Obama’s plan will eliminate the private insurance industry, “its premised on doing so.” He intends to create a socialist, government controlled health care system regardless.
Obama wants a single payer healthcare system. His deception offers a “choice” that is intended to disappear shortly whether people want their private insurance or not.
…And consider this an open thread.
(H/T verumserum.com)
This little report is interesting in a few ways, but the most important is that it seems to show that the publishers of at least one American newspaper are wholly ignorant of American history. It seems that early last week the Warren Times Observer of Warren, Pennsylvania published an ad that basically expressed a desire to see President Barack Obama assassinated and they didn’t even know it.
The small town paper published an ad that read as follows: “May Obama follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!” Sadly, the paper’s editors completely missed the salient fact that all these historical presidents — except for Obama — were assassinated in office!
Roll Call is reporting that during the typical Friday afternoon document dump — a practice used to hide actions that might prove somewhat embarrassing to the White House — the administration quietly announced that some of the former restrictions on lobbying ballyhooed about during the late campaign have been lifted.
Let special interests ring!
Roll Call (see here, but subscription is required) says that the administration lifted bans on lobbyists that have some part of spending “stimulus” funds. So now getting hooks into bloated federal spending is open season for the very lobbyists that Obama pretended to disdain only months ago.
So much for hopinchange.
Naturally from our vantage point, Barack Obama is a left-wing terror as president. To name just a few things, he is turning our system from one of capitalism to one of socialism, he is attempting to undermine the Constitution by placing an activist on the Supreme Court, he is weakening our national security by frittering away the gains of the previous administration and by bending over backwards for our enemies while constantly flipping off our allies, he is looking to destroy our national healthcare system by introducing a disastrous single payer system, and he is attempting to give anti-business unions the power to destroy what is left of the business community that he himself hasn’t gotten around to crushing as of yet. We on the right are alarmed by his trip down the ruinous road that Europe has already well traveled to rueful results.
One would think that the American left (or the anti-American left as the case may be) would be thrilled that their most fantasized about social, political, and economic sledgehammers were being wielded by their Obammessiah. But, one might be surprised to see that the extremists on the left are beginning to rumble in seething anger over the fact that, to date, Obama hasn’t gone fast enough or far enough to the extreme left to suit them. One of these wild-eyed, bomb-throwers has even just called for his resignation.
So, are we beginning to see waning the far left’s love affair with The One? Might this disappointment turn into the sort of lefty outrage that it did with Lyndon Baines Johnson? Will Barack Obama’s left wing flap him to death?
Wanna be an Ambassador in the era of “change”? OK, then what do you have to do? Do you need to speak a foreign tongue? How about have some training in diplomacy? Maybe exhibit familiarity with any particular foreign culture? Nope, not in Obama’s Washington. All you need to do is donate a hefty sum to the Obama campaign and voila, you are in like Flynn. It may not bother Obama, but this big donor cum ambassador situation is striking a sour note with those Europeans that thought that Obama was going to be a man more interested in professionalism, qualifications and a serious attention to foreign policy than in paying off big donors.
So much for “change.”
Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald has done it again. She’s unleashed her deathless prose filled with soaring rhetoric and high concepts all revealing her infinite sagacity. OK, that was just sarcasm. In truth, Eagan has given us another example of the sort of low-end, guttural, sputterings that we have become so used to seeing drip like sour milk from her pen. Her latest Boston Herald piece is a prime example of the unprofessionalism that pervades her work.
In a posting titled “Men in throes of Supreme panic,” Eagan gets into her best name calling mode against all those eeeevil “white men” out there that might find reason to oppose President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a woman well known for positing that female Hispanics are inherently better judges than white men — a sentiment that if reversed would be considered a racist statement.
With the first days of Summer a long standing American tradition emerges anew from yards and garages all across the country. Once again this season we will see the venerable American garage sale bloom everywhere. Homeowners will be seen busily setting up folding tables or bringing picnic tables from back yards to load them up with used clothes, toys, collectibles, and items of all sorts. Couples will once again cruise the neighborhood looking to those bargains. It’s as American as Baseball, and the rest.
But a new player has been introduced to the venerable garage sale scheme and this one isn’t looking for a deal. It is a new player that isn’t looking to ask you “how much” but is looking to tell you what you’ll be allowed to sell. It’s the federal government and it’s iron boot heel come a’calling at your local garage sale.
