest of us.  That they are smarter than we are.  That they know and understand the Constitution better than we do.

BULL CRAP

The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers for a new country and its CITIZENS.

CITIZENS, not for foreign terrorists or illegal aliens.  Those terrorists currently set to be brought to New York for trial in civil courts. These are enemy combatants, they have no civil rights as applied to citizens and legal, foreign, residents.

CNSNews.com

Rep. Kucinich Says Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same ‘Basic Rights’
Monday, November 23, 2009
By Nick Ballasy


Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

(CNSNews.com) – When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same “basic rights” afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer–told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about.”

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.”

When asked the same question by CNSNews.com on Nov. 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder several questions about how the capture and legal handling of Osama Bin Laden might be handled and warned that, in his opinion, the United States is “making bad history” by trying 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court.

When Graham asked whether the U.S. would try Bin Laden in a civilian court or military commission, Holder said he “didn’t know” and that the U.S. would have to “go through our protocol” before deciding what to do with the Islamic terrorist.

“If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” Graham asked Holder. Holder’s response was “that all depends,” and Graham warned that the Obama administration’s new legal policy would confuse the military and the justice system.

“Well, it does not ‘depend,’” the senator said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over—to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence—for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is the subject to criminal court in the United States.

“And you’re confusing the people fighting this war,” Graham charged. Later, the senator added, “The only point I’m making (is) that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court.”

Holder announced last Friday that he had chosen to try Mohammed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, where the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred in 2001.

CNSNews.com

Rep. Kucinich Says Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same ‘Basic Rights’
Monday, November 23, 2009
By Nick Ballasy


Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

(CNSNews.com) – When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same “basic rights” afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer–told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about.”

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.”

When asked the same question by CNSNews.com on Nov. 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder several questions about how the capture and legal handling

The Bogus Death Statistic That Won’t Die
By Michelle Malkin
October 23, 2009

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly.” Next, he likened health insurance problems to a “holocaust in America.” Now, he’s unveiled a new website entitled “namesofthedead.com” in memory of the “more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance.”

Just one problem: The statistic is a phantom number. Grayson’s memorial, like the Democrats’ government health care takeover plan itself, is full of vapor. It comes from a study published this year in the American Journal of Public Health. But the science is infused with left-wing politics.

Two of the co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which bills itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.

Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: “Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”

How did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants whether they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Himmelstein, Woolhandler and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.

At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:

“Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.” Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance — and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.

Another caveat you won’t see on Grayson’s memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that “earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7 percent and 11 percent of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample.”

To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as “uninsured” may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status. But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance.

Next, the political doctors cooked up scary-specific death tolls for all 50 states (California — 5,302, Texas — 4,675). Newspapers dutifully cited the fear-mongering factoids. The single-payer lobbying group co-founded by Himmelstein and Woolhandler took it from there. Last month, the group set up its own memorial on the National Mall for the phantom 44,000 casualties of uninsurance.

Himmelstein (who was also the driving force behind another flawed study tying medical debt to personal bankruptcies) eschewed scientific nuance and caveats to take to the airwaves and declare starkly that an American “dies every 12 minutes” because of lack of insurance. And now Grayson has taken the monumentally dishonest concept online to solicit sob stories and put flesh on the weak bones of these dubious death numbers.

Where’s the White House health care “reality check” squad when you need it?

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

——————–

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Read More »

DAKOTA VOICE

RAPID CITY SD

YouTube Cooking the Books on Obama Worship Video?

By Bob Ellis on September 24th, 2009

If you’ve been around the internet for long, you know that Google is like most major media organizations today: liberal to the core.  They ignore patriotic holidays with their rotating search engine logos, conservative websites seem to have an unusually hard time getting good coverage in search rankings, and so on.

Maybe you also heard about the video of schoolchildren being led in a worshipful song about Barack Obama that was reminiscent of “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”  That video disappeared from YouTube earlier this morning…only to be replaced by someone who had the foresight to download a copy of it before it disappeared.

Now comes word from Selwyn Duke at RenewAmerica of some funny business with the viewership stats on this video at YouTube.

Duke said he checked the video himself and saw only 363 hits at 1:04 pm…while it had 2,279 comments.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Even touchy-feely liberal self-esteem-friendly math can’t seem to account for this.

