Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Obama blames SecDef Gates for shortchanging troops.

In Obama's widely panned Tuesday Night Speech, he made what appears to be a blatantly false claim:

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.
That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops.

Former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld called Obama out on this lie, saying that if there is ANY evidence that the White House received requests during his time in office, they should make it public.

Obama, knowing he was caught in a lie, came up with a scheme -- Gibbs, his spokesperson, came out and agreed with a reporter's assumption that Obama was talking about requests made in 2008.

See, in 2008, the Sec. of Defense was Robert Gates. And today, he is still Defense Secretary, which means he reports to, and is under the control of Obama.

Of course, in reality the 2008 troop requests did work through the system, and as troops became available some were retasked to Afghanistan. But after the election, the incoming adminsitration put a hold on the troops, and took almost 3 months before finally releasing half of the request (hence Obama's "approved a long-standing request" is also misleading since they were long-standing because he asked them to be put on hold).

Now we've operated almost a year, and nothing more has been done; except that Obama forced his generals to HOLD their requests so he could claim there was no "request on his desk".

Saturday, November 21, 2009

"I want to live forever" - Fame? No, Reid's Delusion of Obamacare

Senator Harry Reid, who couldn't craft a health care bill that solved a SINGLE ONE of the "problems" the health care bill is supposed to fix, has a much bigger target in mind -- immortality:

"Today we [decide] whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said shortly before the vote. "Whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all."

Monday, November 16, 2009

Obamacare/House version would reduce senior care

Last time, I chronicled how the Obamacare bill passed by Pelosi would raise health care cost by hundreds of billions of dollars -- contrary to the stated goal of lowering health care costs.

Today, from the Washington Post, we find that Obamacare also fails to protect people's existing insurance, another "promise" from the great President Obama, who breaks promises on a daily basis.

Specifically, the Post notes that Senior Citizens are a prime target of Pelosi and the Democrats, because Pelosi's Bill would reduce senior care:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

Again, we could have known this fact before the House voted on the bill. In fact, Pelosi certainly knew this -- which is why she pushed for a rediculous schedule, making at least one member miss his own son's wedding so she could pass health care destruction in the dead of saturday night.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Not that Democrats want old people to just die or anything. No serious person would try to argue that a political party wants people to die. Oh wait -- that's exactly what the crazy elected Democrats DO argue. But Republicans aren't the ones cutting billions from old people's health care.

This new study also points out the tremendous increase in costs under this plan:

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Oh well, it sucks to be an old person dependent on government-run health insurance when the Democrats control the government.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Who Is Failure? (whoever thinks that is a sentence?

Who Is Failure? Apparently, Barack Obama, who also might be a Miserable Failure.

I only wish he was more of a failure. He is still "succeeding" enough to destroy the country.

Obamacare/House version RAISES health costs

Obama and the Democrats are pushing health care reform by claiming that costs are going up, and we need to stop that. This is the only thing that the public seems to agree with them about -- the public would LOVE to save money on health care.

But no bill pushed by the Democrats yet has done a thing to lower costs. And the bill that just passed the house will actually increase costs, by almost 300 BILLION dollars:

The House-approved healthcare overhaul would raise the costs of healthcare by $289 billion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The CMS report is a blow to the White House and House Democrats who have vowed that healthcare reform would curb the growth of healthcare spending.

I don't see how this is a "blow" to house democrats. Pelosi already forced her side to rush the vote on their bill, before they had this analysis. Realise that if they had simply waited a week, they could have had this information BEFORE they voted.

This of course explains WHY Pelosi rushed the vote. She knew, and the democrats all knew, that their bill did nothing to fix health care. They just wanted to take over health care, because they want to run everything, and make all of us serve them.

Pelosi is a power-hungry politician. She wants to rule the world. She is willing to destroy our health care to get what she wants. We need to stop her.

Obama Disrespects our country (again again)

Obama is the President of the United States, which we as Americans say is the greatest Country in the world, a Country that bows to no other.

Obama won't put his hand on his heart for our country. But he will bow to foreign leaders, bringing shame to our country.

And he apparently is the only head of state to do so, as this animated picture shows:

I am getting sick and tired of our President denigrating our country, apologizing for all of us for things that deserve no apology, selling out our principles for marxists and socialists, turning our country into a laughingstock of the world.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Obama Disrespects our country (again)

During the election, a picture was circulated showing that Obama refused to salute the American flag during the playing of our national anthem.

At the time, some people argued that it wasn't universally accepted that one should put their hands on their heart for the anthem, but only when saying the pledge.

This even though anybody who's been at a ball game, or at the entrance to a theme park, knows better.

But now Obama is the President of the United States. As such, he's not just being himself, he's representing all of us.

And still he disrespects the flag, and our country:

Unless, of course, his heart is in his, well, you know.

Monday, November 09, 2009

Obama's lies exposed again.

Let me get this straight. Saturday, Obama says the House bill, as written, meets all his qualifications. One of those qualifications he's been making is that the bill did not fund abortions.

Saturday night, the Stupak Amendment passes. This amendment bans abortion funding from the House bill that Obama claimed already had none.

In response to the Stupak Amendment, abortion rights advocates are livid:

Abortion rights advocates called the measure the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades.

So Obama promises a bill that has no tax money for abortion. Obama claims the House bill meets that promise. An amendment is passed which removes abortion from the bill. Abortion advocates denounce the amendment for setting back women's reproductive rights.

Is there any wonder why a majority of Americans no longer trust President Obama to tell us the truth about health care? Obama lies with such audacity that Bill Clinton is a piker in comparison. Obama's promises about ANYTHING cannot be trusted -- he is constantly taking back his promises, be it on Afghanistan, taxing the middle class, missle defense, closing Guantanamo -- you name it, Obama has lied about it.

BTW: Currently, many insurance policies offer abortion. Perversely, because the democrats are taking over our health care, many more people will need government subsidies to afford the higher costs of insurance, so many people will lose abortion coverage, since they now have it in a private coverage, but with Obamacare they won't be able to afford their premiums, they'll have to take government subsidies, and therefore will be unable to get abortion coverage.

The government has no business screwing around with, or funding, the nation's medical insurance. If the government would keep it's nose out of our affairs, we wouldn't have to pass abortion funding bans, because government wouldn't be funding anything to begin with.

And as much as I loathe abortion (killing babies just doesn't appeal to me like it does to Nancy Pelosi), I really would like ALL of us to not have tax dollars pay for our health insurance.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Democrat's Health "Reform" - Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

The Washington Times re-iterates a fundamental goal of the Democrats in the "health care reform" bill: "Young Adults Could Face Sharp Rise":

Young adults, a group that helped elect President Obama last fall, could have the highest costs to bear but the most to gain under the health care overhaul proposals in Congress.

The reform bills require insurance companies to reduce the disparities between what they charge the young and the old, with potential to dramatically raise prices for young adults.

Young people don't need health insurance as it exists today. They mostly just need catastrophic coverage, to cover for the really unexpected event like a car accident, a heart attack, or some other rare medical problem.

But state insurance regulations often force policies to cover all sorts of things that young people don't care about -- like a single male having to pay extra to cover Erectile Disfunction, Birth Control pills, abortion and gynecological services, and long-term nursing care.

This is why so many people are uninsured -- the kids just don't see a benefit worth the cost:

Young adults have often been overlooked in the battle to extend health insurance coverage to all Americans. They have the highest rate of uninsured status of all age groups, either because they can't afford it on fresh-from-college salaries or they hope that their age will save them from high-cost medical care. A 2008 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that young adults, ages 19 to 29, make up 29 percent of the uninsured population in the United States.

But at least the insurance companies are allowed to sell the over-blown policies to the young people at a cost less than that for people who will actually USE their services.

