Dave Barry's Year in Review

Classic, funny, and well worth the long read:

Miami Herald: It was a year of Hope -- at first in the sense of ``I feel hopeful!'' and later in the sense of ``I hope this year ends soon!''

It was also a year of Change, especially in Washington, where the tired old hacks of yesteryear finally yielded the reins of power to a group of fresh, young, idealistic, new-idea outsiders such as Nancy Pelosi. As a result Washington, rejecting ``business as usual,'' finally stopped trying to solve every problem by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it and instead started trying to solve every problem by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it....

Depressed over Obamacare

So Ben Nelson sold out and we will likely have Obamacare. The notion of a "blue dog" Democrat is now purely a myth... like the unicorn.

I imagine the House Democrats will sign onto any bill. Sure it's not what the liberals wanted 100% (no public option), but that doesn't mean that they can't add a public option in 3 years... especially after the current bill makes insurance premiums skyrocket. No abortion? No problem... they'll just get the courts to rule it unconstitutional.

Pay No Attention to the Men Behind the Curtain

I've always known that man made Global Warming was a load of bull, but Climategate may finally provide proof to the outside world. The elitist media are trying to bury it, but here's to hoping it gets wings.

Many people, even in the power industry, are unaware of Climategate. I guess the media is too busy speculating over Tiger Woods to investigate the fraud behind the "science" that is seeking to tax people heavily for their energy usage.

Here's an excellent recap of Climategate:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

News-weak on Palin

For the second time since Sarah Palin stepped into the national political spotlight, a photo of the former Republican vice-presidential candidate featured on the cover of Newsweek magazine is sparking controversy. Palin herself blasted the "out-of-context" cover as "sexist" on her Facebook page.

Originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World, the photo features the former Alaska governor in short runner's shorts. It was part of a multi-photograph slideshow that accompanied an article about Palin and her love for the sport titled, "I'm A Runner." In her Facebook post late last night, Palin took issue with Newsweek using a photo from an article about health and fitness to promote an analysis piece contemplating her relevance as a political figure

It is sexist. The photo and the accompanying title says, "She solves problems by being cute". It tries to demean any intellectual capacity and trying to make her look unprofessional.

Five Disasterous Things in the 9/11 NYC Trial

Obama and Holder have decided to try the 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court in New York City, giving them the rights and privileges of American Citizens.


1. Change of venue - If the defense can show that they can't get a fair trial in New York, they can get the venue changed.

2. Miranda warnings - Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) wasn't giving Miranda warnings.

3. Illegal search and seizures - The Army didn't have warrants to arrest KSM and company.

4. Evidence gained under waterboarding - We all know KSM was waterboarded. Anything he said will be thrown out.

5. Cross examination - Defense will ask questions of CIA witnesses questions such as: "Explain how you did reconnaissance."

Spinning Poor Leadership

This is how the AP characterizes Obama's indecision on Afghantistan

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's drawn-out decision-making on Afghanistan is sending messages. To the Afghan government: Clean up your act. To the Pentagon: I'm no rubber stamp. To the American public: More troops can't be the sole answer.

So the AP is trying to turn Obama's indecision into a strength? How about:

Iran: He ain't going to stop our bomb
To Russia: I can invade Georgia
To the understaffed American forces: Drop dead

The Ultimate Folly of Kelo vs. New London.

One of the worst Supreme Court decisions, Kelo vs. New London, the Court ruled that the town of New London, Ct, could claim Ms. Kelo's house to give to Pzifer, who would build something that would deliver more tax revenue. Today, however, Pfizer abandoned the project. So Kelo's house was destroyed for the "public benefit" (higher tax revenues) that never materialized. Now the "public" is worse off, because the site of Ms. Kelo's house is now a lot of weeds gaining no tax revenue at all.

Thoughts on the Treason at Fort Hood

Last Thursday, Army pyschologist, Major Malik Nidal Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar" and starting shooting fellow Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas. All totaled, 13 were killed and 38 were wounded.

Military has become politicized. Diversity is now a strategic imperitive. Despite knowing that he had tried to contact Al-Qaeda, the intelligence services did nothing (ABC News). Hasan previously attended a radical mosque that included two 9/11 hijacker alumni.

The military cannot carry guns on base. Why not? They are all trained responsible people. What's the downside? The unarmed military personnel at the base had to wait until cops got there. How many people could have been saved had everyone been armed?

Meanwhile the media is trying to say he was a lone crazy. The big story has become that Muslims fear an anti-Muslim backlash. They don't want to deal with the real story of removing other potential radicals from the military and dealing with CAIR.

Why I Won't See "2012"

I wasn't surprised to see the trailer of Hollywood disaster flick "2012", blowing up Christian landmarks (St. Peter's Basilica and the Christ the Reedemer Statue in Rio). There's no leftist fantasy greater than destroying religion, especially Christianity.

However, a recent interview shows that director Roland Emmerich was too scared to blow up any Islamic sites.

scifiwire - In 2012, he takes on landmarks in Rome, Rio de Janeiro and, yes, Washington, but there is one place even he couldn't bring himself to obliterate. We caught up with Emmerich in Jackson Hole, Wyo., where he told us why he chose various landmarks to lay waste in 2012, and about the one that got away.

Why? ..."Because I'm against organized religion," Emmerich says."

But.....

But Emmerich was thinking of something even more explosive: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped building at the heart of Mecca, the focus of prayers and the Islamic pilgrimage called the Hajj; it is one of Islam's holiest sites.

Really?

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," Emmerich says. "But my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. ... We have to all ... in the Western world ... think about this. You can actually ... let ... Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."

Why? Islam is a religion of peace. We all know it. Make your movie how you want it to be made.

A Death Blow to Obamacare and Cap & Trade?

Last night two Republicans won governors races widely seen as a referendum on the Obama administration. While Obama carried Virginia in 2008 by 7%, McDonnell won by 20%. More importantly, in New Jersey, a state Obama carried by 13%, the Republican, Christie, won by 5%. If the Republicans won only Virginia they could easily blame the candidate. In New Jersey, however, Corzine had previously won election in 2005 as governor and previously won a Senate race there.

So if a sitting governor in a dark "blue" state, New Jersey cannot win reelection because of discontent with Obama's idea of "change", what is a Senator from a red state thinking about his re-election change if he joins the Obama lemming train?

Accounting Madoff would be Proud of

Laughable. I'm glad people are realize what a joke the Obama adminstration is. This was supposed to be the administration that was going to be "open" and "accountable."