So he tracked it further…

I tracked the video a bit myself. Now, remember that it had 363 hits at 1:04 p.m. Here’s what I found.

  • Approximately 1:25 p.m.: the video still supposedly had only 363 hits but had 2,500 comments.
  • 1:39 p.m.: still only 363 hits but 2,668 comments.
  • 2:16 p.m.: 363 hits but 3,018 comments.

You get the idea.

Yes, we do get the idea.

Is it just a glitch at YouTube? Or is it a clumsy but deliberate attempt by Leftist Google to keep the hit ranking of this video low so that it doesn’t make “Top Video” listings which would give it even more exposure?

Liberals feel a virtually irresistible compulsion to protect their Obamessiah from blasphemy or other negative comments, so it seems quite credible that Google doesn’t want the Obamessiah receiving any more negative exposure than he already is through this video.

It ain’t easy being a truth-teller in an age of liberal dominance…but it’s worth it all the same!

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Subscribe to this feedDiscuss on NewsvineAdd to Mixx!Email thisTwit This!CrossFeed ThisSphere: Related ContentTechnorati LinksSave to del.icio.usDigg This! (3 Diggs)Share on FacebookStumble It!1 comment on this itemAdd to Windows Live FavoritesSubmit to RedditGoogle Bookmark ThisFark ItAdd to Yahoo MyWeb2Buzz Up!

Related Posts

WXRGina Today 05:58 PM

HA! Last night when I saw this video linked off of Drudge, I noticed the number of hits on it was very low, though I can’t remember the actual number, it was only a few hundred. I was thinking this video is on DRUDGE, and this hit-count can’t be right! I thought the same thing then that you and Selwyn are saying. I knew this would “hit the fan” today, and I’m not surprised You Tube tried to bury it. These evil maniacs on the left are unbridled in their fervor to protect Obamination’s image. But, it ain’t workin’! The horse is out of the barn!

Massive Conservative D.C. Protest Buried and Dismissed, But Smaller Liberal Rallies Hailed
A conservative protest at the Capitol numbering in the tens of thousands was worth an unfavorable story on page 37. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Posted by: Clay Waters
9/14/2009 3:43:28 PM

There was a huge protest against Obama’s big-government plans at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, but one was hard-pressed to find evidence of it on the Times home page Sunday morning: A small headline tucked under the Political subhead.

The print edition wasn’t much more forthcoming. Although the Washington D.C. Fire Dept. estimated 60,000 to 70,000 people attended the 9/12 protest, and many estimates are higher, the Times made do with one medium-sized story buried on page A37 of the Sunday paper, “Thousands Attend Broad Protest of Government,” teasing it on the front page in a below-the-fold photo from the march. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement in the Times, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Reporter Jeff Zeleny painted protesters as “angry” and “profane” and that the rally contained “no shortage of vitriol,” as if there were never raised voices and obscene signage at left-wing anti-war rallies:

A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.

On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower taxes and a smaller government.

But as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like “God Bless America,” sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress.

….

The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the “parasite in chief.” Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up preprinted signs saying, “Bury Obama Care with Kennedy,” a reference to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two weeks earlier to be memorialized.

Other signs did not focus on Mr. Obama, but rather on the government at large, promoting gun rights, tallying the national deficit and deploring illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Check out this backhanded compliment:

Still, many demonstrators expressed their views without a hint of rage. They said the size of the crowd illustrated that their views were shared by a broader audience.

Zeleny found some unnamed “Republican officials” to fret over a backlash, and downplayed the significance of those who turned out:

Mr. DeMint and a few Republican legislators were the only party leaders on hand for the demonstration. Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians. And most of those who turned out were not likely to have been Obama voters anyway.

Did the Times ever suggest anti-war demonstrators “were not like to have been Bush voters anyway”?

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of protesters in colonial gear wended through the crowd, led by a bell ringer in a tricorn hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers.