Americans understand the principle. If you are a young driver, you pay more for car insurance because you will tend to have more accidents. Life Insurance costs more as you get older, or if you have a history of heart disease, or are a smoker, because you will likely die sooner. Homeowners insurance gives you discounts if you have smoke detectors, better locks, and a fire hydrant nearby, because your house is less likely to burn completely.

But medical insurance is already skewed, mostly by employer-based programs. Because while many companies DO charge more for their older employees, it is generally based on salary, and isn't nearly enough of a difference to reflect the actual costs. That's because it isn't offered as a cost-effective insurance, but as an EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Now, the democrats want to force the same thing on ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE.:

"Allowing insurers to charge older Americans vastly higher premiums simply because of their age is discrimination, pure and simple," Mr. Kerry said. "Insurers must compete based on price, value and customer satisfaction, not by avoiding Americans based on their age or health."

But in true socialist government form, the democrats insist that charging young people a lot more for their insurance won't be a problem -- Because they will get taxpayer-funded subsidies:

But proponents say that much of the new costs young people would face would likely be picked up by tax subsidies that are being designed to help low- and middle-income people buy coverage.

The current plans call for subsidies to be available to individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. This year, that level is $10,830 for an individual and $22,050 for a family of four.

If this wasn't going to increase the deficit, the end result instead would be that government regulation would drive up costs for everybody, but force insurers to take less money from old people and more money from young people, while old people had to simultaneously pay more taxes so that the government could take the money and give it to young people so they could pay for the higher insurance costs.

The key being that this has nothing to do with health care, and EVERYTHING to do with having 85% of the people in this country dependent on the government giving them money. Because once everybody needs the government to survive, the Democrats will have all the power they crave to tell people what to do, like forcing them to by unncessary medical insurance.

McDonnell gets two endorsements

The one is a positive endorsement from the Manassas News/Messenger.

The second endorsement is that the Washington Post endorsed Creigh Deeds. Since the WP endorsement is based solely on the willingness to raise taxes, that's one endorsement McDonnell neither could get, or would want.

The Post tries to also make their endorsement about McDonnell's "thesis". But their hypocrisy on that point makes their argument for Deeds worse -- just three months ago the WP said the opposite things about McDonnell, based on his record, from what they say now.

Since the WP has been writing for the past month for the sole purpose of providing quotes for Creigh Deeds to use in his advertisements, there really was no question they would endorse the man they endorsed in the Democratic primary -- in for a penny, in for a pound.

More on the endorsements later.

Health Care Reform -- Bribes and Punishment

All you need to know about the corruption of Washington DC, and the danger of allowing the Federal Government to meddle in our private affairs, can be found in a Washington Post article (Sunday, October 18, 2009), mockingly headlined "Medical Device Makers Court Unlikely Allies". I say "mockingly" because the facts reveal something more of a shotgun wedding born out of spitefulness, hatred, and anger rather than mutual respect:

But the two camps have come together to defend a powerful home-state industry in the political doghouse: medical device firms.

The companies, whose products range from $3,000 heart stents to $30,000 implantable defibrillators, refused to offer direct financial concessions earlier this year to help pay for health-care reform, unlike drugmakers, hospitals and other health- care players.

The move angered Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, who view the industry as a key contributor to soaring health-care costs, and led the panel to approve a $40 billion fee on device makers over the next 10 years.

So a private industry providing useful services to the people of our country was "asked" to "voluntarily" change what they charged for their product, and they rightly told the feds to stick to their constitutional authority.

And the democrats got ANGRY, because someone dared to stand up to their authority. And they decided to punish those who made them angry, by using the power of government to tax them, thus driving up the costs of the medical devices to the people who need them most.

And what will those taxes paid for by the citizens be used for? To pay off those other industries who bowed down to the democrats and did what they were told.

This article also reveals the inconvenient truth about rising health care costs. Our costs are going up not because things are getting more expensive, but because we have businesses offering NEW treatments and NEW hope for people with medical problems.

In the case of the medical device manufacturers, their devices are making people's lives better, and people are willing to pay money for the new treatments. Nobody is forcing anybody do pay for this, you could always pretend it was 10 years ago and the devices weren't available. But why wouldn't you pay money for something better? Well, the democrats don't think that makes any sense at all:

The industry's efforts are made more difficult by evidence that the push to sell pricey medical devices, from artificial joints to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, has been a significant contributor to skyrocketing health-care costs in the United States. One manufacturer, New Jersey-based ReGen Biologics, has come under fire for aggressively lobbying the Food and Drug Administration to gain approval for a knee-surgery device.

It makes it sound like we don't need or want these devices. But another dirty little secret -- state governments force medical insurance plans to cover things like this, because of lobbying pressure, and then since it "doesn't cost anything", doctors will approve the devices.

But instead of actually reforming how we deliver health care, the democrats are pushing more regulation, more distortion of the costs. They don't care that medical devices may be unnecessary -- instead they are going to TAX them, which means the government will be MORE LIKELY to include these devices in health insurance requirements, because the government will need the tax dollars.

Steven Nissen, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, called device makers "a Wild, Wild West" industry that uses aggressive marketing, including confidential payments to doctors, to drive up demand for its products. "Given the way they have encouraged overutilization, it makes sense that some of that should be given back to help bend the cost curve," he said.

Why not ban "confidential payments" to doctors? Because the suggestion that doctors are doing unncessary surgery against their patient wishes simply because they get bribes has already been shown to be false -- it's just a canard used to argue that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

This is the democrat's message. You can't trust your doctors, they area on the take. You can't trust the companies that have made life-saving drugs for you, they just want to make money. You can't trust your insurance company, you can't trust your nurses, you can't trust the hospital.

But you CAN trust 58 democrats in the Senate to do what is right for you, because they would never act out of anger to punish their adversaries. Oh wait, they just did.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Creigh Deeds -- Tearing down Virginia's Universities.

Creigh Deeds, desperate to get liberals in Northern Virginia to vote for him, while not turning off the rest of Virginia, is running targeted ads attacking a solid Virginia University in Virginia Beach.

In the ad, Creigh Deeds claims that we should vote for Deeds rather than McDonnell because McDonnell attended Regent University, which Deeds derisively misnames.

Regent University is an accredited university which graduated over 1000 students last year, including many Virginia residents, all of whom must wonder what Creigh Deeds has against them, since Deeds is telling prospective employees that in Deeds' opinion, they shouldn't be hired.

Regent University (its undergraduate school and graduate schools) is accredited or certified by the following bodies:

Regent University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associates, baccalaureate, masters, and doctorate degrees. Contact the Commission on Colleges at 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097 or call 404.679.4500 for questions about the accreditation of Regent University.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)

The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV)—certification of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS), accredits the School of Divinity. The Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools, 10 Summit Park Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15275.

The American Bar Association (ABA), accredits the School of Law. The Accreditation Committee and the Council of the Section, 321 N. Clark St., Chicago, IL 60610.

The American Psychological Association (APA), accredits the psychology programs of the School of Psychology & Counseling. Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), accredits the counseling programs of the School of Psychology & Counseling. 5999 Stevenson Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304.

The Regent University School of Education's educational leadership and teacher preparation programs, which are designed to prepare competent, caring, and qualified professional educators is accredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council for a period of five years, from January 9, 2009 to January 9, 2014. This accreditation certifies that the educational leadership and teacher preparation programs have provided evidence that they adhere to TEAC's quality principles. Teacher Educational Accreditation Council, One Dupont Circle, Suite 320, Washington, DC, 20036, phone 202.466.7236.

Apparently, Creigh Deeds thinks he knows more than these organizations, and believes that people who graduate from this Virginia University should be treated as 2nd-class citizens, held up to ridicule and mocking by political candidates who want to be Governor.

This is rediculous. How could we put a man into the Governorship who has so blatantly attacked thousands of our young men and women who worked so hard to earn college degrees from our own universities?

Creigh Deeds - Unfit for Duty

Does Creigh Deeds hate Virginia's universities?

How else would you explain Deeds telling his campaign to launch an attack on the graduates and leadership of an accredited Virginia University?

In a commercial that Deeds must pray is only seen by liberals in Northern Virginia, Deeds attacks McDonnell for attending Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Deeds then attacks McDonnell for serving on the board for the University for 7 years. Imagine any other candidate trying to attack someone for serving a Virginia institute of higher learning.

Here are the current list of trustees. I'm guessing none of them are going to vote for Deeds, after he essentially put them all down:

Mr. G. Conoly Phillips, Chairman
Bishop Wellington Boone
Dr. Benjamin S. Carson
Adm. Vernon E. Clark (USN Ret.)
Dr. Chauncey Crandell
Mrs. Roberta Eldred
Mr. Jim L. Funari
Mr. Joseph R. Gregory
Mrs. Roberta P. Hromas
Mr. Thomas J. Knox Jr.
Dr. Kay Peng Khoo
Mr. Michael D. Little
Mr. Howard W. Long
Mr. William L. Maynard
Mrs. Cheryl McLeskey
Mr. David V. Melilli
Mr. Lowell W. Morse
Mrs. Dede Robertson
Dr. M. G. Robertson
Mr. Timothy B. Robertson
Mr. Thomas M. Saltsgiver
Dr. Jay A. Sekulow
Mr. Daniel C. Sellers Jr.
Mr. Robert O. Snelling Sr.

Let's just look at one of these people that Creigh Deeds apparently thinks is unfit for duty because he's a trustee at Regent University -- Admiral Vernon Clark:

Admiral Clark served aboard the destroyers USS John W. Weeks (DD 701) and USS Gearing (DD 710). As a Lieutenant, he commanded USS Grand Rapids (PG 98). He subsequently commanded USS McCloy (FF 1038), USS Spruance (DD 963), the Atlantic Fleet's Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center, Destroyer Squadron Seventeen, and Destroyer Squadron Five. After being selected for flag rank, Admiral Clark commanded Carl Vinson Battle Group/Cruiser Destroyer Group Three, Second Fleet, and United States Atlantic Fleet.

Let's skip ahead:

Admiral Clark has also served as the Deputy and Chief of Staff, United States Atlantic Fleet; the Director of Operations (J3) and subsequently Director, of the Joint Staff.
Admiral Clark became the 27th Chief of Naval Operations on July 21, 2000, relieving Admiral Jay L. Johnson. In 2001, Clark was considered to be on the "short list" of choices for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the eventual pick was Air Force Gen Richard Myers [1]

Wow, he was almost the Chairman of the JCOS, but Creigh Deeds thinks he's unfit for duty because he's a trustee at Regent University.

Admiral Clark's personal decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), the Navy Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), the Legion of Merit (three awards), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (four awards), the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and various service and campaign awards, including the Joint Meritorious Unit Award (two awards), Navy Unit Commendation, Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, Battle Efficiency Award (two awards), National Defense Service Medal (three awards), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Vietnam Service Medal (two campaigns), Southwest Asia Service Medal (one campaign), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (six awards), and Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon

But forget all those awards and honors. Creigh Deeds says that Admiral Clark is unfit for duty, because he's a trustee at Regent University.

Since his retirement, Clark has been honored with the Eisenhower Award from the Business Executives of North America and the Distinguished Sea Service Award from the Naval Order of the United States. Clark was elected to the board of directors of Raytheon in December 2005 and the board of directors of SRI International in March 2007.[

Raytheon and SRI International think Admiral Clark's an OK guy, but they must be wrong, because Creigh Deeds says this man is unfit for duty.

But you know, maybe Creigh Deeds is the one who is unfit for duty.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Creigh Deeds has a plan for Tables

If you've been listening to Creigh Deeds on the campaign trail, you might think his economic recovery plan involves encouraging the manufacture of new tables for Virginia. After all, he plans to spend a lot of time around tables, putting things on tables, and discussing what's on the tables. And with all the people he wants to get together at tables, we're probably going to need some more tables.

Of course, tables tend to stay in one place, and people around tables tend to just talk a lot. To get traffic moving, we need more than table-talk.

In this WTOP interview, Deeds apparently mentioned tables over 14 times in 11 minutes:

Democrat Creigh Deeds says in a radio interview that offering detailed positions on transportation funding would kill chances of passing it if he's elected governor. "In an appearance Friday on WTOP's politics show, the state senator repeated his familiar mantra that ‘everything is on the table' for transportation funding, including new taxes."

The magic table is expected to solve all our transportation problems:

The only approach that's worked on transportation in the last thirty years is the approach employed by Governor Baliles in 1986 and that's the approach I'm gonna take. Everything to fix transportation is on the table. And I want to bring everybody to the table to bring ... to create that solution. And I'm gonna do it next year. Everything's on the table that has a nexus to transportation,

The Baliles approach Deeds mentions from 1986 was imposing a 17+ cent gas tax. Which I guess is why the gas tax is about the only idea Deeds specifically mentions as "on the table", and why Deeds says the Baliles' approach (raising gas taxes?) is the approach Deeds will take.

More table talk:

I'm going to be the next governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and were going to have an open and honest discussion with Democrats and Republicans around the table and we're going to consider all the options because the bottom line is we cannot grow, we cannot prosper if we continue to sit in traffic.

Instead of sitting in traffic, we'll all be sitting around the table.

But I'm guessing that the people of Virginia want to move forward, they want to solve this problem and I've got the only real realistic solution to get it fixed and that's bringing everybody to the table, leaving everything on the table, except taking money away from education and having an honest discussion about transportation.

I wonder if there will be food at the table? And if there is, will we be able to take that off the table, or will we have to leave all the food spoiling on the table?

Mark, I said that everything is on the table when it comes ... that has a nexus to transportation. We've got a significant problem, we have to raise something in excess of a billion dollars.

I wonder how big a table you need to be able to put a billion dollars on it.

Mark, I have said that everything that has a nexus to transportation is on the table. If you look at the different approaches that have been taken by governors since Baliles to address transportation - they've all failed, and part of the reason they've failed is because they've identified, they started out with something very specific that has become polarizing.

Well, the last 8 years certainly they've failed, but I think that had more to do with the inability of the democratic governors to actually put together a plan, not because they couldn't find a table.

I think if we leave as much on the table as possible, that we bring as many people to the table as possible, we have more areas we can agree on. This is such an urgent issue that has to be addressed I think sooner rather than later - it has to be addressed next year, my first year as governor. I want the best chance for success and I think that leaving more things on the table will give us that opportunity.

I wonder if this will be an indoor or outdoor table. It apparently will have lots of stuff all over it, a billion dollars lying around, and be surrounded by as "many people" as we can possibly fit.

I think I've figured out the secret to this transportation plan. If we just get enough people around the table, it will get them off the roads so traffic will move better.

Friday, September 18, 2009

President Obama trashes President Obama's policy.

When the President cancelled America's missle defense shield designed to protect the eastern seaboard from long-range Iranian missle strikes, he was going against the advice of -- President Obama, who said in April:

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.

Or, as we have said so many times before, EVERY PROMISE Obama makes comes with an expiration date.

MIchelle Obama REALLY wants to take over your health care.

Powerline's John Hindraker makes a great observation about Michelle Obama's foray into the Health Care debate:

Today Michelle Obama got into the act, proclaiming that the current health care system "crushes women":

Michelle Obama said women are being "crushed by the current structure of our health care" because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.

"Women are the ones to do it," she said to an audience of 140 people, including representatives from groups such as the Women's Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Negro Women. "Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses."

I really don't understand this. Under Obamacare, will someone other than mothers (or fathers) arrange checkups for their kids? Take care of family illnesses? Make sure the kids are taking their medicine and get follow-up care if they need it? Is there really anything like this in any of the Democrats' proposals? If mothers (and fathers) don't arrange their kids' checkups, who will? Someone else's mother or father, apparently. No doubt they'll care more and do a better job.

The Obama administration seems to be bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "nanny state."

I have no idea what Michelle is really thinking. However, it seems that she finds it really burdensome to take care of her kids. I hadn't really thought that the drudgery of picking up the prescription for my son's ear infection was really a drawback of the American health care system, but apparently Michelle thinks taking care of her kids is just too onerous, and someone ought to fix that for her.

Seriously, this is exactly why nobody believes President Obama anymore on health care, or anything else. Trying to sell your plan by talking up it's good points, while lying about it's bad points -- that's just dishonest.

But making up an entire class of horrible things your health care plan does nothing about, and suggesting that you will make it all better, is shear desperation.

Next thing you know, Obamacare will be shortening your commute to work, and helping you pick up women at bars.

Meanwhile, be on the lookout for amendments in the Senate providing for government workers who will come to your house and check your child's temperature.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Why do Democrats support $500 billion in Medicare Waste/Fraud/Abuse?

MSNBC's First Read wonders why, if the President can so easily identify over $500 billion in Medicare waste, he hasn't done anything?:

Speaking of health care, how has Obama gone from touting $300 billion in Medicare waste/fraud/abuse savings in June as part of his plan to pay for health care to now claiming the White House has found $500-$600 billion in these savings. The fact is the president still hasn't release a detailed plan in general, let alone gotten into the "how to pay for" weeds when it comes to exactly how they found yet another $200 billion in cuts. This actually gets at the nut of the president's potential credibility problem: If there is so much money in waste/fraud/abuse in the Medicare system, then why do we continue to let it happen? Why are we waiting so long to deal with it? The average cynical voter is thinking, “Well, the president may be well meaning, but the bureaucracy that is the American government let this waste/fraud/abuse happen once, who is to say they won't let it happen again?”

I agree with that sentiment, but I also see this a bit differently.

Obama has claimed that there is over $500 billion being wasted in Medicare. In his speech last Wednesday, he said that he could eliminate this $500 billion in spending without taking a single treatment away from a single Medicare patient.

I think he was lying, which makes me a racist. But let's for the moment assume he was telling the truth. The government is throwing away $500 billion, Obama KNOWS it is happening, he KNOWS how to stop it from happening.

Why hasn't he stopped it already? Most waste/fraud/abuse is because of the law NOT being followed, in which case Obama should be able to stop this without congressional action. So why hasn't he done so? Some might argue it's because he needs to keep the idea as part of the health system takeover plan, but that's wrong. If he actually could show even 10% of that savings now, it would probably win him a dozen republican votes in the house, and a few in the senate.

So maybe it's because he needs a congressional vote. But I can guarantee you that Republicans in the house and senate would show up on a Sunday to vote for a bill that elimated $500 billion in useless spending. So, if Obama is telling the truth, and all we need is a bill, then it must be that the Democrats running congress WANT to waste $500 billion dollars in our medical system.

Of course, it's much easier to believe the most likely truth -- there are no "medicare savings" from waste/fraud/abuse crackdown. Obama might have some idea how to cut payments to doctors and PRETEND it won't hurt the people on Medicare, but it will. The Democrats don't really care if they pay for their bill, they just want to SAY they will pay for it.

But the sad fact is, in this case, deciding the democrats are liars is actually the less critical opinion to have; the alternative is that they just want to waste $500 billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Was "You Lie" Racist? Addressing the "racers".

In a discussion in a Washington Post community forum, EJ Dionne asks a question that deserves consideration:

I’m surprised that it so shocks my friend Ramesh that many Americans – and not just African-Americans -- are asking why it is that only when we have a black man as president has a member of Congress felt he could stand up and shout, “You lie!”

First, I should say Joe Wilson was wrong, entirely wrong, to shout this, or anything else, during the speech. In fact, if Wilson thought Obama was lying, he should have shouted "point of order", and asked the chair if Obama was breaking house rules by saying members of the house had lied about his plan.

Of course, Joe Wilson knew he was wrong, and he apologized immediately to the President.

Second, it is well-known that Democrat members of the house had accused Bush of lying, on the house floor, violating the same rule Wilson was accused of violating. I don't think the rule was why Wilson was wrong -- I think yelling "Preach it" would have been just as wrong.

Third, it is also well-known that Democrats actually booed the President during a state of the union speech -- an act that was certainly as damaging to the "decorum" of the house as shouting at the President. But the Republicans certainly knew that was wrong, and made a big deal of it at the time, even though they didn't have a vote to condemn the Democrats.

But what of the question? Nobody, even in 2005, actually shouted at the President during his SOTU. So why would Wilson do so here?

Well, here is the missing piece -- This is the first time in my memory that a President has requested a joint session of congress for the purpose of making a campaign speech attacking members of the other party, and lying about it. The State of the Union speeches are constitutionally required reports, and generally the Presidents have been well-mannered, giving their priorities but not calling members of the body liars.

The only non-SOTU speech I can think of was Bush's Sept 20, 2001 address to the nation, when he presented the nation's plan of action in response to the 9/11 attacks. There was nothing partisan in that speech for anybody to yell about.

So we don't have to invoke racism to explain this "unique" event -- the shout was an irrational, but not unpredictable, result of the already unique and undecorous use of the solemnety of a joint session of congress for a partisan political speech by a President falling in the polls and struggling to remain relevant.

The idea that Wilson would never have shouted at a President Biden is ludicrous. In fact, I would argue that the attacks on a President Biden, doing exactly what President Obama has done, would be much harsher -- precisely because Obama is black.

Years of invoking racism in our country have made everybody think twice before saying anything bad about a black person, especially in public. Even thrice-removed comments can cost you your job (see Trent Lott's offhand comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party speaking kindly of his presidential run).

And look around you -- every person who has said anything in opposition to Obama's policies has been called racist. President Jimmy Carter is only the latest to say that if you don't want universal health care and the destruction of our economic system, you must be racist.

So, I guess I must be a racist, because I still love my country, and I think that what is best for my country, for ALL of us, is for Obama's plans to fail. Not because Obama is black, but IN SPITE of it.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

AP finds multiple lies in Obama's speech

Call me shocked, but the AP was kind enough to point out some of the lies in Obama's speech. Rather than write my own post about this in depth, go look at this blog, which has a pretty good write-up: AP Fact-Checks the speech -- Obama was pretty much lying through his teeth

The AP's biggest focus was on this whopper:

OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

And their argument doesn't include the fact that every government plan costs multiple times what it is said to cost, or that the dems method of taxes to pay for the plan violates Obama's promise not to raise any taxes on 95% of america.

They also note that the house bill doesn't have any verification for illegals, and that Obama can't really promise that you will keep your health insurance because the bills in the house don't stop employers from dropping the insurance, and in fact will pretty much require it over time.

Obama's Problem: We don't trust him, or government

Obama made a speech last night. It was the same speech he's been making for months, full of promises, empty of specifics, laced with personal attacks on people who don't agree with him, and sprinkled throughout with lies.

But in the end, he failed to address the fundamental problem the American people have with his still non-existant "health care plan". Simply put, we do not trust Obama, we do not trust the Democrats, and mostly we do not trust government to do what they say, or accomplish the goals they specify.

Obama said this speech would include compromises with the Republicans. I saw two -- first, he "compromised" about how many americans are uninsured, because he stopped lying about it for one speech. Last month, Obama said 47 million americans were uninsured. Last night, it as 30 million. As one commentator put it, and I paraphrase, "at that rate if we do nothing we'll solve the problem by November".

The second was that he mentioned legal reform. Unfortunately, there is no legal reform in any of the bills being considered, so unless they are going to go re-write the whole thing, his promises otherwise are empty.

On most other points, he fell flat. He called his opponents liars, but then objected when someone called him a lie. He said we were lying about rationing end-of-life care, then acknowledged medical boards which would determine what care was "cost-effective". He said we were lying about illegals being covered, when there is no language in any bill that checks for legal status before giving away health insurance or health care (this is what prompted that "that's a lie" outburst -- it was a lie, but our country doesn't have a system where back-benchers yell during speeches. Better if he had yelled "That's not true", it would have conveyed the same point and not had the "lie" word, which is unacceptable when used by Republicans but fine when Obama says it in his speech).

Obama said we needed to stop the scare tactics, and then said people would die if we didn't pass his health care plan. He said he was trying to be bi-partisan, when he has not invited Republican leaders to the White House since april, and Nancy Pelosi refused to let any Republican amendments come to the floor for a vote.

Here is just one of Obama's outrageous lies, where he claims a man died because his insurance cut off his chemo treatment:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Here, in contrast, is the sworn testimony of the man (Otto Radditz) sister, at a hearing in August:

After two appeals by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Fortis Insurance Company finally overturned their original decision to rescind my brother’s coverage and he was reinstated without lapse. This is after weeks of constant phone calls between myself and the Attorney General’s Office and we were literally scrambling hour by hour to get this accomplished so that my brother wouldn’t lose his 3- to 4-week window of opportunity that he had prepared for and lose his opportunity to have the procedure.

There was no delay, he got the treatment, it just did not work. (Also, it wasn't Chemotherapy, it was a stem cell transplant, one of those non-embryonic ones that are already being used to save lives but are given the boot by the Obama administration so they push untested embryonic research).

But worst of all, he tried ot sell government interference in our health care as some sort of moral imperative, something we owed to our people. He tried to justify it by basically saying the American Ideals of self-reliance were outdated:

Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

Note how he deftly twists the human imperative to care for one another, into the opposite -- a greedy desire to force others to pay taxes to care for others, using government, so that we the people don't have to be bothered by it.

That is the liberal mantra -- why help someone myself, when I can get the government to take my neighbor's money ot do it, while I get credit for being "compassionate" and my neighbor can be ridiculed for being "cold-hearted"?

Note also the communist belief expressed in the phrase "hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play" -- that is simply a translation of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

It was never Government's job to "reward" people with personal security from hardship simply because they were "hard-working" or "responsible" (Forget the more obvious fact that millions of the people who are already given free medical care, or will be by this government takeover of health care are neither hard-working nor "responsible"). The hard work is what rewards you, with money, and the responsibility rewards you when you spend the money on important things like your health care.

At it's core, government-forced health insurance is proposed because people are supposedly IRRESPONSIBLE. We are too stupid to buy insurance, so the government will make us do it for our own good.

The idea that government knows best is NOT an American idea.

Monday, September 07, 2009

Why does anybody still read the lying New York Times?

The New York Times has long been the whipping-boy of conservatives, because it regularly lies about what conservatives and liberals are saying, in the first case to make them look bad, in the second to hide how bad they are.

In the latest New York Times serial lying, the Times accused conservative Mark Steyn of comparing Obama to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il. Because the New York Times doesn't deserve a link, being almost as bad as a liberal blog, I'll quote from Mark Steyn's article about the "Omnipresent Leader":

As Times reporters James C. McKinley Jr. and Sam Dillon wrote: “Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show on Wednesday, accused Mr. Obama of trying to create a cult of personality, comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader.”

Well, that must be true then. After all, the Rush Limbaugh show is broadcast nationally. People tape it, and transcribe it. So if the New York Times is willing to make a direct charge about what Mark Steyn said on the show, they certainly couldn't get it wrong, right?

Really. I have long defended newspapers for being the last bastion of truth. Sure, they bias the news, but when they say something happened, it probably happened. They check, and recheck, and they have editors to double-check.

But, well, this is the New York Times. Two reporters, an editor, and a publisher, along with who knows how many fact-checkers, all could have spent a minute checking the audio. Of course, if this was a left-wing national talk show host, they wouldn't have to -- because I bet the left-wing talk show is played in the offices every day, so they are all familiar with what is being said.

Anyway, here is what Mark Steyn ACTUALLY SAID:

“Obviously we’re not talking about the cult of personality on the Saddam Hussein/Kim Jong-Il scale.”

That's right. Mark Steyn said that you could NOT COMPARE Obama's cult of personality with that of Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il.

The funny thing is, once the New York Times told all the other liberal newspapers what Mark said, they all repeated it in their articles. Even foreign papers were talking about how the evil conservative Steyn compared Obama to Hussein.

We just spent a week with daily revelations about a Czar in the white house saying and doing stupid things, things that were so bad that Van Jones had to quit his position. And during that week, the New York Times never bothered to tell their readers what was up.

But they had time to write about Mark Steyn -- oh, except they didn't have time to actually check their story.

Newspapers who trusted the New York Times to tell them the truth should be ashamed. People who by the New York Times should be shocked. The New York Times deserves to be going bankrupt.

Friday, September 04, 2009

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Harry Reid - Senate better off with Kennedy Dead.

I can't imagine the outrage if an elected Republican tried to say that Kennedy's death was a good thing.

But the mainstream media completely ignores it when Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid makes the argument, as found in the Reno Gazette-Journal:

Q: How will U.S. Sen. (Edward) Kennedy's death affect things?

A: I think it's going to help us. He hasn't been around for some time. We're going to have a new chairman of that committee, it'll be, I don't know for sure, but I think Sen. (Chris) Dodd, (D-Conn.). He has a right to take it. Either him or (U.S. Sen. Tom) Harkin, (D-Iowa), whichever one wants it can have it.

Yes, Reid just said that Kennedy was dead weight in the Senate, and now that he's dead they can get a chairman who will actually be there and get work done.

So, is Reid right? Would the democrats had been better off if Kennedy had resigned last year, allowing them to have a functioning senator now when they need the vote? Is Reid right when he suggests that Kennedy was selfish to hang around even after he couldn't show up and vote?

On the other hand, couldn't Reid have just replaced Kennedy as a chair, if he really thought Kennedy wasn't pulling his weight? What kind of leader lets his whole team suffer when he obviously thinks that one of his captains is letting the side down?

Or was Reid scared to act while Kennedy was alive? He obviously feels no problem speaking ill of the dead.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Deeds Visits Prince William

Creigh Deeds, who seems to still be stuck in "me-too" mode in his campaign, followed Bob McDonnell into eastern Prince William County today, to open a field office in Ridgewood, where Obama had his office last year I think.

McDonnell was in town to meet with "Tito the Builder", and talk about support among hispanic voters. Even the Media General coverage noted how Deeds seemed to be mimicking the McDonnell campaign:

Munoz, though, while firmly backing McDonnell, said the needs of Hispanic voters are no different than those of other Virginians.

“We share the same values as any other American,” he said.

Ironically, his words were remarkably similar to what Deeds said when asked about what he could do for Virginia’s Hispanic voters, many of whom live in Prince William.

Deeds went on to sound his major campaign theme, which is that he has no plans for anything:

But that doesn’t mean his campaign has formulated policies for individual ethnic groups, he said.
“I’m focused on creating economic hope and opportunity in every part of the state for every single Virginian,” Deeds said.

I don't think anybody ever thought the Deed's campaign had formulated any policies, for individual groups or for the state. That's why most of the time Deeds seems to be running around repeating whatever McDonnell says.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Why should I care what AAA does?

The AFA sent out an alert complaining about AAA giving "family" memberships to homosexual couples:

During a face-to-face meeting yesterday between Equality Florida and AAA South, top management at the 4th largest AAA affiliate in the country committed to recognizing all spouses, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The policy allows gay married couples to receive spousal discounts under AAA's Associate Membership program.

First of all, this is not the "AAA"; it is one part of AAA. AAA is a private entity, and they have decided to grant family memberships to couples that are gay.

This is not the same as a company spending money pushing a homoesexual agenda. This isn't even a company trying to force gay marriage on the country. It's just a company trying to make money by getting people who live together to pay more money for a family membership.

A lot of companies grant family memberships without regard to marriage; their goal is to get more members and money, not make judgments one whether people are legally married or not.

So long as a company isn't using profits from my business to actively promote gay marriage, I don't have a problem with them. People in this country have the right to enter into voluntary associations, and companies have a right to recognize those associations as they see fit.

I don't want the government to use my tax dollars to reward homosexual marriages, because such marriages are not beneficial to society. I don't want government to force churches to recognize marriage, or to force children to learn about and welcome gay sexual activity as normal.

And if people want to stop using AAA because of their policies, that's fine with me -- it's a free country. And I want to keep it a free country, something that is increasingly hard with Obama and the Democrats in charge, taking over companies and dictating to the rest of us how we have to live our lives. Soon we won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs; we won't have the choice of cars we want, we'll be paying taxes if our health care is too good, we'll be forced into health insurance whether we want it or not, we'll be forced to buy insurance that covers things we don't want or need coverage for.

So pardon me if I don't get worked up over AAA giving family discounts to gay couples.

Black President Opposed by Citil Rights Organization?

One thing you would have expected from America's First Black President was a strong support for civil rights. After years of contention between civil rights leaders and George Bush, you would expect smooth sailing for a Democratic administration led by an African-American, especially with a justice department headed up by another first African-American.

But in the six short months that Obama has been destroying the country we know, he has shown that the old expectations simply do not apply to the man who is now President, especially when it comes to treatment of people without regards to who they are or which candidate they supported in the election. This administration has made it their mission to use the entire force of government, and both our tax dollars and the tax dollars of our children and grandchildren, to reward those who support them, and to pay off those who worked for them or support their causes.

So I guess it shouldn't be surprising that this administration has run afoul of the U.S. Civil Rights commission, over of all things the clearest case of voter discrimination from the past year. From the Washington Times, "Panel Blasts Panther Case Dismissal":

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding that the Justice Department explain why it recently dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during last year's election, saying the department has offered only "weak justifications."
In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party after two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.

Here is that videotape:

The government had already won the lawsuit against the Black Panthers; so why did Eric Holder's justice department decide to drop the charges?

The Black Panthers were doing the bidding of the Democratic party, that's why. They were keeping whites from voting against Obama.

We had a local complaint about voter intimidation last year, because the Help Save Manassas members showed up at a polling place with a sign reminding people they had to be citizens to vote, and a camera recording them. This was considered "vote suppression" by some because illegal immigrants would be worried about getting deported, even though illegals aren't supposed to vote.

Well, imagine if Greg Lettiecq had been standing at an hispanic polling place with a baseball bat. You can be sure there'd be a prosecution for voter intimidation. But in the Obama administration, it's not about what you do, it's about who you know, and how much money you gave to support Obama. Sotomeyer will soon be a Supreme court justice who thinks that you should be judged on the color of your skin rather than what the law says. People get stimulus dollars based on their support for democrats.

Monday, August 03, 2009

Obama, Democrats plan to destroy private health care

Despite claims to the contrary, there can be little doubt that Obama and the Democrats seek to destroy private health care in this country. Pelosi and the Democrat's summer attacks on the "evil Health Insurance Industry" is just one clear sign that they mean to eliminate all private health insurance, forcing people to accept government-run health care. After all, why would they pass a plan supporting private health insurers if they think those insurers are evil?

Then there are "slips", like Charles Rangel noting that the current plan is just an incremental step on the way to universal public health care.

The latest indication though, is a comment made by one of the Democrat's closest allies, Planned Parenthood. The Political reports that, speaking about how important it was for the public health care option to cover abortions, Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at Planned Parenthood, lets the cat out of the bag once again:

On “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, budget director Peter Orszag said he is “not prepared to rule ... out” taxpayer financing for abortions.

Planned Parenthood’s Rubiner said the alternative would be slashing benefits for millions of women who currently have coverage for abortions and cited polling suggesting such services have popular support.

The anti-abortion activists’ demand “violates the first principle of health care reform, which is: Don’t make people worse off under health care reform than they are today,” she said.

Why would limiting abortion in the public option "slash benefits" for anybody who have coverage now under private plans?

Only if those private plans are going away.

Which is obviously what the liberal expect. It's the only way that Rubiner's statement makes any sense.

The Obama administration, with Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic majority, plan on replacing people's private coverage with the public option. So if the public option doesn't cover abortions, millions of women WILL lose abortion coverage, when the Democrats wipe out their private health insurance benefits.

Thank you, Planned Parenthood, for providing more evidence for the real plans of this administration. When Obama promises you can keep your insurance, just remember: Your insurance company is evil, Obama will tax your plan, your company will want to push you into the public option, and Planned Parenthood expects millions of women to lose their private coverage.

And note: not one major news organization has asked WHY Planned Parenthood thinks women will lose their private insurance -- because they all know that is the plan under Obama.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

I'm not dead, just resting

One of my favorite lines from Monty Python "It's not dead, it's just resting"

Anyway, we're still here, just "resting". OK, I did get tired of all the fighting and bickering, about the incompetence and impotence of the GOP, and the general tone of politicial discourse.

So I've been busy with other things. I worked on losing enough weight to clear the Boy Scout maximum weight limits before I went to summer camp. I had a business trip. I spent a lot of time on the train show, and my wife and daughter took a trip to Costa Rica.

I have to get back into blogging. I like writing for the paper, but the restriction to write only about local things drives me nuts.

Frankly, what is happening nationally is the most critical local issue we have.

What we need to do here in Virginia is to consider passing a law preventing the federal government from taking over our lives. If our representatives in the house and senate won't protect our liberties, our state government needs to take action to prevent the feds from ruining our state as they ruin the country.

The government has no business messing around with my health care, or anybody else's health care. If you need a doctor, go see a doctor. If the doctor wants money, pay them. If you are smart, you will buy insurance so if you have a major illness, you can get treatment, just like you insure your car and house. But if you have a cold, pay for it. If you need a drug, pay for it. Or get a job that gives you comprehensive insurance, or buy comprehensive insurance and cancel the cable -- that will benefit you in TWO ways.

But don't tell me that I have to change how I use MY money to provide for my family, just because some other people think it costs too much for them to take care of themselves. I don't have to buy "food insurance" to guarantee I can eat dinner, why should I have to buy health insurance?

Nothing, NOTHING in the constitution gives the government the right to interfere with people's health care. It's not commerce, it's not security, it's simply government meddling.

Cap and trade is STUPID because they are solving a problem that doesn't exist, with programs that will kill the economy without making a difference. But at least the problem they THINK they are solving is one that makes sense for government to solve, since the government IS responsible for keeping the commons available for the masses.

But not so with Health Care, or with their interference in private business like taking over the auto industry, or taking billions of our tax dollars to pay off their union buddies who elected them.

Fortunately, America is waking from it's slumber. Unfortunately, those in power could care less what is good for America, OR what Americans say they want. They have a plan to remake our country in their marxist image, and they seem hell-bent on implementing it.

Hopefully, we will elect some conservatives this fall, so that Virginia can be a beacon of hope for our nation, as it was in the beginning. Virginia has the chance to lead our country out of darkness, if we can get out of the darkness ourselves first. 7.3 percent unemployment -- I never thought I'd see that here in Virginia, even with Democrats in charge. We used to elect better Democrats I guess.

And of course, the real unemployment is much worse; Northern Virginia is pretty much driving that number down because of all the government make-work jobs Obama is pushing for his public union buddies.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Democrats Pass Bill they didn't write.