AP — President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

That type of accounting was found in an earlier AP review of stimulus jobs, which the Obama administration said was misleading because most of the government's job-counting errors were being fixed in the new data.

Solar Economics

Fox: The President visited DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy center, billed as the largest solar photovoltaic center in the country. The company's 90,500 solar panels are able to generate about 42,000 megawatt hours each year, but the project cost $150 million to build and only provides power to 3000 homes, prompting critics to say the administration doesn't have an overall energy strategy.

In remarks after a tour of the plant, the President blasted his opponents on energy reform, saying, "The closer we get to this new energy future, the harder the opposition's going to fight. The more we're going to hear from special interests and lobbyists in Washington whose interests are contrary to the interests of the American people, " Obama said.

Normally people pay about $0.15 /kW-hr on their bill. The company would have to charge customers at least $0.80 /kW-hr for this plant in order not to go under.

People want to think solar and wind are free because there is no fuel, but the capital costs are so high and you don't have much control over when you can use it.

You also have yearly maintenance costs, plus just the cost of financing the $150 million, which will be at least $10 million /yr.

Politicians live in dreamland and want people to think that it is free.

Example on How the Media Pushes Healthcare

Here's how the liberal media promotes Obamacare. Here's a story of how a 39 year old lost his job, his wife has cancer, and is joining the Army for the health benefits, but will now be forced to be seperate from his family.

The message is that if there was national healthcare, he wouldn't have to do this. You don't want to seperate a man from his wife with cancer, do you? So you should go support national healthcare so something like this doesn't happen.

For this one story, there are many others which can be sited which demonstrates the fallacies of

Is the story heartbreaking? Absolutely! But the media is showcasing this one story, at the expense of others. It's not just what the media prints, it is what is doesn't print. How many times have the printed a story about someone being denied care in the UK?

Bible Translation History 101 for N.C. Pastor

A pastor in a small Southern town plans to burn and Bible or religious material that isn't the King James Version.

What makes the King James Version so special? Does it sound fancy and official because it's in old English?

It borrowed heavily from the previously published Douay-Rheims Bible. This English language Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Latin Vulgate was itself a translation by St. Jerome in the 4th century. When the Bible Canon was being originally formed, Jerome was tasked by Pope St. Damasus with translating the scriptures from Greek and Aramaic into the one language that was being commonly spoken at the time, Latin.

In the centuries between the Old and New Testatment, Hebrew became a dead language and the Hebrew bible was translated into Aramaic by Palentians Jews. Greek Jews also translated the Bible between 250-100 B.C. Called the Septuagint, the Greek Orthodox Church still uses this version today in some of its liturgy.

While versions of the Bible have been created over the centuries which either unintentionally or intentionally distorted a truer translation, most of these have already been purged.

CANTON, N.C. (October 13, 2009)—The Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, N.C. will celebrate Halloween by burning Bibles that aren’t the King James Version, as well as music and books and anything else Pastor Marc Grizzard says is a satanic influence.

Among the authors whose books Grizzard plans to burn are well known ministers Rick Warren and Billy Graham because he says they have occasionally used Bibles other than the King James Version, which is the sole biblical source he considers infallible.

According to the church’s Web site, members will also burn “Satan's music such as country, rap, rock, pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel, contemporary Christian, jazz, soul (and) oldies.

“We will also be burning Satan's popular books written by heretics like Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll, John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham, Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa, The Pope, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning (and) William Young.

The World Reacts to Reckless Spending

Gold hit a record of $1068 today, and other countries are dumping the dollar. The Post puts blame on the Fed, but Congress and Obama share some of the blame. There are two ways to dump dollars on the market. One is via the Fed, but the other is by borrowing and spending.

It was Congress that added $1 trillion to the debt with the "stimulus" plan, and now the Obama administration is seeking to add trillions more in debt with his largely unfunded government healthcare program.

This all leads leading to fears that the government will monetize the debt.

So what happens next?
NY Post - Ben Bernanke's dollar crisis went into a wider mode yesterday as the greenback was shockingly upstaged by the euro and yen, both of which can lay claim to the world title as the currency favored by central banks as their reserve currency.

Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen -- not the greenbacks -- a nearly complete reversal of the dollar's onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar's share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent -- compared with two-thirds a decade ago.

Fed boss Ben Bernanke may be forced to raise rates in order to restore faith in the dollar — and help bring the euro and the yen back to earth.
Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks -- the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.

Bernanke could go down in economic history as the man who killed the greenback on the operating table.

After printing up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy -- ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other....

Investors and central banks are snubbing dollars because the greenback is kept too weak by zero interest rates and a flood of greenbacks in the global economy.

They grumble that they've loaned the US record amounts to cover its mounting debt, but are getting paid back by a currency that's worth 10 percent less in the past three months alone. In a decade, it's down nearly one-third.

The Human Casualty of Political Correctness

What is more important to Obama, Afghan "civilian" casualties or American Marines? Bush was no stranger to impeding the military with strict rules of engagement, but Obama's new rules takes it to a higher level.

This not only hurts morale, but it hurts recruiting. Who wants to go sign up under these conditions?

AP: Then Bernard's only son, 21-year-old Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard — a Marine like his dad — was killed in an insurgent ambush in Afghanistan's volatile Helmand province, the latest victim of a surge in U.S. combat deaths....

The loss of his son and the furor over the photo have given new resonance to his view that changes must be made in how the war is fought before President Barack Obama sends any more troops to battle the Taliban and al-Qaida....

Bernard's criticism is aimed at new rules of engagement imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, five weeks before Joshua Bernard was killed. They limit the use of airstrikes and require troops to break off combat when civilians are present, even if it means letting the enemy escape. They also call for greater cooperation with the Afghan National Army.

Under those rules, John Bernard said, Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage. In a letter to his congressman and Maine's U.S. senators, Bernard condemned "the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in."

"We've abandoned them in this Catch-22 where we're supposed to defend the population, but we can't defend them because we can't engage the enemy that is supposed to be the problem," he said in an interview with the AP.

The military says the new rules, while riskier in the short run, will ultimately mean fewer casualties.....

Marines are trained to "kill people and break things," not to be police officers and nation-builders, he says.

The Taliban "are tenacious and you have to fight them with the same level of tenacity," Bernard said. "If you're going to try to go over there as a peacekeeper, you're going to get your butt handed to you, and that's what's going on right now."

Bernard also disagrees with U.S. troops working side by side with Afghan soldiers and police. The mission on which his son was killed was compromised by someone who tipped off the Taliban, he says, citing gunfire from all directions that targeted the Marines' helicopter when it landed. Bernard believes the Marines were led into a trap.

Making Nobel Irrelevent

Alfred Nobel's Peace Prize has quickly become irrelevent. The once vaunted prize which highlighted efforts to better the world through peace, has become a sham in which Norwegian committee endorses politics. Eventually, it's irrelevance will become known and few people will tune in to find out who won.

Historically the award not only rewarded the person, but their effort as well. While Mother Theresa was "discovered" by Malcolm Muggeridge, her efforts received a huge boost with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The first slip was awarding it to Stalinist Le Duc Tho in 1973 for the Paris Peace Accords. The Nobel committee was awarding a prize to the aggressor for the pretending to talk about ending the war. Imagine if Hitler came to some peace agreement after conquering Poland, and then being awarded a peace prize. Even Tho declined the award stating there was no actual peace. Of course, peace to him was conquering Vietnam.

When the Nobel committee awarded Yassar Arafat the award in 1994, it resulted to wishful thinking that Arafat had renounced his violent past. When he instigated violence shortly thereafter, the Committee should have renounced his award.

At least the few examples up until 2000 were under the semblance of peace. After 2000 the Prize was used often to endorse political stances. In 2001, Kofi Annan won for opposing Bush. In case you didn't get it, they gave it to vocal Bush critic, Jimmy Carter. The feckless Mohammed ElBaredei won in 2005. All hell broke loose in 2007, when Al Gore won for global warming. Few could say with a straight face that promoting global warming alarmism is akin to peacefully resolving a conflict. Gore had one major advantage: he's not Bush.

So, it should be really no surprise Obama won, for doing only one thing: not being Bush.

From Obama's acceptance speech:

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize — men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. [Okay so decline it]

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. [Really? Which one?]

Afghanistan Needs an Exit Strategy

What happened to the media asking questions about exit strategies? Ever since Obama has been elected, critical questions about the war effort has ceased. Anyone with half a brain could guess the effect of Obama's strict rules of engagement on morale.

9/11 brought us to Afghanistan but it doesn't have to keep us there. We don't have to nation build.

It's high time we get some leadership from Obama on Afghanistan and get a critical media again. Can Obama answer any of these basic questions:

What's our mission?
Why is it important?
What are our objectives?
What are our alternatives?
What does success look like?

The Times (of London), a credible broadsheet, reports on the declining morale:

Times of London - American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban....

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not....

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”
...
Sergeant Christopher Hughes, 37, from Detroit, has lost six colleagues and survived two roadside bombs. Asked if the mission was worthwhile, he replied: “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.”
...
The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” said Specialist Mercer....

The soldiers are angry that colleagues are losing their lives while trying to help a population that will not help them. “You give them all the humanitarian assistance that they want and they’re still going to lie to you. They’ll tell you there’s no Taleban anywhere in the area and as soon as you roll away, ten feet from their house, you get shot at again,” said Specialist Eric Petty, from Georgia.

The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimise civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. “They’re a joke,” said one. “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.”...

The soldiers joke that their Isaf arm badges stand not for International Security Assistance Force but “I Suck At Fighting” or “I Support Afghan Farmers”.

To compound matters, soldiers are mainly being killed not in combat but on routine journeys, by roadside bombs planted by an invisible enemy. “That’s very demoralising,” said Captain Masengale....

"You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” added Specialist Mercer.

Media's Health Care Blitz

The media is blitzing to force public opinion on healthcare. They are trying to show that there is momentum for support. They know people in general like bandwagons so they want to demonstrate that the right bandwagon is to be pro-Obamacare. The AP produced a "dramatic" poll showing a uprising of momentum:

WASHINGTON — The fever has broken. The patient is out of intensive care. But if you're President Barack Obama, you can't stop pacing the waiting room. Health care overhaul is still in guarded condition. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll has found that opposition to Obama's health care remake dropped dramatically in just a matter of weeks. Still, Americans remain divided over complex legislation that Democrats are advancing in Congress. The public is split 40-40 on supporting or opposing the health care legislation, the poll found. An even split is welcome news for Democrats, a sharp improvement from September, when 49 percent of Americans said they opposed the congressional proposals and just 34 percent supported them.

So this is the poll that the AP has cited as a game changer.

However another poll question shows that people still don't like Obama's approach:

What the report on the poll doesn't mention that the poll asked more Democrats this time. Compare the percentage of Democrats and supporters:

Not to be outdone, Yahoo wants to show how a "silent majority". Even ignoring the breakdown of the AP's poll respondents, the 40% that support hardly constituets a majority.

Letterman and Power

David Letterman, left wing late night comic, was forced to reveal that he had been shagging the staff for many years due to an extortion plot.

The left wants to give Letterman a pass because it was consentual. (Consent doesn't actually matter, because the same left wing as wants to give Roman Polanski a pass).

In reality, it is an abuse of power. He's created an environmental in which females have to sleep with him to get ahead. One of his girlfriends/staff, Stephanie Birkitt, was frequently on the show as part of sketches. Would she have been there had she not been sleeping with her boss. Can anyone in corporate America imagine the results of a boss constantly promoting female staff that he was schtuping?

So where is the feminist movement on this abuse of paternal power?

Obama, the Empty Suit

Despite passionate personal plea by Obama to get the Olympics Games to Chicago, the IOC quickly voted out Chicago.

Anytime Obama is in an international forum, he's apologizing for America. If America is so bad that not even its President is proud of it, why should the IOC

The European establishment loves Obama, because they know he is a weak empty suit. The weaker America is, the seemingly higher prominence the Europeans have and the more often they can get their way. They like Obama, but they don't respect him.

Times (UK) - Chicago’s dismal showing today, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft....

Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance.

Most Annoying Political and Pop Words and Phrases

The word "change" - as always being for the better, without defining what is being changed and how it is being changed. Obama did it on the campaign. Many corporate managers have been lecturing employees about the important of undefined change for years. Let's remember that Coke changed to New Coke.

"Going Green" - It's frequently used by companies that wanted to reduce some sort of service, so they try to sell the "environmental benefits"...e.g., a bank wanting you to switch to paperless statements. Before interrupting a conversation, people used to say "Sorry to interrupt, but..." Now they say, "I don't mean to interrupt, but" - and then interrupt. If you don't mean to intterupt and yet you do, you are either a) dumb or b) a liar.

Claiming "the debate on _____ is over" - long before it actually is. This has been frequently used to discuss "global warming" and health care "reform." If you have to say the debate is over, it probably isn't. No one has to say, "the debate over whether the Earth is round is over."