Obama’s health-care speech on Saturday actually got slightly better placement. It landed on page A35 under a similar headline, “Thousands Rally in Minnesota Behind Obama’s Call for Health Care Overhaul,” although the attendance at the Target Center in Minneapolis was reliably estimated at around 15,000, making it at least four times smaller than the D.C. rally. Obama and his fans also got more positive coverage from reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

Thousands of roaring supporters turned out Saturday to rally behind President Obama’s call to overhaul the nation’s health care system, packing a basketball arena here as Mr. Obama warned that nearly half of all Americans under 65 could lose their insurance at some point during the next decade….On a day when demonstrators crammed onto the west lawn of the Capitol to protest what they regard as Mr. Obama’s brand of big government, including his health plan, the images of screaming, cheering Obama supporters here provided a welcome visual counterpoint for the White House. The White House estimated that 15,000 people attended the rally here; the applause was thunderous when the president bounded onto the stage, shirtsleeves rolled up, as he revived an old campaign rallying cry: “Are you fired up?”

In fact, the Times’ coverage of the huge anti-government rally in the nation’s capital was on the same level as the coverage of an ACORN-organized left-wing “bus tour” of homes of American International Group executives back in March, a piece of Astroturf so blatant even the Times admitted the media outnumbered the protesters. Yet while 40 left-wing protesters in Connecticut were worth a 724-word Times story back in March, an estimated 70,000 anti-Obama protesters in D.C. garnered a 932-word story on Saturday. A slight anomaly?

There was nothing on the Times’ “Caucus” blog from the actual march, although the blog did preview it Saturday morning with a pessimistic estimate of the crowd size (“as many as 30,000 demonstrators are expected”), in a post marked with suspicion of the protest’s origin and motives. That post also granted top billing to Obama’s speech.

Another telling contrast: The coverage of Saturday’s march (and the previous Tea Party protests) with the fawning coverage of the pro-illegal immigration protests of 2006, when amnesty for illegals was on the agenda. The Times didn’t find much “vitriol” at the massive rallies in support of illegal immigration. Here’s Robert McFadden in the April 10, 2006 Times, describing the largest of the nationwide rallies in Dallas:

The Dallas protesters were young and old. Some were families pushing baby strollers. Some walked with canes, others rolled along in wheelchairs. There were members of unions, churches, civil rights organizations and business groups, but many were strangers to one another. Some spoke passionately about their desire to be Americans, to vote and to hold a job without fea

SOCIALISTS. or both.  Either way they seem hell bent for leather to destroy this country.  If Senators (and Congresspersons) are elected to represent the best interests of the people who sent them to Congress.  So why do many of them follow the party line and  things that do not represent the people of their home state?


Sunstein headed toward confirmation
By: Alex Isenstadt
September 9, 2009 04:15 PM EST

Democrats succeeded Wednesday in pushing forward the nomination of Cass Sunstein, the controversial Harvard University law professor who has been tapped by President Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In a 63-35 vote Wednesday evening, the Senate voted to end the debate on Sunstein’s nomination, moving Sunstein one step closer to a full vote in the Senate.

Sunstein has been tapped for one of the more wonky jobs in the White House – reviewing the effectiveness of federal regulations. But his nomination has caught fire with conservatives, led by Fox News host Glenn Beck, who have highlighted some of his more liberal positions on animal rights and end of life care. Sunstein has been described by Republicans as one of the many Obama “czars,” but because he requires Senate confirmation, he doesn’t really fit the mold of a “czar” who wield enormous powers with little oversight.

Conservatives are particularly incensed over statements Sunstein has made advocating for greater regulation of hunting rights.

While Republicans will have little ability to stop Sunstein’s nomination, conservatives are feeling energized after their successful push for the resignation of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones, who stepped down from his post this weekend after it was revealed that he had dabbled with 9/11 conspiracy groups and had made inflammatory statements about Republicans.

The heated debate over Sunstein began on the Senate floor just hours before President Obama sets foot in the Capitol to deliver a nationally televised address on health care to Congress.

On his Twitter account Tuesday, Beck blasted Democrats for “rushing” Sunstein’s vote through the Senate.

“Dems likely to vote on Sunstein’s nomination TOMORROW; they are afraid of WatchDogs; every day increases their risk of losing this vote,” Beck wrote.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

The resignation of avowed communist Van Jones has plenty of people feeling that the future of the country is a bit safer. And it is an interesting “coincidence” that the attendees of the Cincinnati Tea Party demanded his resignation on Saturday, and then it was announced on Sunday.