That’s right, folks, the federal government is here to warn you that you will no longer be allowed to sell certain things at your garage or yard sales or even on auction sites like ebay. If you are a scofflaw, Big Brother is here to stomp you. The nanny state is here to “protect” you. And you better watch out or there’s no telling what just might happen to you if you don’t bow down to the all powerful state.
Francis Wilkinson, executive editor of The Week news magazine, seems to think that The New York Times is a model of restraint with a centrist editorial policy and that conservatives should be afraid of the day when the Old Gray Lady publishes its last sheet. My guess: if your eyebrow could be raised any higher at this claim, it’d become a toupee.
In a somewhat contradictory piece headlined “Will GOP regret attacks on The Times?,” Wilkinson by turns says that The New York Times has on one hand allowed the Bush administration to program its content while on the other hand says that the paper exhibits “bedrock liberal assumptions that define the paper.” How it can be both is hard to understand, but Wilkinson seems to think it’s possible.
The central point of the piece, though, sets up a sort of straw man that is then knocked down by saying that The New York Times is a model of journalistic restraint that will be sorely missed by conservatives when the paper is buried to be replaced by Internet based “news” outlets like The Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo. Even so, this piece is not without merit.
Not long ago the San Diego Union-Tribune got bought up by a private Beverly Hills firm named Platinum Equity. Platinum was heavily invested in by the Los Angeles police pension fund. And so, because the police are large stake owners of the news paper, the police union has called for the firing of certain employees it considers anti-union.
So much for freedom of the press as far as this union is concerned!
On March 6, Obama’s mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, happily told the nation that the Obama “stimulus” plan had saved the jobs of 25 Cops in Columbus, Ohio. This was an example, Gibbs trumpeted, of how Obama’s supposed stimulus package was “working” to set the country to rights. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder even took a road trip to Columbus to proudly see these “saved” cops being sworn in as police officers.
It was back slaps and grins all around as Obama celebrated his successful “stimulus” program. That was less than two months ago. Today, those same 25 new policemen whose jobs were “saved” by the great father in Washington have been laid off over lack of funds.
Obama’s great hope and mirrors campaign strikes its false stance as savior again, proving that there was no “stimulus” in the stimulus plan and that it was a false front all along meant only to serve as a part of Obama’s permanent political campaign effort. In reality, there’s just no there, there.
Remember how everyone in the Old Media delighted in lambasting Governor Sarah Palin when the GOP bought all those clothes for her use during the McCain campaign? Remember how it was reported as nearly a foregone conclusion that these purchases must have somehow been illegal? It was even bigger news when the left-wing group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an ethics complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the GOP. The whole thing was the talk of the Old Media, as you may recall.
Well, as of May 15, the FEC ruled that there was no ethics violation and the clothing spending was deemed legal. One would think that this news concluding the story would make as big of a splash with the Old Media as the beginning of the tale did. Naturally, crickets have been heard throughout the media establishment as little notice has been paid to this story.
So, let’s see. There was that whole World War Two thingie. There was Germany, Japan and Italy on one side. So, who was on the other? I think it was The United States, Russia, and some other unimportant countries… right? One might be excused to assume this is the thought process of the Obama administration as it planned the upcoming D-Day events for the president’s European tour that is in the offing because as currently announced, Team Obama left the Queen out of its D-Day memorial plans. And boy is the she torked, not that anyone can blame her.
This is the Fourth slight made against England by the Obama administration and it is beginning to look less and less like an accident and more like a purposeful policy of snubbing the Brits. I mean, imagine. Planning a D-Day commemoration that excludes the Queen! And she is the only world leader that actually served during the war, on top of it.
A group called the Economic Policy Institute is touting a paper by Cornell professor Kate Bronfenbrenner who claims to be investigating anti-union forces that she says are growing in intensity, boldness, and power. Bronfenbrenner writes that between 1999 and 2003 employer resistance to union organizing has increased causing unionizing efforts to fail despite what she claims is an increase in the public’s desire to see more union success. But it seems that there are some problems with her methodology: she never talked to anyone but disgruntled union organizers to gather her material.
Bronfenbrenner is concerned that there is mounting efforts in the business community to oppose union organizing and sets out to prove her theory. She investigates several unionizing efforts that failed and compiles some stats on such efforts. But, her facts are self-fulfilling her premise in that the percentage of failed union attempts seem to be higher than the average for National Labor Relations Board elections during the targeted years of study. (This according to Union Free America)
On May 20, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked a few salient questions about coverage of an April 27 incident at the White House basketball court, a sort of event after the event that the White House press corps was barred from covering. Tapper wondered then why the president barred the press but it later became clear that Team Obama was creating its own little media report “complete with cuts, interviews, and chyrons identifying who’s speaking.”
Tapper subtly warned that the president’s penchant for controlling the message smacks of an Obama Ministry of Propaganda styled effort that excludes “actual reporters” from covering the White House and leaves the country with faux news that is free of any “uncomfortable questions” asked by probing journalists.
A few of our newly minted spokesmen for all those seemingly ubiquitous new Republican moderates out there are starting to say that if we oppose Sotomayor, we do so at our own risk. By this they mean that if we are seen to oppose a strong Hispanic woman we will be hurting our chances further with Hispanic voters. To this one can only say poppycock. Sotomayor should be opposed and vigorously but not because of anything other than her rather un-judicial judicial philosophy.
No one, not one conservative commentator or politician, cares a whit that Sotomayor is Hispanic. There simply is no expectation of opposing her because she is of Latino heritage. And so, because of this, there should be no reason whatever to shy from criticizing her qualifications and philosophy. Further, to allow moderates on our side or anyone on the left to equate our opposition to a racial objection is illegitimate and should be vociferously denied.
President Obama sent a wreath to the Confederate memorial at Arlington cemetery during the memorial services to recognize the sacrifices and service of the members of our armed forces this week. It has been a tradition since Woodrow Wilson offered a wreath to memorialize Confederate dead at Arlington and a tradition that many on the American far left wanted to see ended. They have been disappointed.
But the president also started a new tradition, one that everyone should welcome and one that we should all hope is continued by every succeeding president that comes after Obama. President Obama also laid a wreath at the African-American Civil War Memorial at Vermont Avenue and U Street Northwest in Washington D.C.
Feminists are in essence an anti-intellectual lot. After all, the back flips they have to do to justify their anti-male crusade is an act worthy of Olympics style awards. Such are the illogical back bends that feminists must to do to justify their ideology that men become wholly unnecessary, biology and nature be damned. There are many intellectual outrages to education and tradition that feminists employ to make themselves feel superior. But I want to focus here on just one of these.
The example I’d like to discuss today is the elimination of the masculine pronoun. For those not “up” on their Strunk & White’s, the masculine pronoun is used when speaking about people generically. Example: Everyone should take his tea with milk. In this example the tea drinker is identified as “his” because a specific person or gender is not a focus, the sentence being centered on how people in general should drink tea.
Liberty University, a Christian college situated near Lynchburg, Virginia and founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell, has this week decertified its college Democratic Party club over the singular fact that the National Democratic Party is a supporter of abortion. After the debacle of allowing a president that is a supporter of infanticide being invited to speak at the leading Catholic University in the nation, I can only say that Liberty University should be congratulated for standing up for its principles. At least these Baptists actually believe in something unlike the putative Catholics at Notre Dame.
But is this a violation of political free speech in a nation where the Democratic Party is a long-standing, historically important political force that is followed by half the electorate and currently holds a majority of the seats in our national government? Are these students having their speech illicitly quashed by Liberty University?
The simple answer is a resounding “no.”
On the Sacramento Bee website, Jon Ortiz has a blog called “The State Worker” and he’s discovered an interesting little tidbit about the state employees union and the current budget woes that face the Golden State.
It seems that someone in the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office has wised up and recommended that the state dump the contract the state has with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as well as add a third furlough day to state employee’s work month.
On May 20, Politico had an interesting little treatment of columnist Charles Krauthammer crowning him as the most important conservative columnist of the day. A brief overview of his life and his emergence as the most reliable voice against Obamaism served as the main subject for the piece, but a few quotes on Mr. Krauthammer made by other columnists added a sense of how respected Krauthammer is to scribe Ben Smith’s piece. All the quotes were complimentary but shockingly, in one of those quotes, lefty Time columnist Joe Klein seemed to hint that a person in a wheelchair was incapable of really understanding enough of the world to make for a worthy columnist.
For those unaware, Charles Krauthammer has been confined to a wheelchair for several decades after he was injured in a swimming accident as a young man.
Can you imagine? In this day and age, saying that a person in a wheelchair is incapable of really understanding the world because they can’t easily get out there themselves because of their disability? And, how does a lefty columnist get away with saying this? Will no one scold Klein for his conceit that because he has two working legs that this fact somehow automatically makes him better qualified to opine as a columnist than a wheelchair bound Krauthammer?