Going viral - because the same 10,000 people watched a video of a kid on novacane watched a video of a cat playing the piano, doesn't mean the video forces indisicriminate and random people to watch it.

When politicans say "I mispoke" instead of "I lied and got caught." Mispeaking is saying "trading" instead of "training". Saying that when your plane landed, you were under sniper fire, and then it is proven that there was no sniper fire, is called lying.

"Scientists say" - Preceeding whatever you say with this phrase is an attempt to end any rebuttal. If you say scientists said it, how can someone disagree with scientists.

"The American People want" - Similarly, speaking on behalf of the American people...

"Working Families" - Which families aren't working again?

"Bipartisan "- if a bill is bipartisan then it must be perfect and never be criticized. You only need to get one Republican (usually Olympia Snowe) to vote for a bill and it instantly because "bipartisan" (and cannot be criticized).

Preceeding a phrase with: "To be honest with you" or "I'm not gonna lie." - So if you don't say that, can I assume you are lying?

"A Teachable Moment" - Barack Obama's favourite phrase. When he's f'd up, it's a lesson for everyone else.

"A post 9/11 world" - It's a little dated now, but it was so annoying that it is worthy of mention.

The ACORN sting

Young creative conservatives James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles posed as a pimp and prostitute trying to get housing assistance at ACORN and traffic in underage prostitutes, the result was:

In the footage, workers at various ACORN offices advise Giles to list her
occupation on financial documents as "freelancer,""performance artist" or
"entertainer" instead of prostitute, offer tips on how to claim the underage
girls - who were to be trafficked in from Central America - as dependents on her
tax return, and give their opinion on the best place to illegally cross the
U.S.-Mexico border.

While the media has been forced to cover the story, they seem to be overly concerned that the pair had recieved funding from a larger conservative organization or Fox News. Who cares? I think that since the left cannot defend the responses in the videos, they need to distract from the story. While the pair claim to have done the reporting on their own, it doesn't matter. Would ACORN's response be less reprehensible if they did?

Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into Watergate is legendary, but they got full backing from the Washington Post. Why should O'Keefe and Giles be any different?

Liberal Catholic Bishop Disappoints

It is highly disheartening to hear a speech by an Catholic Bishop that is so disappointing that you feel compelled to blog about it, late at night. I wondered outloud whether I could give the rebuttal. The subject of the talk was about Caritas in Veritate, which is Pope Benedict XVI's third encyclical.

The Bishop said that the encyclical, which I have not read, focused on providing for the common good and social justice. His talk focused on for things: the common good, healthcare, illegal immigrants, and the death penalty (the latter topic is not covered in Caritas in Veritate). (A quick read of Caritas in Veritate seems to indicate a focus on individual charity)

While seeking to better the common good and provide charity is noble, the Bishop seemed to indicate that the government should play a large role. What the Bishop didn't really mention was that charity comes from the individual. It is not chartible vote for someone who promises to give other people's money away, while doing nothing to help others. Charity involves the sacrifice of your time, your money, or your effort for betterment of others. You can't outsource charity.

Next, the Bishop contended that people have a right to healthcare and that "healthcare reform" should have some government plan. The Church actually states that people have the right to access to basic healthcare, which I don't disagree with. However, "access to basic healthcare" and "universal insurance" are not the same thing. People in Britian have paid taxes to have universal healthcare, but when they need healthcare the most, they routinely have to wait exceeding long for care. Is that access? Everyone in Cuba officially has health insurance, but no one can get even minimal care. Is that access? Conversely, I can go to the doctor without insurance. Because I have a high deductible plan, I essentially do. I pay for the full doctors visit. Even if I didn't have health insurance, I still have access to care.

Now, what effect does government healthcare have on the goal of seeking to better the common good? If a government healthcare plans have not succeed in anywhere it has been implemented, has the common good been benefited? Is it right for someone to advocate for a plan that has been proven to do harm to the common good?

To his credit, the Bishop did mention that any government healthcare should not provide for funding for abortion and doctors should have conscious clauses. Sadly, he seemed to take Obama at his word that the government healthcare plan wouldn't have abortion funding and would allow for conscious clauses. Let's play a game: Name the time that Obama voted against abortion. Unfortunately, the Bishop spent very little time on the subject of abortion (maybe 20 seconds) in comparison to the 5-10 minutes he spent on each other topic.

Illegal immigration was the next topic for which the Bishop advocated. Extoling the virtues and hard work of illegal immigrants, he said that they should get be made legal, and reference all the sales taxes and social security taxes they have been paying. He delved deeply into policy saying that illegals should pay a fine and then be on the path to citizenship. Finally, he essentially said that there should be no limit to immigration. If asked, I am certain at least two billion of the worlds' six billion people would love to come to the United States. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the U.S. couldn't support increasing its population 7 fold overnight. So that means there has to be a limit at some point. Additionally, his facts were either fuzzy or he is invalidating his own arguements. Supposedly the 13 million illegals contributed $1.8 trillion to the economy. Having conquered division, that means the average illegal earned $138,461. Either the illegals contribution is overstated or they should not be pitied so much!

Lastly the Bishop spoke against the death penalty. The Church does not advocate for the abolition of the death penaly, but, of course, would not want an innocent person to be executed. Neither would I, but I also believe that the death penalty should be punishment on the table. Considering that in 2006, there were 14,900 homicides and yet 53 executions , I don't think were are at a rate of alarm.

The overall speech lasted at least 30 minutes, and the Bishop wasted a good opportunity to remind people that charity is up to the individual efforts, not outsourcing it to the governmentm which has proven that it is inept at actually providing the charity. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ praised the Samaritan who took the man in the road to an inn and provided him with aid and government. He didn't saying, "And the Samaritan saw the man in the road and was indigant that the government wasn't helping him."

I don't think the Bishop is a bad man. He is not advocating government intervention because he wants more power. I'm sure there are many people he himself has individually helped. However, I think he is applying the wrong "solutions" to current societal deficiencies.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

When Obama says he plans to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse" he is banking on people's interpretation of the word "waste." Most people's interpreation of the word waste begets the question of what aren't you doing it now.

However, Obama's definition of the word, waste, is likely very different. He probably considers giving an 75 year old a heart transplant so he could live another few years, waste. Giving care so that a terminal patient with 6 months to live, can live for a year, is likely considered waste. Perhaps schooling for the mentally handicapped is also waste.

Liberal Media Delusions

Yahoo thinks that a Republican congressmen yelling, "You Lie" when Obama said his healthcare plan won't cover illegal is going to be the Stalingrad of the healthcare debate. I find it hard to believe.


Update: This is turning into the next Valerie Plame, a non-story that is made out to be more than it is. Rep Wilson yelled, "you lie" because amendments to the bill to exclude illegals were voted down. Of course, when Dems booed Bush, there was no "uproar".

This is a manufactured non-story in order to spin the issue away from the fact that Obama's speech provided nothing to the debate.

Obama's Speech: Nothing New

Nothing new in his speech. He promises a utopia. His plan will cover and cure everyone at no extra cost. He repeats that "You get to keep your plan if you like it", but he's going to impose all sorts of requirements on the insurance companies in order to prevent them from being able to do business.

He plans to finance this with savings from "waste and fraud." He plans a committee to determine and eliminate. Waste is old people and the disabled getting care.

Fear is the only way to push socialism through. It was the fear of the crashing financial markets that lead to the bailouts and the "stimulus." Thus Obama tries to spread fear by saying "more will die" if nothing is done. Of course, his plan that "must be passed now" doesn't take effect until 2013 (after the election)

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. [I'm in the middle... and my middle plan is the only way]
....

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. [Then many people won't sign up for insurance until they get sick] As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. [They can't now just drop you. This is a scare tactic.] They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. [Make the insurance companies go broke by making their business unsustainable]. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan - more security and stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves. [This will never happen because of the "temporary plan" that he proposes before this is set up will become permanent]

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. [Right after the next election. Don't want disgruntled voters preventing his re-election] In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill [This "meantime" will last forever]....

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. [I don't believe it],...................

Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment - it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate..........

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies - subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. [When he says "waste" he means giving medical care to the very elderly.]

Election Free Speech

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is being heard today by SCOTUS, and it could overturn McCain-Feingold, which blatantly abridged free speech.

WSJ’s headline: The Chance for a Free Speech Do-Over

NY Times’ headline: A Threat to Fair Elections

Obama's message to kids

Obama's defense now proclaims his planned message to students was completely non-partisan. "Conservatives thought it would be partisan and it wasn't.... blah blah blah"

Well, of course, Obama changed the message after the pre-emptive criticism. What did the first draft say?

Levi Johnston - Use and Discard

So Levi Johnston, the baby daddy, of Bristol Palin, had made the talk show circuit trashing Sarah Palin & the family. Now he's in Vanity Fair doing the same thing.

I partially feel sorry for him and partially feel that he's an idiot. He likely doesn't realize he is being used. He probably had some disagreements with the Palin family but when he starting complaining about them, he got a lot of liberal listeners.

Now, Johnston has dreams of being an actor. I bet the talk show producers would say, "Oh I think you have great potential to be an actor. I'm going to put you in contact with someone who can help your career. What else bad do you have to say about the Palin family?" Johnston then spills his guts because he thinks it'll lead to a future career.

Little does Levi Johnston know, is that he's being used by the liberal establishment to destroy Sarah Palin. Once his use as mouthpiece is up, he'll be tossed aside. He'll call back the producers who flattered him or told him that they would put him in contact with someone. His calls will go unanswered.

Just like Cindy Sheehan. Liberals loved her when she protested the war in Iraq when Bush was President. They got her to camp outside his Texas ranch. She was on the news frequently. Obama won and now liberals need Iraq to succeeed to make Obama look good. (A US pullout followed by sectarian war ala Kosovo would make Obama look foolish). So the same Obama who likewise demanded an Iraq pullout has abandoned those plans. Cindy Sheehan hasn't, but how does the once adoring media now treat her?

“And you look at somebody like that (note: me) and you think here’s somebody who’s just trying to find some meaning in her son’s death. And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already.” — ABC Nightly News Anchor, Charles Gibson August 18, 2009

Lybia: Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit

Last week, Scotland decided to release the bomber of Pam Am Flight 103, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. His release, on "compassionate grounds" due to his "terminal" cancer was widely criticized, and that critcism was amplified because he received a hero's welcome in Lybia. Now Lybia is saying he's in critical condition, knocking on death's door.

I smell bullshit. Lybia is trying to provide some cover to the morons in the UK government for releasing him, and to themselves for throwing him the welcome home party.

TRIPOLI, Libya – The health of the Lockerbie bomber, who has terminal prostate
cancer, has swiftly deteriorated since his release from a Scottish prison less
than two weeks ago, a senior Libyan official said Tuesday.

The head of the Libyan State Information Agency, Majid al-Dursi, said Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is in the hospital and described him as "very sick."

"His health is deteriorating fast since he arrived," al-Dursi said. Asked how long al-Megrahi could still have to live, he answered: "Only God knows when it will be over. But he is dying now."

There was no way to independently verify his health, and it was not clear how long he has to live. Scottish officials released him from prison Aug. 20 on compassionate grounds due to his cancer, sparking an international uproar. At the time, Scottish officials said doctors had determined al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.

Television footage on Britain's Channel 4 that aired Sunday showed al-Megrahi in the hospital, breathing through an oxygen mask and propped up by pillows. Al-Megrahi was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board the plane and 11 people on the ground.

His release and return to Libya where he was greeted warmly at the airport by hundreds of cheering supporters has led to outrage from many of the Lockerbie victims and questions about whether his release was secured in order to facilitate lucrative oil trade with Libya.

Both Britain and Scotland have denied that business had anything to do
with allowing al-Megrahi to leave prison after completing only eight years of
his life sentence. They have said they plan to publish correspondence on
al-Megrahi's release Tuesday in an effort to fight those allegations.

The British media claimed over the weekend that the British government
struck a deal with Libyan authorities to include al-Megrahi in a prisoner
transfer agreement because it was considered to be in Britain's interests at a
time when a major oil deal was being negotiated.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown denied that report, telling the Financial Times on Tuesday that the decision to release al-Megrahi rested with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. He also said he told Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at the Group of 8 meetings in Italy in July that his administration had no role in the matter.....

Capitalism: Foreign Versus Domestic

News of Michael Moore’s new documentary on capitalism makes me want to explain how the government and the unions have done most of the damage. Michael Moore’s first documentary was blaming the CEO of GM for closing factories in Flint, Michigan.

Let’s take a hypothetical scenario: an American company is building units that sell for $100 and cost $90 and is of top quality. A foreign competitor is also selling something for $100 that costs $90 and is of top quality. The American government or the company’s union then comes in raises the costs for the American company. Here are four typical scenarios

1. The Government raises taxes. There is payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, local property taxes, carbon emissions, etc.
2. The Government increases mandates to employers: i.e., companies must give one month paternity leave.
3. The Government increases regulation: i.e., car company factory has to reduce NOx emissions by 50%. To accomplish this they need to add capital equipment that cost big bucks that has to be paid for by the company.
4. The union threats strike that they want an extra money in pay or benefits.

All of those things raised the costs for the American company alone. The foreign company is unaffected. Let’s say all of those things raise the cost from $90 to $98/unit. Now the company has three choices:

1. Raise the price of the unit to $108. However, when consumers go to the store they will see the same quality product for cheaper that was made overseas for $100. More people will start to choose the unit that is cheaper.
2. Lower the quality of the unit. Now the American unit which was top quality is of mid-quality but once again costs $100. However, consumers see the foreign product costs the same but is of better quality. So more people choose the foreign product
3. Do nothing. The American company does not change its pricing or its quality and now only makes $2 per unit. However, when the company tries to raise money for capital investment, they only can promise 2% return. No sane investor wants to invest in a risk-bearing business that is promising a 2% return when there a lot of uncertainties whether they would receive their 2% or even get their money back. Alternatively the investor would put his money into another investment, such a bank CD that would be risk-free and pay 3% interest. Additionally there is no guarantee that the rise in cost isn’t’ $11 instead of $8. Even liberals know you can’t sell something for $100 that costs $101 and stay in business.

In all three scenarios, the American company would find it hard to compete against the foreign company. Many people like the idea of buying American, but not if it is at greater cost or less quality. In order to stay in business, companies are forced to move out of country.

The Real Reason for Cash for Clunkers

Cash for clunkers is the poorly devised program for the government to buy older cars for $4500 if people purchase a new car. The government then destroys the older car.

So what's the driving force of a program that destroys value, hurt charties, and hurts business (the used car market, auto parts dealers, etc)?

Answer: The government takeover of GM. They want to show good results after the takeover, so they devise an incentive program to boost sales. They want to show that the government takeover has succeed in increasing sales (at least temporarily). Who cares about long term aggregrate economic effects. Who even cares about the long term implications for the car companies. It's all about the soundbite in 6 months about how successful the government takeover has beeen.

Obamacare's other consequences

Rationed care, the long lines, the inefficiencies, the lack of choice, the shorter life expectancies, are just some of the delights that a nationalized healthcare has to offer.

1. The one consequence that even diehard liberals have not realized is the amount of control the government will have on your daily life. If you are overweight, and thus more likely to have health problems, perhaps the government will tell you what you can and cannot eat. Maybe they will require you to go to mandatory fat camps or you will have to show an ID at McDonalds allowing you to have a hamburger. After all, it's quite unfair that due to your poor eating habits, you are using more resources than others.



2. The budget for healthcare will compete with the budget for everything else. Every dollar that is spent on healthcare is a dollar that cannot be spent on anything else. Since many of the other government budgets are static, there will be a lot of incentive to cut proceedures in healthcare to free up money for whatever the poltiicans desire.

All Cultures are Equal.... All Cultures are Equal

Just keep repeating that and you won't be disgusted by the below story.

A Muslim part-time model will become the first woman to be caned in Malaysia after pleading guilty to drinking beer, a prosecutor said today.
An Islamic court ordered that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, be lashed six times with a rattan cane after she was caught drinking alcohol in a raid on a hotel night club in eastern Pahang state last year.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207643/Muslim-model-woman-Malaysia-caned-caught-drinking-beer.html#ixzz0OdVKMyRf

NHS Watch - The Splendors of British National Healthcare

Why would a government healthcare system in the US be any different?


Father turned away from hospital with pregnant wife delivers baby on bathroom floor


Women gives birth on pavement after being refused ambulance

They rushed to St Mary's Hospital in Manchester, but Rebecca was told she wasn't ready, despite being 38 weeks into the pregnancy.

The couple, of Newbury, Berkshire, went back to the house - but three hours later, Rebecca was doubled up in pain on the bathroom floor.
Tony said he called the hospital to ask what to do and could not get any response.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1207371/Father-turned-away-hospital-pregnant-wife-delivers-baby-bathroom-floor--saves-daughters-life.html#ixzz0OdT02tP8

A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there.

Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labour unexpectedly with her fourth child.
But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city's nearby Royal Infirmary.

NHS workers call in sick 150% more than private sector.

As the old Soviet saying went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"


Family told by NHS: Alzheimers is not a health issue

What a Difference a Year Makes

While reading the below story today, I realized what a difference a year makes. A year ago, Bush was President. Now, suddenly, our enemies are enemies again and the press doesn't seem too eager to take their side anymore.

Pakistani Taliban head's death a blow to militants

(AP) ISLAMABAD – Pakistan's Taliban chief was killed by a CIA missile strike, a militant commander confirmed Friday — a severe blow to extremists threatening the stability of this nuclear-armed nation and a possible boost to U.S.-Pakistani cooperation in fighting insurgents who wreak havoc along the Afghan border.

Pakistani officials vowed to dismantle the rest of the network run by Baitullah Mehsud regardless of who takes over, a move seen as essential to crippling the violent Islamists behind dozens of suicide attacks and beheadings in the country....

This is how the story would have run last year:

Pakistani children killed along side tribal leader

Islamabad - A CIA missile slammed into a tribal village killing scores of civilians, including several local children. The CIA has stated that this attack targeted and killed an alleged Taliban chief, but local sources say that the target, Baitullah Mehsud, was only a goat herder. The attack represents a severe blow to efforts by the European Union to pursue peaceful diplomacy. Sources say that the attack could also strain any hope of U.S.-Pakistani cooperation in fighting alleged insurgents along the Afghan border.

Pakistani officials insist that continued indiscriminate U.S. military attacks in the region could be used to recruit moderate Muslims to Taliban's cause. The presence of the American military in the region is seen as essential reason behind the promenance of the Taliban in the country....

Diagnosis Burueacrat

Take Obama's hypothetical situation:

RealClearPolitics: In trying to rally support for health care overhaul, Obama described a patient who sees a physician for a sore throat, or a parent who brings in a child with a sore throat.

"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."

Perhaps some doctors overprescribe based on fees and I can't doubt that this happens.

However, what is the alternative? A bureaucrat making a decision? That's what Obama wants.

How is a bureaucrat to decide whether the person really needs his tonsils out? He'll look at the chart? What about the bureaucrat's women's studies degree qualifies him to make better decisions?

Obama's Health Care Cancer

When Hillary's 1993 nationalized healthcare proposal fell flat, liberals did not accept that the American people rejected nationalized healthcare. Instead, they try again in stealth. Obama's healthcare plan is a cancer to the existing private system. Eventually it will get destroyed.