The newest threat to the free market system and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to many conservatives is the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the regulatory czar. LaTimes.com describes him as “left of center, ” and Forbs.com has reported that he is as a, “progressive. ” Some of his academic writings apparently favor animal rights above human rights to the point of arguing the defense of animal rights over human rights in a court of law.

He’s not known for being a supporter of the second amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms, and that disturbs ranchers who want to protect their cattle, those who are interested to have a gun on hand to protect their family, and those who are hunters.

Forbes.com has also stated that, Sunstein has “spent years delving into the obscure issues of regulatory law and behavioral economics,” which is a deep concern for conservatives who are supporters of the free market system, and the fact that he has, “embraced a controversial ‘senior death discount’ ” is of great concern to those who are pro life. Somehow, the words ‘senior death discount’ sounds an awful lot like the death panels in the healthcare bill.

Interestingly, TheHill.com reported on Wednesday that Representative Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), “called for President Obama’s ‘czars,’ or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their ‘authority and responsibilities’ in the executive branch.”

The question of the legitimacy of their authority is a good one. Especially since Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that, “…he (the President) shall nominate, and  by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” (emphasis added). In other words, the czars need to be confirmed by the Senate. And if the Senate doesn’t confirm them, they have no business standing in the positions to which they have been appointed.

To make matters even more interesting, there is a bill named HR 3226, also known as the “Czar Accountability Act of 2009.”  This particular bill states that, “appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position…without the advice and consent of the Senate.”  The bill was introduced in the House on July 15, 2009 by Rep. Jack Kingston and is being supported by many in the House. It would be in the best interest of “We the People” to demand that it be made into a law.

Similar Articles:

Tea Party attendees demand Van Jones resignation, and it happens
Socialism in America is unconstitutional
Congressman says Obama has potential to ‘make himself a dictator’
Senate’s fiscal irresponsibility is scaring the UN
Former communist turned Christian organizes interdenominational group in Prayer for Nation

Websites of possible interest:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3226 (HR 3226: Czar Accountability & Reform)
cincinnatiteaparty.org/
teaparty.org/

Sara Palin in WSJ on Obamacare, Your Money AND Your Life Posted: 08 Sep 2009 07:25 PM PDT There is a Classic Jack Benny routine that reminds me of Obamacare. In the routine Benny is accosted on the street by a robber with a gun, “your money or your life,” threatens the thief. The master comedian takes his classic pose with his open palmed fingers on the side of his face and remains silent. “Well ?” says the gunman. “I’m thinking” says Benny, “I’m thinking” If Obamacare gets passed in its present form that choice will not be open to many Americans, the government will definitely take out money and,in some cases, as heath care gets rationed they will take your life also. That is the message that former Alaska Governor gives in an Op-ed in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal; Obamacare is too expensive, will lead to health care rationing, and will build a massive and inefficient federal bureaucracy. Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care The president’s proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers. By SARAH PALIN Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law. Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us. We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit. How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree. Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.” With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep. Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .” First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .” Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration. Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure. The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times. Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats. Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care. Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.” We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it. Today Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) circulated a draft outline for healthcare reform legislation. The outline does not include a public option, however, it creates Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OP)s- which are nonprofit, member-run health insurance companies. The framework also suggests a few revenue provisions for healthcare reform, including a 35 percent tax on insurance companies and insurance administrators for any health insurance plan that is above $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans. It would also impose an annual fee of $2.3 billion on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector and an annual fee of $6 billion on the health insurance sector, both beginning in 2010. Higher rates would be paid by larger families, older people and smokers. That’s just what people need more taxes. Baucus gave the Republicans on the committee 24 hours to agree with his proposal. I’m not sure what he meant by this maybe after 24 hours he will begin to kill one Senior per hour until they agree. Wednesday Night the President will be making his “revised sales pitch” to Americans, it is almost certain that the President will not substantially address the issues that Palin addresses above. Until then it will be difficult for the POTUS to change very many minds.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Exclusive: July 16, 2009

The Ten Commandments According to Obama

By: Patriot Update
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13

© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.

After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you’ve been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE