This blog is no longer active as of October 31, 2011
Go read that whole mess, right here.
I find it so amazing, that a black man can scream, “I am an oppressed Negro!” and like magic charges are dropped.
I was born the wrong color. đ
If this guy was white, he would still be in a jail cell. Point blank.
Thank you Abraham Lincoln for ruining America. :pissedoff:
I cannot believe I am using that title, seeing I have A.D.H.D. and take meds for it daily.
I hate to always be the wolf to break away from the pack. But sometimes common sense has to start somewhere…. Many of my fellow right wing Bloggers are howling about this one:
In a reflection of a legislative strategy that has left no stone unturned, President Barack Obama on Monday called on like-minded bloggers to help his administration keep the heat on lawmakers to pass health care reform.
“It is important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress because what happens is there is a default position of inertia here in Washington,” the president said during an invitation-only conference call. “And pushing against that, making sure that people feel that the desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country, every single day, when they are worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not… People have to feel that in a visceral way. And you guys can help deliver that better than just about anybody.
via HuffPo: Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care Pressure On Congress (AUDIO).
Some of the Republican/Conservative Bloggers have some seriously short memories or something. Because Bush did the same thing, when he was in office. See here, here, here, and here. So, while it might be cool to attack Obama for his policies, it just seems mighty silly to attack Obama for something that the Bush Administration did themselves.
Nice try guys, but this one is a bit silly IMHO.
No, I am not talking about Burger King. :giggle:
I am referring to his Op-Ed in the New York Times Today:
It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts.
They brought in pollsters to their party conferences to persuade their members that the country was fervently behind them. They were supported by their interest groups and cheered on by their activists and the partisan press. They spent federal money in an effort to buy support but ended up disgusting the country instead.
Itâs not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. Thatâs because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.
This ideological overreach wonât be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.
It is truly an interesting article to read and I ask that you click on the link and go read it for yourself. I also notice that many Conservatives are taking issue with it as well.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier, whom I gently ribbed once this week already; writes something rather intelligent this time around:
So, President Bush talked God with a cowboy dialect but his actions were all moderation. Hello? AIDs spending in Africa? School reform with Teddy Kennedy? Amnesty? And all these things made the federal government bigger (or would have), more powerful and invasive. The Bush presidency wasn’t about restraint and limiting government power–traits I associate with conservatism.
David Brooks and the Beltway elites are delusional. If President Bush governed conservatively, then David Brooks would put nearly every conservative person I know into the Right Wing Extreme camp. No wonder Barack Obama sounded good to him. Obama moderate? Is he insane?
Good point! Bush was about as Conservative, as I am a damned Communist. Especially when it came to Foreign Policy; The man was a Wilsonian to the core. (That, is what Liberals call a Neo-Con) Iraq proved that. Bush could have cared less about the WMD’s. He just wanted to take out Saddam and finish the job his daddy started, that is what that war was all about. (Some Conservatives and or Republicans deny this, but it is the damned truth…..) The problem was, that he had that serial fuck up; Donald Rumsfield running the damn Defense Department! The Liberals are on a witch hunt to put persons related to the Iraq War in Jail. Well, they can start with Rumsfield. He’s the fucking tool that caused the problems in Iraq. It took Rumsfield being ousted and Robert Gates being put in; for that little situation to be fixed properly. Too bad it took 4000+ of our finest men to finally get someone’s attention in the beltway, that Rumsfield had to go. The damned idiots. :pissedoff: :reallypissed:
As for Obama being a moderate. Yeah, and I am a Russian Communist. đ I suppose Brooks considers Taxing us into a damned hole that we might never get out off; Moderate. Like hell Obama is. I suppose that David Brooks would consider me a “Right Wing Extremist”.
Dan Riehl Says:
This is all great. But if Brooks is so smart, where the hell was he during the campaign when the rubes knew what to expect?
Dan, David Brooks was too busy giving Obama a Blowjob in he back of his limo slobbering all over himself at the fact that a black man was going to actually be President. Barack Obama was seen as a novelty item, by the Conservative establishment in the beltway. Not to mention the media. However, as we have all seen, that novelty is quickly wearing off and many people; from the Right to the far left are beginning to see this man for what he really is. Just another lying politician.
Others: The Moderate Voice, Wake up America, , Althouse, Riehl World View, Le¡gal In¡sur¡rec¡ tion, The TrogloPundit, Right Wing News, Macsmind,
I post this, because I am such a hits whore. It has gone viral; so, I guess I’ll just bask in the whoredom as well.
The commenters at HotAir have a very valid point; why not just release the damn thing and end all of this stupidity, once and for all?
The thing that tweaks me off, is where this silly little rumor got started. On a white Nationalist website; that’s the part the tweaks me off. Because I believe the rumor is steeped in a deeply racist notion that Obama is a secret Muslim. It is all quite silly. But Obama could kill it, if he wanted to.
Exit Question: Does Obama actually want to release it? Could it be that Obama has a secret agreement with Joe Farah not to release it? After all, conspiracy theory is big business. Just ask Alex Jones; he is not hurting for money. đ
(H/T HotAir)
The Economy is in the crapper, the Nation is up to it’s eyeballs in debt, and the White House is scared:
WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today’s bleak landscape.
The administration’s annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama’s budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.
The release of the update – usually scheduled for mid-July – has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.
The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.
The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the “chances are high” of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.
“Instead of a dream, this routine report could be a nightmare,” Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official and White House spokesman under President George W. Bush, said of the delayed budget update. “There are some things that can’t be escaped.”
The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.5 percent in June and appears headed for double digits.
Obama’s current forecast anticipates 3.2 percent growth next year, then 4 percent or higher growth from 2011 to 2013. Private forecasts are less optimistic, especially for next year.
via My Way News – White House putting off release of budget update.
Hope! Change! Obfuscation! Numbers Fixing! Just another day in Obama-land folks…..
2010 is looking mighty good for the Republican Party right now.