Obama won election by promising an end to the absurd practice of the Democrats to pass bills that nobody had a chance to read.

Well, as rediculous as that is, the Democrats have found a way to make things even worse.

It turns out that on Friday, they passed a bill that they hadn't even bothered to WRITE.

Story by Powerline: (quoting the Examiner):

Through a series of parliamentary inquiries, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers' amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk's desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document.

So nobody could read the final bill, because nobody has written the final bill yet. As the Republicans sarcastically ask:

"If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body," Barton asked, "could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration?"

The House was in such a rush to pass this, they couldn't be bothered to read or write it. But there was no need for a rush, as this bill won't be considered by the Senate until September. The only reason they rushed it is because they would lose votes every day they waited, especially if they ever wrote the bill so people could see what is in it.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Poster Explains Obama's Health Care Plan

Obama Discusses Death Bed Treatment

Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

So if your parent gets sick, and the treatment has a 70% success rate, say goodbye, because the treatment won't "necessarily" improve care.

And note that it is "improve care", not "improve your life". If the treatment will be successful, but leave you taking medication the rest of your life, that will drive up the cost of care, and won't "improve care", so you might as well just go off and die.

Obama, who is a multi-millionare and raised 700 MILLION dollars for his campaign, left his grandmother who raised him confined to a wheelchair, and hardly visited her, when doctors told her she could die in 9 months and she needed hip replacement surgery:

She fell and broke her hip, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"

Actually, He never said whether she got the surgery, but the story makes no sense if he gave her the surgery. But who cares if a millionare spends their own money to make their own parent's end-of-life experience better? How does Obama paying for his granmother's surgery drive up MY health care costs?

The only reason this makes any sense is if you assume that we all have to pay for everybody else's care. If you don't, you have no reason to tell other people what kind of care they can get with their own money.

But Obama wants to take over health care, because he says the problem with rising costs is ingrained in the system. It is -- we want better treatment, we want to live longer, and every new procedure, new drug, new discovery costs us more, but gains us more as well.

The solution to rising costs due to better care, is to stop giving better care. An analogy -- a new owner of a baseball team can cut costs by hiring less-capable athletes. But then the team doesn't do as well. Obama says we spend too much money keeping old people alive, and he wants to stop it -- by forcing everybody into a public health plan that won't ALLOW anybody to do so (except I'm sure congressmen and rich democrat donors, who will be exempted).

Because, after all, if the federal government can't afford to give expensive treatment to a poor unemployed welfare recipient, Bill Gates shouldn't be allowed to get that treatment either -- it wouldn't be "fair".

If your parents are putting off any treatments, better rush them in now -- Obama is looking for some clean white pillows for them.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Obama Strongly Opposes Obama's "Health Care" plan

Obama, in a scathing speech last October, ripped apart President Obama's proposed funding schemes for his ill-considered health care plan:

“[President Obama] and I have real differences on this issue. [President Obama]'s been eager to share some of the details of his health care plan, but not all of them. It's like those ads for prescription drugs. You know, they start off, everybody's running in the fields and everybody's happy and then there's the little fine print that says, you know, side effects may include.

Now, first of all, we found out that [President Obama] wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. Just like George Bush. That was bad enough.

But ‘The Wall Street Journal’ recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out [President Obama] would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare. $882 billion worth. $882 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for an ill-conceived, badly thought through health care plan that won't provide more health care to people. Even though Medicare's already facing a looming shortfall.


So what would [President Obama]'s cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs. You'll receive fewer services. You'll get lower quality care.

I don't think that's right. In fact, it ain't right.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)

As much as I disliked Senator Obama, the Presidential Candidate, he was still better than President Obama, left-wing Lackey.

(note: In the original text, the name was not "President Obama", but rather "Senator McCain". Also, while here Obama decries 882 billion in medicare cuts, President Obama has actually proposed more than 900 billion in cuts now that he is President.)

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Post Continues to shill for Democrats

Even when they are trying to report something negative, the Washington Post does it's best to make people feel good about Obama and the Democrats. The front page is not a place to do political endorsements, but the Post joins it's big brother the New York Times in doing it's best to minimize the damage.

In today's article, "Obama's Spending Plans May Pose Political Risks", the shilling starts in the headline. Note the "May" along with "Political Risks". In fact, his spending plans DO pose serious risks to our economy and the livelyhoods of the American people, along with the savings of our elderly retired citizens. By suggesting this is merely a political problem, and that is is only a possibility, the Post suggests that, whatever the risks, they are not reasonable.

And lest even this mild headline throw off their readers, the Post starts this analysis of the shortfalls of spending trillions we don't have by lying about Obama's meager record of the first five months:

After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.

Let's start with the closest to the truth, the "towering poll numbers". First, some history: Bush's March 2001 poll numbers:
Two months after becoming the 43rd President, George W. Bush is riding high in the polls. His job-approval rating hovers near 60%, and some two-thirds of Americans like him personally. His Cabinet gets very high marks. A large majority favors his tax cut.

In fact, Gallop had Bush at 69%, while Obama's march numbers from Rasmussen were only 56%. Heck, Bush Sr. had higher poll numbers in march:

George W. Bush 69%
George H.W. Bush 63 %
Barack Hussein Obama 56 % !!!!

Of course, CNN polling has shown that 110% of real Americans love Barack Obama.

How about those months of "legislative victories"? Well, certainly the Democrats, being in charge of the house, senate, and the executive branches, and having a decade worth of plans to implement, should have a bevy of bills passed, right? But so far Obama has failed to pass Card Check, the congress defeated his request for money to close Guantanamo, he has no support for his plan to put terrorists in our country, and even on the Stimulus package, he failed to get what he wanted, instead having to bow to an even worse plan by democrats in the house.

He did manage to pass SCHIP, which had already passed several times, and would have been law if the democrats hadn't insisted on covering the world with the child medical plan.

Of course, by "victory" they must have simply meant "passed", because by any measure the OBama "stimulus" package is a dismal failure. They rushed a bill of 900 billion dollars saying the money was needed. But so far only about 20 billion has been spent, unemployment is ABOVE where it was projected to be at the end of the year WITHOUT a stimulus, and the weakening of the Dollar due to the overspending has helped drive Oil and gas prices up again.

Meanwhile, his attempts to save two car companies failed, leaving him a socialized takeover of GM and Chrysler, no doubt driving unemployment even higher.

On bill after bill, Obama has provided only the vaguest of hints as to what he wants, because when he makes it clear, the house and senate democrats ignore him and pass what they want anyway. Easier to claim "victory" when you claim whatever comes out as your own.

And don't forget that while Obama promised to allow the American people to see each piece of legislature for 5 days before signing them, he has yet to allow us to see ANY bill he has signed for that long. So he can't even implement policies that he has complete control over.

But the most laughable is the 'Well-received foreign policy initiatives". In his brief time trying to learn how to be President, he has become the laughingstock of the world. He slighted our closest ally, England, multiple times, mistreating Brown, and more recently with the Uigher fiasco in Bermuda -- a country who Obama has now managed to seriously destabilize, along with Palau.

Iran just re-elected their anti-American leader. Obama refused to eat with Sarkozy claiming he had more important things to do, and then Obama came home and played golf. He has seriously undermined our solid relationship with a close ally and democratic country Israel, while his kissing up to anti-democratic muslim governments and extremists has earned the US no benefit.

North Korea is blatantly testing nuclear weapons, and has announced the will enrich uranium, and Obama has no answer. While Europe is electing new leadership that sees the danger of muslim radicals taking over their countries, Obama is lying about the number of muslims in our country, and trying to sell the fiction that we used to be the enemies of the Muslim world. This after we sent our troops to die defending muslims in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Albania, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have been close allies with Pakistan and and other muslim countries.

No, in the short time Obama has been in office, our nation's debt has skyrocketed, the respect we had in the world (not the kissy-faced platitudes, but the actual respect that kept our enemies at bay and our friends close beside us) has been destroyed, muslim extremists are launching terror attacks on our own soil again, the world is increasingly dismissing our currency, oil and gas prices are skyrocketing, and our businesses are being undermined by Obama's ill-considered belief that the government can run things better than we can.

Obama has no answers, other than to continue to blame the previous administration for actions the democrats took over the past two years when they controlled congress. The Washington Post helps out:

"The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep hole," Obama said last week. "And digging our way out of it will take time, patience and some tough choices."

But in fact, for the spending of the last two years, except for the war in Iraq, Obama voted FOR all the spending. He pushed for and claimed credit for the TARP bill. He joined his fellow democrats blocking the fixes to the mortgage industry that might have staved off the worst of the downturn. Obama cannot blame others for the economy, which was fine before his party took over the Senate in 2007 and drove gas and oil prices to record highs.

Note that the oil and gas prices only dropped when the democrats, trying to win re-election, allowed bans on drilling to expire. Then, when he took office, Obama blocked exploration of offshore oil, and announced plans to ban more drilling, and oil and gas prices shot back up.

Obama doesn't get it though, as seen by his "plan" to fix the deficit:

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, said that a quick economic recovery would have the single biggest effect on the grim budget forecasts and that the administration's top priority will be "getting America's fiscal house in order" once Congress finishes work on health-care and energy reform legislation.

"energy reform" is their name for cap-and-trade, which will kill our economy and run up the deficits more. health-care as perceived by Obama means trillions more in government spending. So in addition to the record deficits Obama has charged up this year and last year as a Senator, he plans on trillions more, before he gets our "house in order".

A quick economic recovery would have been the best. The TARP passed last year didn't help, although it might have worked if it was smaller and more targeted to what it was supposed to be, buying off toxic assets to free up capital. The failure of the democrats to pass a good TARP bill (and many republicans went along with that fiasco) hurt our economic recovery. But Obama's "stimulus" package sunk our recovery, directing money we didn't have NOT to stimulate, but to pay off his political supporters. They gave him 700 million dollars to win the election, and he returned the favor with 700 billion in money paid out to unions, colleges, ACORN, and liberal groups throughout the country.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Democrat Senator Leahy questions Sotomayor's impartiality.

In 1990, faced with confirming conservative judges appointed by the Bush administration, the Democrats on the judiciary committee decided to implement a rule regarding the membership in exclusive, discriminatory clubs.

From the Washington Times:

In June 1990, Arlen Specter, then a Republican from Pennsylvania, and all but one of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee sponsored a resolution warning nominees that having belonged to such clubs could be enough to deny them confirmation. The resolution claimed that membership in such organizations "conflicts with the impartiality, and the appearance of impartiality" expected of judges and that it will be held against the nominee unless they "actively engaged" in efforts to get underrepresented groups into the organizations.

Sens. Leahy, Specter and Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Democrat, supported the resolution and are still on the Judiciary Committee. Joseph Biden, who was the committee chairman at the time, is now vice president.

Well, it turns out that Judge Sotomayor is a current member of a discriminatory, exclusive organization:

It was revealed Friday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor belongs to the Belizean Grove, a highly selective club for women only.

The Democrats applied this rule against nominees if they had EVER, no matter how far in their past, been members of such an organization, even if they had quit, and even if they had denounced the group.

In 2001, they held up one nominee for over a year for belonging to a fishing club:

When Judge D. Brooks Smith was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, his confirmation was held up for almost a year in part because he belonged to an all-male fishing and gun club.

But Sotomayor has never denounced this group. In fact, she JOINED the group well after being confirmed as a judge, just last year in fact (from the Politico):

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor last year accepted an invitation to join the Belizean Grove, an elite but little-known women’s-only group.
Sotomayor’s membership in the New York-based group became public Thursday afternoon in a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Of course, because she is a Democrat, and they are Democrats, Leahy and Kohl will ignore the rules and vote to confirm her anyway. Democrats in general are very bad when it comes to consistancy, prefering hypocrisy.

But in fact, Sotomayor has violated more than a longstanding Democrat-sponsored judiciary rule. She has violated the ethics standards for Judges:

The American Bar Association's Canons of Judicial Ethics stipulates that judges "shall not" be members of any organization that unfairly discriminates based on gender.

So Sotomayor, having a lifetime judicial appointment to the appeals court, knowingly defied the ABA canon of Judicial Ethics, casting doubt on all her rulings by joining a discriminatory exclusive club. She should be censured, not given a promotion.

Her membership in a club that excludes men from it's membership casts a new and disturbing light on her previous comments that a "wise latina woman" would make better decisions than a "white man". She can no longer pretend she treats genders equally, now that we know of her bigoted membership in this club.

IN many ways, this is much worse than her membership in the racist organization "La Raza". We already know she is biased for people of her own ethnic background -- I have no doubt that a white man won't get justice from her against hispanics. So it isn't really a surprise that she belongs to a bigoted racist organization like "La Raza", (whose name says it all).

Sotomayor: conflict of interest in Ricci Case?

A recent revelation of a legal seminar in which Judge Sotomayor participated in the 1990s reveals a conflict of interest which should have caused her to recuse herself from the Ricci firefighter case.

That she did not do so raises new questions about her ethics.

According to CNN:

The female panel members politely objected to her characterizations of how she overcame such obstacles, pointing out she graduated from law school with honors and was on the prestigious law review. Sotomayor countered that those were signs test scores alone do not offer the full measure of a person's capability. Test scores, she said, often can be the result of "cultural biases."

The question in the Ricci case was whether test scores are the result of "cultural bias" and therefore could be thrown out. Sotomayor already had an opinion on the merits of the case, and made a flippant ruling which simply reflected her biased and preconcieved notions.

It is no wonder that she didn't really look into the facts of the case, as she already "knew" from her "life experiences" that the Firefighters were wrong and the city was correct.

This isn't the only unethical thing about Sotomayor that is being ignored by the media.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Study: Children raised by Gays 7 times more likely to be Gay

A doctor doing analysis of studies performed in the last decade of children raised in homosexual households discovers a "hidden" statistic supporting an obvious observation: such children are much more likely to have homosexual encounters than the general population.

Dr. Trayce Hansen, Phd, makes this discovery public in a recent column "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality":

Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.

Dr. Hansen goes on to point out ways that the various researchers tried to bury this information, since it goes against the public message that homosexual couples are just as good for children as biological families, and that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, not something that could be induced by environment.

But if true, this analysis of studies would blow a hole in that theory, showing instead that encouraging homosexual acceptance will in fact encourage homosexual behavior among children who would otherwise live an exclusive heterosexual lifestyle.

Along with other recent studies showing that any genetic component of homosexuality can only account for about 10 percent of homosexuality, it is now becoming clear that Americans have been sold a bill of goods by the homosexual lobby in their push to justify and "normalize" nontraditional, nonreproductive sexual activities.

Regardless, no one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, "Of course our children are going to be different."

You would expect that children raised in a homosexual household would be more accepting of homosexual activity, since they would naturally want to believe their parents are normal and acceptable.

And in fact, the insistance that being gay was something you were born with and couldn't be taught was so ingrained that most people arguing against gay couples adopting children focused on the serious deficiency of children raised with only one gender of parent.

Findings from the best and most recent twin studies have found that homosexuality, unlike eye color, is not genetically-caused. But there are a number of non-genetic mechanisms through which homosexuality could be transmitted from one generation to the next. Those mechanisms include role-modeling, social learning and differential reinforcement, as well as outright encouragement of non-heterosexuality by parents or others.

It is one thing to argue that two consenting adults, who desire to have a non-traditional relationship, should have the right to do so without interference by the government. It is another to argue that gay couples have a natural right to impose their sexual preference on children through the act of adoption.