America cannot say that they were not warned; Fox News Channel, Every Conservative Blogger; including myself, warned the folks. If you elect this guy, he will ruin America and will worsen our Economy. But did America listen? Nope! They elected him anyhow. It is indeed the late 1970’s and early 1980’s all over again. Barack Obama’s Administration is Jimmy Carter 2.0. It will be interesting to watch and see, just how much this country will be “In the hole” and for how long.
Somewhere, John McCain is smiling. đ
Others: Political Punch, Hot Air, Right Pundits, Wizbang, The Foundry, On Deadline, Don Surber, QandO, YID With LID, NewsBusters.org, JammieWearingFool, Betsy’s Page, Pajamas Media, Say Anything, AmSpecBlog, Riehl World View and Gateway Pundit
Conservatives Rejoice! đ
Because “The One”‘s Poll numbers are dropping like a rock!
The Story via The Washington Post:
Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama’s stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Obama’s approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration. Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District.
The president’s overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving. But this is the first time in his presidency that Obama has fallen under 60 percent in Post-ABC polling, and the rating is six percentage points lower than it was a month ago.
Obama has taken on a series of major problems during his young presidency, but he faces a particularly difficult fight over his effort to encourage Congress to pass an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.
The legislation has run into problems in the House and Senate, as lawmakers struggle to contain spiraling costs and avoid ballooning the deficit.
Since April, approval of Obama’s handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent. Obama still maintains a large advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of public trust on the issue, even as the GOP has closed the gap.
The erosion in Obama’s overall rating on health care is particularly notable among political independents: While positive in their assessments of his handling of health-care reform at the 100-day mark of his presidency (53 percent approved and 30 percent disapproved), independents now are divided at 44 percent positive and 49 percent negative.
The biggest reason that the poll numbers are dropping is because of this:
On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.
There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents. More than three-quarters of Republicans are opposed. About two-thirds of those with household incomes below $50,000 favor the plan, and a slim majority (52 percent) of those with higher incomes are against it. The income divide is even starker among independents.
Now some people, like Ed over at HotAir say that the poll was tilted to make it show that the Independents were the ones turning against the President. But you can rest assured that it is the majority of the country. Which is made of a small business owners; like myself, and those who just do not feel that we should be taxing the rich to pay for social programs.
Plus too, I believe that the people just have a perception program with this whole Health-care and really with the Democrats. Of course, Obama is not exactly helping with situation, but, anyhow:
Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an “old-style tax-and-spend Democrat,” up from 4 percent in March. Among all Americans, 52 percent consider Obama a “new-style Democrat who will be careful with the public’s money.” That is down from 58 percent a month ago and 62 percent in March, to about where President Bill Clinton was on that question in the summer of 1993.
Concerns about the federal account balance are also reflected in views about another round of stimulus spending. In the new poll, more than six in 10 oppose spending beyond the $787 billion already allocated to boost the economy. Most Democrats support more spending; big majorities of Republicans and independents are against the idea.
Support for new spending is tempered by flagging confidence on Obama’s plan for the economy. Fifty-six percent are confident that his programs will reap benefits, but that is down from 64 percent in March and from 72 percent just before he took office six months ago. More now say they have no confidence in the plan than say they are very confident it will work. Among independents and Republicans, confidence has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats.
Approval of Obama’s handling of the overall economy stands at 52 percent, with 46 percent disapproving, and, for the first time in his presidency, more Americans strongly disapprove of his performance on the economy than strongly approve. Last month, 56 percent gave him positive marks on this issue.
More than three-quarters of all Americans say they are worried about the direction of the economy over the next few years, down only marginally since Obama’s inauguration. Concerns about personal finances have also abated only moderately since January.
That is because he is a “Tax and Spend” Democrat and his attempt to shore up the economy is being countered by the ramming through of this Healthcare bill.
The Bottom line is this: Americans elected Obama, because they thought he could fix the economy and make America great again in the World. But it seems that so far. Obama is not done this, and further more, is trying to push a bill through that will mire the Country further into debt. Instead of emphasizing the greatness of America; President Obama has been going on apology tours and bowing to Saudi kings. The American people see this and resent it, they also resent their taxes being raised to pay for and fund socialist programs that will bankrupt this country.
Others Covering: , Commentary, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air,, Riehl World View, Macsmind, , Scared Monkeys, Stop The ACLU, , Say Anything, Hugh Hewitt’s TownHall Blog, Pundit & Pundette, Chicago Tribune, and The Strata-Sphere
As the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, proceeded last week, one man could not understand why not one of the seven Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee would question Sotomayor about her criminal activities. It’s understandable no Democrat would ask Sotomayor to explain herself since each and every Democrat in the U.S. Senate is so ethically bankrupt, they would seat Satan on the high court if it would further their agenda. Their only concern for a justice on the highest court in the land is gender and ethnicity; these pusillanimous hucksters go for future votes. The law and truth be damned.
But, the silence by Sessions, Graham, Coburn and the others is beyond perplexing. Bill O’Reilly remarked last week at the end of the hearings that the Republicans will vote to confirm Sotomayor possibly to “garner favor” with Latino voters for the next election. Sounds like a good excuse as any for their cowardice in not taking Sotomayor to the box on Dr. Cordero’s evidence.
I first became aware of Dr. Richard Cordero’s documentation a week ago. As with any other investigation, one has to spend a great deal of time studying all the evidence and Dr. Cordero has it. It took about nine hours of reading to get through his evidence, i.e., this 236 pages laying out the fraud. This humble man is like so many other Americans who believe in the rule of law, only to find out that some are above the law due to their political clout. In my email exchanges with Dr. Cordero, and when he was a guest on my radio show last week, I could detect no political bias, only a desire to stop the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor.
This my friends is unreal: (H/T to HotAir)
With the U.S. secretaries of energy and commerce in China this week, much of the attention focused on the standoff over emissions reductions or small breakthroughs in clean-tech cooperation.
But yesterday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazingâU.S. consumers should pay for part of Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions. From Reuters:
âItâs important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America â and itâs our own consumption activity thatâs causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,â Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.
The idea that rich-country consumers should pick up the tab for some of Chinaâs industrial emissions has been gaining currency latelyâbut not from within the Obama administration. The argument is that many of Chinaâs factories churn out cheap stuff for the West, not for domestic consumption, so those consumers are actually responsible for the emissions. China, of course, loves the idea.
This could just be another area for trade tensions with China over the environment. The House climate bill includes a provision for mandatory âcarbon tariffsâ on dirty imports from countries such as China, which might be illegal under international trade law and which have riled up Beijing. President Obama and Senate leaders have frowned on hardline trade measures.
But Secretary Lockeâs statement could open up a new can of wormsâright when Chinaâs actions on energy and the environment are proving so crucial to mustering support among wavering senators for the administrationâs big cap-and-trade bill.
via Commerce Secretary: Americans âNeed to Payâ for Chinese Emissions – Environmental Capital – WSJ.
Of course, when the Wall Street Journal brought this to light the Secretary’s staff tried to backpedal:
âSecretary Locke has been very clear on emphasizing the importance of fair trade as a part of the United Statesâ relationship with China. He believes U.S. companies should not be disadvantaged by Chinese imports not bound by responsible policies to reduce carbon emissions. China and the US must work together to ensure a level playing field and reduce our carbon footprints. The Secretaryâs trip to China demonstrated his commitment to fair trade and his belief that both the United States and China can benefit from shared investments and cooperation in clean energy that will lead to commercial and environmental benefits for both countries.â
Yeah, sure he does. It should also be noted that Locke is also Chinese-American. You ask, “What does that have to do with anything?” Quite a bit. First it was with John Yoo, who was South Korean, now this guy here. Does anyone else see this damned pattern; besides me? It is worse than when America was hit in 1941 by the Communist Japanese. Except this time, they’ve come from within. Because of our generous open door immigration policy, we have allowed the communists in the front door.
Communists are communists and the damn Democratic Party has made a deal with the devil and that devil is communism. This socialist Government is going to destroy freedoms, bankrupt our Country and put us on the path to destruction.
Others: Right Pundits and Gateway Pundit
This comes via the Jawa Report, this is incredibly heart-wrenching to watch:
It quite to hard to watch, when you have douche nozzles like this running their potholes; before we know all of the facts:
Money Quote:
“Nobody in the military is defending this guy, he is an apparent deserter, reports are indeed that he abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post and walked off…On that video he is collaborating with the enemy.
“… if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and a lot of legal bills.”
You see my problem with this is, we do not know all the facts about this, and already we have idiot Fox News persons calling the guy a deserter. That’s B.S…. Sorry, just the way that I feel.
Update: Uncle Jimbo over at Blackfive sums it up very well:
Boy it’s good to know that we have Ralph out there supervising patrols and making sure there are no breaks in contact i.e. people lagging behind. Hey dipshit, the fact that we have a term like “break in contact” means that it happens. Who the hell is Ralph to call this kid a liar from a TV studio in the US. The first thing we all should do in the absence of solid info, is to give the kid a freakin’ break. He deserves the benefit of the doubt and for jackasses like Peters to start calling him a liar based on a completely inaccurate concept is pathetic.
He may turn out to be a deserter, or an idiot, or a drunk or just screwed in the head and if so there will be plenty of time to call him names. Heck Ralph they may even kill the incompetent liar. But for the time being it would be nice if all the arm chair mouth pieces sat down and had a nice cup of STFU!
Very well put. I have nothing to add. đ
Shocking, but not surprising…:
Chalk this up as Stupid Palin Meme of the Week:
In a July 12th hit piece published on the front page of the New York Times, reporters Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski (assisted by Kim Severson and William Yardley in Alaska) made the following claim:
Friends worried that she appeared anxious and underweight. Her hair had thinned to the point where she needed emergency help from her hairdresser and close friend, Jessica Steele.
âHonestly, I think all of it just broke her heart,â Ms. Steele said in an interview at her beauty parlor in Wasilla, the Beehive.
This tidbit was seized upon and has bounced through the Internet and blogosphere — a Google search for “Palin hair thinned” now returns nearly 400,000 hits. Lefties such as Eleanor Clift seized on it as some kind of meme that Palin can’t handle stress.
Well, Jessica Steele, proprietor of The Beehive and the Palin friend and hairdresser quoted by the NYT, is outraged at the claim and making it known through a forum immediately available – her Twitter feedvia Conservatives4Palin.com: Palin Hairdresser: NYT Was Lying About “Hair Thinning” Claim.
Of course the New York Times is going to lie about Sarah Palin. They lie about everyone that they fear. They did it to George W. Bush, They did it John McCain and now they are doing to Sarah Palin.
But I do ask one question; does not Sarah Palin have this coming? After all, it was Sarah Palin and John McCain who allowed themselves to be interviewed by every liberal news network out there; but refused to come onto Fox News Channel, at all. Was it not Sarah Palin and John McCain who came on to Saturday Night Live and allowed themselves to be openly mocked by the liberals?
The way I see it, if you run with the wolves; you should not complain or protest, when they decide to devour you.
Now the Palin-bots are going to try attack me for saying she deserves this; because she is a woman; which is so typical of these so-called “Feminist Conservatives”. But that is NOT what I am saying at all. I am saying that when you play the liberal game; or as some would call it, if you “Jump through their hoops”, you pay the price.
Sarah Palin should have never agreed to any of the “Liberal hoop jumping” during the election, this is why they are attacking her now.
Others: Don Surber, Gateway Pundit and 24Ahead
Hmmmmmmm….:
Another gubernatorial sex scandal may be looming. Even as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford waits to see whether his wife, Jenny, forgives his romp in the pampas, a New York call girl could plunge one of America’s most prominent governors into a fresh hell.
In March, we told you about a high-end escort who claimed that former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer had gotten overly aggressive during some kinky role-play (a charge Spitzer’s lawyer called “outrageous and defamatory”).
Now the elegant blond courtesan, whom we’ll continue to call “Annie,” is talking about three “dates” she allegedly had with another state’s chief executive, who we’ll call Gov. X.
Though Annie’s former boss, ex-madam Kristin Davis, corroborates that Gov. X was a client, his spokesman flatly denies that the married politician has ever hired hookers.
Still, it’s hard not to be intrigued by Annie’s detailed story. She contends that, in the spring of 2006, Davis’ agency booked her for an out-of-state date with a man identified as “Michael.”
“He picked me up in an Italian sports car,” says Annie. “He was in his 30s, handsome enough to be an actor, an impeccable dresser. I wouldn’t think he’d have a problem getting girls.
“We went to a restaurant where the governor was dining at another table with two or three other men. Michael said the governor was a client of his. He introduced me to him. I thought it was odd that he’d introduce someone he’d hired, but the governor was very gracious. It was a brief meeting. Later, Michael and I went to an apartment our agency kept. We had sex.
“A couple of days later, Michael booked another appointment. He was supposed to come to the same apartment. I buzzed him in. When I opened the door, it wasn’t Michael. It was the governor. He was smiling. I knew what was happening. I was okay with it.
“He was a very standard client. He didn’t take the full hour. There was no exchange of money. Michael handled the payment.
“I had two more dates with the governor. Never in public. Always for just an hour, around dinner time. He’d arrive at the apartment in a suit. I never had a problem with him, like I did with Spitzer. He was always nice. There wasn’t a lot of conversation. It wasn’t a girlfriend experience, but he was relaxed. He was very appreciative, like I was giving him a sort of affection he wasn’t getting elsewhere. Later I found out he was married. His wife is quite prominent in her own right.” (Annie and Davis say Gov. X is free to say he didn’t pay for sex, since “Michael” took care of the bills.)
via Eliot Spitzer not my only governor – hooker who worked for Kristin Davis.
Egad, Only Governor that I know; who’s wife is of prominence, in her own right; is Bill Clinton. đŽ He does have an office in Harlem!
Others: theblogprof, Macsmind, Anne Schroeder’s Blog, Moe Lane and JammieWearingFool
Now the Neo-Conservative Republicans are saying that people like me, who voted for Bob Barr have no morals.
Q&O lays it out in his typical well-done manner:
Bob Barr pulled all of 511,324 votes. Statistically thatâs 0% of the electorate. Had every Bob Barr voter voted for John McCain, heâd have ended up with 58,854,995 votes instead of 58,343,671 to Obamaâs 66,882,230.
Apparently Clouthier believes that libertarians are a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP and due a righteous lecture for their lack of support.
It may be time for a little reality check for the good doctor.
A) Obviously if every vote Barr got had gone to McCain, it wouldnât have increased McCainâs final count by even a percentage point. So the attempt to blame your abysmally poor GOP candidateâs abysmally poor showing on Barr voters is technically a non-starter.
B) The reason the GOP sucked so badly in the last election has absolutely nothing to do with Bob Barr and/or libertarians. It had to do with how poorly your party governed. Like most libertarians I havenât voted for a Republican since Reagan. And frankly what happened to the size of government under Reagan is one reason why. Bush compounded the problem (Medicare Part D? âNo Child Left Behindâ?) and the eternally squishy McCain promised more of the same.
C) The only reason libertarians even somewhat identify with your party is because it sometimes pretends to be concerned about less spending and smaller government. Unfortunately, as I imply above, the GOP mostly just talks the talk and rarely walks the walk.
D) The GOP picked John McCain, not libertarians. John McCain was the worst of all worlds and your party gave him the nod. He was a candidate who had once been considered as a VP pick for John Kerry for heaven sake! He proved he was an enemy of the 1st Amendment with his campaign finance bill. His definition of âcompromiseâ was to give the Democrats what they want.
E) Libertarians donât owe the GOP a damned thing. You want libertarian support? Then quit whining and lecturing and earn it! Put up candidates that actually do what you claim to want to do in terms of spending and the size of government. Yeah, thatâs right â cut spending drastically and reduce the size of government radically and then you can start asking why libertarians arenât supporting the GOP. Then youâll have grounds to do so. But until then â we owe you nothing.
Barack Obama sits in the White House not because of Bob Barr or the libertarian vote. He sits there because the GOP has completely and totally failed to live up to its claimed philosophy and its word for decades. John McCainâs nomination told libertarians all they needed to know about the lack of seriousness within the GOP to remedy that situation.
If the GOP wants libertarian votes, then it had better mend its ways. We donât do âtentsâ and we donât do âplantationsâ and we donât belong to the GOP. You want us, youâd better do what it takes to get us â and youâre not even close right now
[….]
Fixing the GOP is your job, not ours â you need to quit trying to outsource it. Libertarians have no desire to be a part of the GOP per se because there is enough not to like to keep us away. But libertarians will support a GOP that commits itself to the principles of less spending, smaller government and less government intrusion. But only when the GOP actually does something about them â find and run a candidate who actually believes in those principles and elect Republicans to Congress who will help he or she act on those principles.
Until then libertarians arenât going to support the GOP. You can call it âflopping around the edgesâ or whatever you wish, but that wonât change the fact that until the GOP actually does the hard work of recreating itself in alignment with its stated principles it canât expect support from libertarians just because the GOP thinks the Democratâs candidate is worse than theirs.
Well put. This is why I just do not believe that women have any place in politics whatsoever. I really wish the Doctor would do something lady-like and very Conservative; like go have a baby or something, and leave the politics to the men folk and more importantly; the adults.
Further more, when the Republican Party starts acting like it’s name, instead of the Socialist-lite, that it has been since George W. Bush took office, then I might be inclined to vote for them. Otherwise, I will continue to vote Libertrian on a National Level and Republican on the State level.
Others: The Moderate Voice, Riehl World View, Ace of Spades HQ, AmSpecBlog and The Other McCain
Please note: this posting is a replacement for one that I pulled, because I posted when I was angry. Something I should not do. Apologies to those who might have seen it. My feelings about Dr. Melissa Clouthier being a clueless oaf, remain unchanged.
I just love it when the Democrats lie…:
In 1964, I was flying with several companions to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention when our small plane crashed and burned short of the runway. My friend and colleague in the Senate, Birch Bayh, risked his life to pull me from the wreckage. Our pilot, Edwin Zimny, and my administrative assistant, Ed Moss, didn’t survive. With crushed vertebrae, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung, I spent months in New England Baptist Hospital in Boston. To prevent paralysis, I was strapped into a special bed that immobilizes a patient between two canvas slings. Nurses would regularly turn me over so my lungs didn’t fill with fluid. I knew the care was expensive, but I didn’t have to worry about that. I needed the care and I got it.
Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I’ve undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.
.But quality care shouldn’t depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.
via Ted Kennedy Speaks Out on Health-Care Reform | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com.
Here we have a big whopper of a stupid lie. As I have blogged about and Michelle Malkin has duly noted. This Nationalized Health-care plan; is nothing more than an expanding of the already terminally screwed up Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Nice try Teddy, but we thinking Americans just are not buying it. Not today anyhow. đ
Synopsis: Texas Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina are gaining bipartisan support by going the extra mile in their efforts to audit the Federal Reserve.
The Founder of the Largely Neo-Conservative Owned Free Republic, writes the following, While I think it is great. I have some problems with it myself. I will quote an underline the problem areas:
Here is our recourse as declared by our Founding Fathers:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It cannot be denied that the central government has become destructive of our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our rights to live free. The government is no longer responsive to we the People. They have stretched and shredded the constitution to the point that they have illegally seized for themselves virtually unlimited powers over the citizens and act as if we have no rights and no powers of our own. They are acting without our consent.
Our Founders established that when our government becomes destructive of our rights then it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We have reached the point where the government’s long train of abuses and usurpations has achieved absolute Despotism, therefore it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.
Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.
Okay first off; why does it have to peacefully? We did not separate from Great Britain peacefully. It took a war, and people were; gulp, killed. So, why are all of the sudden the Conservatives becoming peace-nicks? Just a thought, I am not advocating violence; just trying to make a point here.
The next wonderful little issue that I have with this article is this:
Our first unalienable right is the right to life. Protecting Life and Liberty shall be of paramount importance to our central government. Roe v Wade and all congressional acts, regulations, court opinions allowing legalized abortion or the taking of innocent human life are hereby rescinded, overruled, repealed, nullified and voided. Life is fully protected by the U.S. Government.
Now this is where I am going to get into trouble with the Pro-life, Right to life, Nazi Republicans. I just do not believe that the Federal Government has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. What these so-called “Pro life” Zealots call the protection of the unborn life. I call the unconstitutional exertion of Federal Governmental power. Abortion is and always should be a State Governmental issue; it never,ever should be a Federal Government issue. One cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in limited Government or you do not. Either you believe that the Federal Government has NO RIGHT to controls one’s movements, life or property; or you believe it has the right to control ALL of your life, movements and property. These Republicans who speak out of both sides of their mouths are speaking a language that borders of a bi-polar disorder. The reason ROE v WADE was decided like it was; was because it was determined that the Federal Outlawing of the practice of Abortion was unconstitutional. I am afraid, as a federalist, that I agree with that decision. Not in the grounds that I support abortion; because I do not support such ungodly practice, but rather on the grounds of Constitutionality and because of my personal convictions towards a centralized Government. When the Government supposedly protects, it is exerting powers over the people. That is centralized Government and I oppose it in ALL of its forms. If people do not want to have an Abortion, they should be able to CHOOSE NOT to have an Abortion. It simply boils down to this. When the United States Government has to “Protect”, it automatically assumes that “We the People” are not smart enough to choose the right thing. That my friends flies in the face of the founding principles of what this Nation was founded upon.
The rest of this article is border bellicose and simply aspirational in nature. But it is interesting reading.
The Liberals, of course, are going to have fit about it. Because they believe in a socialistic form of Government, which is basically a Communist-lite form of a Government. Keith Olbermann will most likely feature it in his “Head-exploding” Worst person in the World segment.
Others: Little Green Footballs, Right Wing Nut House, and Macsmind
This is unreal.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda in Iraq’s onetime leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It has operated discreetly in the U.S. for decades.
Now, it is coming out of the shadows and openly hosting a July 19 conference entitled, “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam,” at a posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.
Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it does not engage in terrorism, and it is not recognized by the State Department as a known terror group.
But some terrorism experts say it may be even more dangerous than many groups that are on the terror list.
“Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism,” Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com.
Phares said that Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than training members to carry out terrorist acts like Al Qaeda, focuses instead on indoctrinating youths between ages of 9 and 18 to absorb the ideology that calls for the formation of an empire â or “khilafah” â that will rule according to Islamic law and condones any means to achieve it, including militant jihad.
via Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First U.S. Conference – FOXNews.com.
The Video:
Liberals want us to believe that Muslims are our friends. Which is utter B.S.; Islam teaches their people to hate us Americans and our way of life. We as freedom loving Americans need to take a stand against this nonsense and expose it for what it truly is and that is a training ground for Terrorism.
Other Covering: YID With LID, The Jawa Report, The Corner and Media Blog
This comes via Breitbart.tv:
Which is no suprise, Obama’s been flipping off most of American people since before the election!
Additional Video and Back story at Gateway Pundit
Well, Maybe a little worse. But anyhow…Here’s the quote:
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the groupâs support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the groupâs chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: âProducing op-eds and articles written by ACUâs Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACUâs board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)â
The conservative groupâs remarkable demand â black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as âpay for playâ â was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.
In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.
via Exclusive: Conservative group offers support for $2M – Mike Allen – POLITICO.com.
Video via Politico:
Without missing a beat, the Democrat/Liberal bloggers all jumped up at once and said, “Ho Ho! See??!?! The Conservative are in the bed with BIG BUSINESS!”
….and the Democratic Party is without fault and never commits acts of dishonesty, right? Well, Not so much. As the Politico’s Glenn Thrush points out: (H/T to HotAir.com)
Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records.
It’s impossible to tell if that torrent of cash was an attempt to schmear wavering Democrats — or just part of the usual cash dump made by leaders on the eve of the June 30 quarterly fundraising deadline.
Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) doled out $28,000 to reps who eventually voted yes on June 24, two days before the big vote — on a day when House leaders were doing some heavy-duty arm-twisting.
Clyburn recipients who voted for the bill included a who’s-who of battleground district Dems:Â Steve Driehaus, D-OH ($2,000); Martin Heinrich, D-NM ($2,000); Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla. ($4,000); Betsy Markey, D-Colo. ($2,000); Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH ($2,000), Baron Hill, D-Ind. ($2,000); Alan Grayson, D-Fla. ($2,000); Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa ($2,000); Jim Himes, D-Conn. ($2,000);Â Mary Jo Kilroy, D-OH ($2,000); Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. ($2,000); Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. ($2,000) and Tom Perriello, D-Va. ($2,000).
On the other hand, Clyburn also gave at least $14,000 to Democrats who voted no despite his pressure: Mike Arcuri, D-NY ($2,000); Marion Berry, D-Ark. ($2,000); Bobby Bright, D-Ala. ($2,000); Chris Carney, D-Penn. ($2,000); Chet Edwards (D-Tx.), Travis Childers , D-Miss. ($2,000); Parker Griffith, D-Ala. ($2,000) and Harry Mitchell, D-NM ($2,000).
The same pattern held true for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who gave $4,000 to yes-voting Ohio Democrat Zack Space and the same amount to no-voting Chris Carney.
House Energy and Commerce Henry Waxman gave at least $16,000 to yes-voters on June, 25, FEC records show.
A Waxman campaign spokesman said the payouts were part of the usual “end-of-quarter activity.”
Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee emails this response:
âIf this was a concerted effort by the Democratic leadership to purchase votes for Nancy Pelosiâs national energy tax at the eleventh hour, then it is unconscionable at best and corrupt at worst. The sad fact for those Democrats who were seemingly bought and paid for, is that it will take a lot more money than they received to defend such an atrocious vote.â
Of course, the Democrats right away sent Glenn a list of Republicans; who supposedly have done the same thing. Mostly vulnerable Republicans who may lose their seats in the 2010 election. (But of course!)
The point of this is, both of these parties are inherently corrupt and both need a good cleaning out and need new faces and new leadership; preferably ones that cannot be bought.
Others, on both sides of the fence: The Huffington Post, Michelle Malkin, Outside The Beltway, Right Wing News, Think Progress, Zandar Versus The Stupid, Firedoglake, Hot Air, The Note, Gawker, The Volokh Conspiracy, MoJo Blog Posts, Balloon Juice, Weekly Standard, Riehl World View, Washington Monthly, Democracy in America, Salon, Reason, The Corner, Newshoggers.com, The Atlantic Business Channel, Vox Popoli, Michael Calderone’s Blog, Say Anything, Eschaton, Conservatives4Palin.com and The Washington Independent
Over this video, in which he makes a very valid point:
Two Words for firedoglake Blog. SCREW YOU!
This is what happens when Democrats begin to get worried about their standings. It is obvious that the Democrats “Messiah” is now beginning to become the elephant in the room; so to speak, his poll numbers are dropping and now the Liberal Left is getting nervous and they’re going after one’s that are easy targets; people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and others.
It is going to be interesting to watch. Girt your loins folks and be ready.
I love it, when stuff like this happens to people like her:
Breaking: TVNewser has learned CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen’s contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network.
Roesgen, you’ll recall, was criticized for her coverage at the tax day tea parties in April, when she said the event she was covering in Chicago was, “anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox.”
Roesgen took a break for a few weeks after that reporting and returned to the air in May covering the Drew Peterson arrest. Most recently, she covered Michael Jackson’s death from Los Angeles. Roesgen joined CNN in 2005.
When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen’s comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, “I can’t comment on personnel matters.”
Of course, Liberal Blogger Zander the Stupid trots out a silly straw-man argument:
Perhaps we should apply the same journalistic integrity standards to, say, FOX morning host Brian Kilmeade’s recent antics.
Nice try dude; but Kilmeade’s antics, while facepalm worthy, never rise to level of stupidity, not to mention condensation of working class in this country; of Roesgen.
Dan Riehl writes:
Actually, I hope she gets another gig. Out of work is still out of work
With all due respect to Dan; BULLSHIT! I personally hope the little harpy sits out of work, for at least a couple of year. Let her feel the pain of her Obama-Massiah! Let her experience MY WORLD for a year or so. How it feels to have NO MONEY coming in, with bills coming in and no way to pay for them. Sorry Dan, the bitch had it coming; and honestly? It could not have happened to a better person.
Others on this sweet story: AmSpecBlog, Gateway Pundit, NewsBusters.org, Pajamas Media, American Power, Chicago Boyz, Moe Lane, Founding Bloggers, The Other McCain, Macsmind,
First off, let me say that I think Cap and Trade is wrong, will kill jobs and so on.
But this is totally disgusting:
Some of my fellow Conservatives are loving it. I personally found it to be most offensive and quite childish. The man was being outmaneuvered and instead of trying to argue the point; he chose to play the race card. How convenient. :pissedoff:
Al Sharpton would have been proud. So would John Podhoretz possibly.
Not that I am defending Boxer, she is an idiot. But the worst way to fight idiocy; is with MORE idiocy.
Color me among those who are quite unimpressed. :smug:
Others: Townhall.com, Weekly Standard, The Other McCain, Say Anything, Wonk Room, Gateway Pundit and Weasel Zippers
I saw this today on the Meme tracker and I wanted to really avoid it. Because I just do not feel that I cannot speak on Healthcare in a objective form, because it is quite the personal issue with me.
I have no healthcare insurance at all. :-((
Anyone this is in the New York Times Magazine:
You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?
If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasnât going to be good. But suppose itâs not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man â and everyone else like him â with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someoneâs life? If there is any point at which you say, âNo, an extra six months isnât worth that much,â then you think that health care should be rationed.
In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, ârationingâ has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintonsâ attempt to achieve reform. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline âObama Will Ration Your Health Care,â Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, âAmericans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.â And the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, âThere is no rationing of health care at allâ in the proposed reform.
Remember the joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars? She reflects for a few moments and then answers that she would. âSo,â he says, âwould you have sex with me for $50?â Indignantly, she exclaims, âWhat kind of a woman do you think I am?â He replies: âWeâve already established that. Now weâre just haggling about the price.â The manâs response implies that if a woman will sell herself at any price, she is a prostitute. The way we regard rationing in health care seems to rest on a similar assumption, that itâs immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives â but is that stance tenable?
Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for. But our current system of employer-financed health insurance exists only because the federal government encouraged it by making the premiums tax deductible. That is, in effect, a more than $200 billion government subsidy for health care. In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.
The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicareâs trustees warned that the programâs biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035.
Now the Right Wing Blogs are doing some seriously loud howling about this right here. I guess that I break away from that pack. I tend to be a bit more clearer thinking about it. Hence my Moderate label. For some better perspective, Riverdaughter over at The Confluence, who is a Moderate Democrat; puts some of this in perspective:
Peter Singer is an ethicist who espouses a utilitarian view of ethics, meaning that his interpretation of general welfare extends to an economic calculation of costs versus benefits. For example, he proposes that it is acceptable to identify specific measures of when a treatment is effective enough to warrant the cost of providing such treatment.
[….]
First, it is critical to note that healthcare is already ârationedâ in our country. It is ârationedâ each and every day when the uninsured or under-insured are denied the same high quality treatments afforded to those without financial constraints. Anyone who has seen Michael Mooreâs movie âSickoâ saw through this film the soulless rationing of treatment in our country such as how the poor and indigent were treated by a for-profit hospital that dumped them on a street corner after providing only minimal care. I will never forget the morning I broke down in tears after reading about a man in our community who had cancer, lost his job and with it his health insurance. His statement âIâm just waiting to die because I cannot afford the chemotherapy drugsâ exposed the unimaginable truth that our society is willing to allow people to die with little protest from its citizens. If this is already unacceptable, why would we want to factor such a strategy into any plan we devise?
Now, I have a great deal of respect for Peter Singer and his general view of the world, but his utilitarian ethical approach to healthcare reform in our country is one I cannot embrace; and the reason I cannot embrace it is because our political leaders do not use a utilitarian view when dealing with banks, Wall Street barons, and corporations. How does a society continue to exist when those who have little are turned away from life saving treatments while the wealthy live in a world where money is no object? There is something inherently wrong with standing before a nation and acting as though there is no limit to the funds our country should expend so that banks and Wall Street traders are allowed to continue to feed at the trough of excess, yet a discussion over saving the lives of our fellow citizens erodes into debate over cutting costs. Yet this is exactly what our legislators and president are doing to us on a daily basis â on both sides of the political aisle.
I agree with on all point, except when it comes to Michael Moore. Michael Moore, In my humble opinion; is a socialist Propaganda maker. Who yowls about the evils of a capitalistic society —- All the whole driving around in a limousine himself. Moore is the perfect example of a Limousine Liberal; kind of like John Kerry. However, she is correct about the whole Health-care issue. If you have good insurance, you get good care, if you have none. You get treated and released most usually.
Like I said; I do not have any sort of health insurance at all. But I just cannot get up and cheer madly about something ran by our Federal Government. I just cannot. Because this is same Government that allowed the Siege at the Waco Compound to happen; of which I have never forgiven Bill Clinton for, nor will I ever. Also Ruby Ridge and the list goes on and on. Not to mention the Medicare and Medicaid systems, how screwed up they are.
However, the Compassionate side of me, that sees the suffering and poor getting stiffed; wants to see a better system. So far, from what I have read. Obama’s plan is STILL going to leave many people uninsured. So, what is the big change? There is not really going to be any change, of great importance anyhow. The far left and special interest people are figuring this out.
So, anyhow, hopefully I did not lose any Conservative credo in this posting. đ :-/
Others: Don Surber, Tammy Bruce, Say Anything, The Strata-Sphere, Winds of Change.NET, PoliGazette, Sweetness & Light and The Rhetorican
WorldNetDaily, I have always felt; is the National Enquirer of Conservative News. Well, they have given me another reason to feel that way. They are reporting on an American Solider, who is refusing to reporting for duty, because he does not believe that President Obama is an American citizen.
Quote:
His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.
“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate â and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”
She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons â just revoked.”
Confederate Yankee is baffled:
I have no ready explanation for why the military would rescind his deployment orders, unless they plan to keep him stateside to begin a disciplinary investigation against him. Frankly, for the sake of our nation, I hope this is the case.
Because if the Pentagon allows soldiers to simply declare Obama an an illegitimate Command in Chiefâas the article would have you believeâit would seem to set a precedent that would lead to chaos in the military, allowing service members to question all orders for the executive branch. It would be anarchy.
WorldNet Daily simply must have this wrong. The larger ramifications of the case being dismissed for the reasons alleged by the attorney are too terrible to consider.
John Cole, A blogger on the left, that I happen to respect; is a bit more direct:
This guy is going to get court-martial-ed so quickly, brutally, and publicly that it isnât even funny, and his lunatic lawyer thinks they have won something. It hasnât even occurred to them that the order to deploy was rescinded because they are about to hammer him with disciplinary action.
I think I tend to agree with John here. That this ol’ boy is about get put through the meat grinder with the Military. đŻ :hypnotized: đŽ
You can read about it here.
You can read the details here. (Adobe Reader Required)
Commentary up the wazoo here.
A couple of rubs:
The proposal would also impose a âplay-or-payâ requirement on employers, who would either have to offer qualifying insurance to their employees and contribute a substantial share toward the premiums, or pay a fee to the federal government that would generally equal 8 percent of their payroll. Small employers (those with an annual payroll of less than $250,000) would be exempt from those requirements. As a rule, full-time employees with a qualifying offer of coverage from their employer would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges, but an exception to that âfirewallâ would be allowed for workers who had to pay more than 11 percent of their income for their employerâs insurance. In that case, the employers would have to pay an amount equal to the per-worker fee due for firms subject to the âplay-or-payâ penalty. Firms with relatively few employees and relatively low average wages would also be eligible for tax credits to cover up to half of their contributions toward health insurance premiums.
Comment on the underlined part: Which would of course, run some Businesses out of business. Either you play along or pay taxes out the nose. The small Employers part is nice. But this would put the squeeze on the Medium to large businesses.
Of course, you’ve got your “Let’s Cover our backsides” Caveats:
Important Caveats Regarding This Preliminary Analysis
There are several reasons why the preliminary analysis that is provided in this
letter and its attachments does not constitute a comprehensive cost estimate for
the coverage provisions of Americaâs Affordable Health Choices Act:⢠First, our analysis was based on specifications regarding insurance coverage that were provided by the tri-committee group and that differ in important ways from the âdiscussion draftâ version of legislative language that was
released on June 19, 2009. The specifications that we analyzed are supposed to be reflected in the draft language released by the three committees today, but we have not yet been able to analyze that language to determine whether it conforms to those specifications. Our review of that language could have a significant effect on our analysis. More generally, as our understanding of the specifications improves, that also could affect our future estimates.
⢠Second, some effects of the proposal have not yet been fully captured in our analysis. In particular, we have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies, nor have we
accounted for all of the proposalâs likely effects on spending for other federal programs. We expect to include those effects in the near future, but we also expect that they will not have a sizable impact on our analysis.
⢠Third, the budgetary information shown in the attached table reflects many of the major cash flows that would affect the federal budget as a result of implementing the specified policies, and it provides our preliminary assessment of the proposalâs net effects on the federal budget deficit (subject to the caveats listed above). Some additional cash flows would appear in the budgetâeither as outlays and offsetting receipts or outlays and revenuesâbut would net to zero and thus would not affect the deficit. CBO and the JCT staff have not yet estimated all of those cash flows but expect to do so in the near future.2 Those additional cash flows would include the premiums collected by the public plan and its outlays as well as risk-adjustment transfers from plans with relatively healthy enrollees to plans with relatively unhealthy enrollees.
The Requirements:
The proposalâs major provisionsâincluding the establishment of an individual mandate to obtain insurance, an expansion of eligibility for the Medicaid program, and the creation of new insurance exchanges through which certain people could purchase subsidized coverageâwould be implemented beginning in 2013.
All legal residents would be required to enroll in a health insurance plan meeting certain minimum standards or face a tax penalty (described below). Individuals not required to file a tax return would be exempt from the penalty; exemptions for hardship and other reasons would be determined by a new and independent federal agency overseeing the health insurance exchanges (also described below).
The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold. The amount of the penalty could not exceed the national average
premium for plans offered in the exchanges.
New health insurance policies sold in the individual and group insurance markets would be subject to several requirements regarding their availability and benefits. Insurers would be required to issue policies to all applicants and could not limit coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions. In addition, premiums for a given plan could not vary because of enrolleesâ health but could vary because of their age by a factor of two (under a system known as adjusted community rating). Individual policies that were purchased before 2013 and maintained continuously thereafter would be âgrandfathered,â meaning that they would not have to conform to the new rules but would still fulfill the individual mandate. Existing group policies would have to conform to the new rules by
2017.
In order to fulfill the individual mandate, policies that were not grandfathered would have to cover a broadly specified minimum benefit package (which was assumed to have the same scope of benefits as seen in a typical employer-sponsored plan) and would have to have a minimum actuarial value of 70 percent and a limit on out-of-pocket costs no
greater than $5,000 for individual coverage and $10,000 for family coverage. (A health insurance planâs actuarial value reflects the share of costs for covered services paid by the plan.) After 2013, the maximum levels of those out-of-pocket caps would be indexed to general inflation.
The proposal would establish a national exchange through which certain individuals and employers could purchase health insurance; states could also opt to operate their own exchanges (either one per state or one covering several states). All insurance plans sold through an exchange would be required to cover the âbasicâ benefit package described above. âEnhancedâ plans would have an actuarial value of 85 percent, and âpremiumâ plans would have an actuarial value of 95 percent.
Except as specified below, individuals and families who enroll in exchange plans and have income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) would be eligible for premium subsidies and cost-sharing subsidies (see table below).
Federal premium subsidies in a given area would be tied to the average premium of the three lowest-cost plans providing basic coverage in the exchange in that area. The subsidies would limit an enrolleeâs contribution to a percentage of income ranging from 1.5 percent to 11.0 percent (see table); those caps would not be indexed over time. The federal government would fully fund cost-sharing subsidies, which would increase the actuarial value of enrolleesâ coverage to specified tiers based on income.
Say goodbye to your freedoms folks. Because in a socialist society. You have none, at all.
Besides all that, how the hell are we going to pay for all this? Seeing our Economy is in the toilet and all. Stupid is, stupid does, I guess. :struggle: :silly:
Update: Ed Morrissey, As always, does a bang up job analyzing this new Bill and as I suspected; There’s some crap in it. :pissedoff:
Via Huffpo:
Ah, nothing like Racial Stereotypes to bring people to the Republican Party. đĄ
Michael Steele is a damned idiot.