Here's how it will play out: After the government creates the public option, they can attract enrollees with low costs and high coverage. At first, reports in the media will be honestly positive. The government will be able to do this by running deficits. Then some companies may drop employer based coverage since there is a seemingly efficient government plan. A

t the same time, the government will increase regulation on existing insurers to make it impossible to do business. They will limit what insures can charge, while forcing them to add costs such as covering pre-existing conditions or elective proceedures. No one expects someone to be able to sign up for car insurance after you've gotten into an accident. (Nobody thinks that insurance should cover installing fancy rims on your car either. Apparently though, the left have convinced a substantial number of people that healthcare should do just that.)

Once the private system is destroyed the government will be in full control. However, now that they have the entire nation's healthcare to pay for, running enormous deficits indefinitely is impossible. So they will face the reality of trying to manage the budget. This is when quality of care will start decreasing, when old people are left to die, and cancer patients become expendable.

There will be additional incentive to cut care. Every extra dollar spent on healthcare is one less dollar the government can spend on pork projects.



Obama has said nothing regarding the pros and cons of other govermnment provided healthcare systems such as Massachussetts, Canada, or Britian. A honest person would talk about the deficits of such systems and how his system would be better.
His cost projects are dillusionally low
He keeps repeating this statistics that 47 million are uninsured. This statistic is really the number of people who at some point in the year did not have health insurance. This includes illegal immigrants, young people who don't need it, or people swtiching jobs. (If you quit a job on a Friday and start on the following Monday, you don't have insurance for a weekend.)
Obama claims that the government will be able to reduce costs? How?

T

Priceless....

Washington Examiner

"If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?" -- President Obama

In last night's press conference, President Obama seemed to be reliving that famous scene from The Matrix. The main character is offered a choice between a red pill that makes him see reality for what it is, and a blue pill that allows him to continue living in a pleasant world of illusions.

Last night, President Obama appeared to have taken the blue pill before his press conference. How else could he convince himself, the Congressional Budget Office's numbers notwithstanding, that his health care reform bill will not increase both health care costs and the federal deficit? How else can he continue to make the argument that a massive expansion of government spending on health care will solve rather than exacerbate the current problems? How can he repeatedly express such absolute certainty that such a measure will easily pay for itself several times over in the long run? Why can he not at least acknowledge the possibility that it will become a costly and useless trillion-dollar boondoggle that follows in the footsteps of his stimulus package?

"If she was a Conservative" Part Deux

Continuing with the "If she was a Conservative" series.....

She's is cool and collected, while a conservative would have "struggled to defend."




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_deconstructing_sotomayor

More troubling than the "wise Latina" comment is the "ooops, I'm on video" quote:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law. I know. OK, I know. I know. I’m not, I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. OK. Um. [Laughs]"

The video clearly shows her being smug and her letting out the secret that everyone knows. The AP brushes this off as: Her suggestion that appeals court judges don't just interpret the law, they help make it? Taken out of context.

If She Were a Conservative....

Can you image how the headline would read instead?

"How Sotomayor plans to gloss over past statements"

"Sotomayor critics gain popular support"

"Sotomayor statements anger minority groups"

"Sotomayor qualifications to be scrutinized"

Left-wingers Self Dellusion

One word: delusional

Left wing "Catholics" try to assuage their guilty by convincing themselves and others that their way is really better for paper thin reasons a, b, & c.

Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does: Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.

In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.

It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.
Quantcast

Even more intriguing is the pope's support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as "the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly." As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.

But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."....

California's Budget Woes

California have a $26 billion budget gap and are out of loans. Now they want to issue IOUs as they predict running out of cash at the end of July.

So one of the most liberal states is having the worst problem. Surprised? California has everything going for it: It's got a nice coast, waterways, farmland, tourist attractions. There's

How they got there should be a warning to the rest of the country. They increased spending to meet politicans fancy and raised taxes to pay for it. A smaller percentage of the population were financing all that largesse. The business and people that paid the taxes left, while spending continued to increase.

California could get out of the budget mess by cutting spending, but none of the politicans want to do that. So they dream about raising revenue, through MORE taxes, yet the people of California are tired of it.

Disappointing Republicans

Two prominent Republicans recently announced they were having affairs, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Governor Mark Sanford (R-GA). While I wasn't very familiar with Ensign, I had come to like Sanford over his opposition to the stimulus.

Why do Blue States have the Worst Economies?

It's not a coincidence that the most economically successful states during these times also happen to be conservative states. Of course, now liberal progresive socialists want to export the ideas that didn't work at the State level, nationally. Perhaps if I have time I'll do a comparison between economic health and the precent that voted for Obama.

Where Struggling Americans Can Find a Fresh Start

Texas is the Most Popular Destination

Alaska isn't alone in having difficulty attracting skilled employees. Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma also have trouble finding folks willing to relocate from areas with faster-paced lifestyles, Goss said. Some states have encouraged immigration to fill employment shortages, he said.

Tim Johnson, managing editor of online moving-services company Relocation.com, said few people are relocating these days, but Texas is the most popular destination for those who are.

Texas, like many of today's other economic bright spots, never had a housing bubble or bust. Its job market has remained relatively strong, in part because it is a major oil and health-care hub.

"The clear winner is Texas," Johnson said. "People really see Texas as a place for good economic prospects."

Why?

1. Lower taxes: There is no sales tax. If a family is looking at paying $10,000 in taxes in California and $5,000 in Texas, No sales tax.


2. Fewer restrictions on which business can operate. For example, when California decided to stop construction of power plants in California, it meant they had to import electricity from Nevada and other surrounding states. That meant jobs in those plants went to Nevada.


3. Right to work laws means that unions aren't prevalent. Unions drive up the cost of doing business. What the unions and politicians forget is that companies can move. They may be forced to move in order to remain competitive or attract capital.


4. No Housing Bubble and Bust. Texas has both the ability and room to expand. Houston, at least, does not have zoning laws. This allows for a transition of neighborhood. An old commercial site can be turned into a housing complex without having to bribe government officials or fight special interest groups. Much of the area inside Houston's 610 loop has undergone revitilization that couldn't have happened if there were zoning laws. Texas also doesn't have any land use restriction laws. Finding new places that the environmentalists allow you to build in California is hard. This makes the existing land skyrocket.

So What Did We Get for the Bailout?

Late last year, the government, under "Republican" GW Bush, decided to unilaterlly bailout out GM and Chrysler. So how much was the country benefited by shoving taxpayer money into failing companies? Apparently not much as both are in bankruptcy as predicted.

Over course, now Obama has unilaterlly revised bankruptcy laws to usurp the secured debt holders and mandate who should benefit from bankruptcy. In the Chrysler bankruptcy, secured creditors got 33% of the assets, while unsecured creditors (the UAW) got 42% and 55% of the new company.

Not only am I doubt of the government's ability to turn around GM, I am worried about the chilling effect that these actions on future lending. Who wants to lend when your rights as a lender may be usurped by the Obama.

WSJ: Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended government intervention in GM as the auto maker enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the actions are part of a "viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again."

Under the plan, the government would own 60% of the new GM, but Mr. Obama said auto executives "will call the shots and make the decisions about turning this company around." He said the government would refrain from playing a management role in all but the most critical areas. (commentary: sure they'll just appoint the puppets) "Our goal is to help GM get back on its feet...and get out quickly," he said....

Meanwhile, GM Chairman Kent Kresa said he will keep five current members of the board of directors, and said that the Obama administration has final say on who will fill out the new board. Meanwhile, GM Chairman Kent Kresa said he will keep five current members of the board of directors, and said that the Obama administration has final say on who will fill out the new board.

What Chrysler Bankruptcy Spells for Healthcare?

Statistical evidence indicated that the closing of Chrysler dealerships may have had some partisan influence. The closing of approximately 25% of Chrysler dealerships were supposedly made by a super secret matrix of different criteria.

Another blogger looked into this. Not only did, a set of five dealerships owned by influential Democrats remain open, but their competition in five seperate locations were shut down.

So what happens when healthcare gets nationalized by the Obama? Will your donations record be reviewed before surgery gets approved. Will an otherwise healthy, 45 year old Republican be bumped down a heart transplant list in leiu of a 80 year old Democrat with chirrosis of the liver?

American capitalism gone with a whimper

Brilliant, but scary. Reprinted in full:

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

Or Else What?

And if the Iranians don't comply?

Liberals love to say, "We should be creating a dialogue with Iran, using diplomacy instead of being cowboys." These platitudes are nice, but they never answer the question, "What will you do if they ignore your diplomatic outreach?"



Obama says he wants progress with Iran by year's end
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama set a rough timetable for his diplomatic outreach to arch-foe Iran for the first time on Monday, saying he wanted to see serious progress by the end of the year.

He also held out the prospect of tougher sanctions against Tehran "to ensure that Iran understands we are serious."

Obama's comments came after talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which the new Israeli leader was expected to stress Israel's concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Israel believes it is a cover to build atomic weapons.

With many Israelis skeptical about his efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, Obama stressed that attempts by the previous Bush administration to isolate Iran had failed, "so what we are going to try to do is do something different."

Sitting next to Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Obama said he hoped to begin negotiations with Tehran soon, after Iran holds elections next month. Iran's leaders have so far rebuffed his efforts to reach out to them and toughened their rhetoric.

"The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which we point we say these talks don't seem to be making any serious progress," Obama said.

"By the end of the year we should have some sense whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we are starting to see serious movement on the part of Iranians," he said.

He did not say what steps he expected Iran to take to show its good faith in any negotiations with Washington.

The First Tart of France

Really, so Carla has rejected her whole belief system because of the Pope's view of contraception.... which has a consistent view. Certainly the phrase, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. Me thinkith, it's an really just an excuse, besides "I'm selfish and self-centered."

Carla Bruni criticises Pope Benedict XVI
Carla Bruni has issued a scathing attack on Pope Benedict XVI saying that she has allowed her Catholic faith to lapse because of his approach to contraception in Africa.

France's First Lady said that the Church's teachings had left her feeling "profoundly secular".

She departed from her post's traditional religious neutrality to accuse the Pope of "damaging" countries like Africa with his stance on birth control.


The Italian-born former supermodel risked angering believers in France and beyond by declaring that the Pontiff's proclamations showed that the Church needed to "evolve".

In March, the Pope sparked controversy while on an Africa tour by saying that the AIDs pandemic which has crippled the continent "can't be resolved with the distribution of condoms; on the contrary, there is the risk of increasing the problem".

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: "I was born Catholic, I was baptised, but in my life I feel profoundly secular.

"I find that the controversy coming from the Pope's message – albeit distorted by the media – is very damaging.

"In Africa it's often Church people who look after sick people. It's astonishing to see the difference between the theory and the reality.

"I think the Church should evolve on this issue. It presents the condom as a contraceptive which, incidentally, it forbids, although it is the only existing protection," she told Femme Actuelle, the women's magazine.

California Going Broke, Let's Copy It !!!

So California is going broke. It's been brought upon itself. California should have a lot going for it. It's an physically attractive place, beautiful coasts, l


Highest Income and Sales Taxes --> Pushed business and the wealthy out of the State.
Higher regulation --> Harder and more expensive for businesses to do business
Loose welfare --> People who don't take and don't make.

They've run their state into the ground and now we are supposed to adopt the policies that got them there?

Now Obama wants to follow those policies?

The Epitome of Clintonian Wordsmithing

From previously released documents, Nancy Pelosi was told that these “enhanced techniques” were going to be used.

WP: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused CIA officials Thursday of misleading her in 2002 on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning and has been described by critics as torture. Pelosi reiterated an earlier claim that she was briefed on such techniques only once — in September of 2002 — and that she was told at the time that the techniques were not being used.

Going to be used is future tense; being used is in the present. So technically speaking, when someone told Pelosi that waterboarding was going to be used, that meant they weren't currently using it. However, it is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

If she really opposed “torture” her ability to oppose it has the most potential before the techniques are used. If your goal is to prevent something, you would want to know before it happens, and not to be made aware of it afterwards.

In reality, she had no idea in 2002 that “waterboarding” would be the hot topic of the left in 2009. One might think that she should rationally say that at the time, considering the circumstances, and the limitations of the techniques imposed, she thought the application of the techniques were okay. However, her base isn't rational! So, little wonder she lies.

The Pope in Israel

The Pope visits the Holocaust memorial in Israel and he's being criticized for it by some Israelis for not apologizing for being German and for being Catholic. Now he's insulted many Catholics who died helping the Jews.

Israeli's own Yad Vashem itself recognizes over 22,000 non-Jews in their "Righteous among the Nations". Just by looking at the countries where people are predominately Catholic, it is easy to assume that at least 10,000 of them are Catholic (Poland, France, Belgium, Lithuania). Some, like Saint Maximilian Kolbe, are more well known, but there were many others. This should be required reading for any objecting Knesset memebers: Catholic Heroes of the Holocaust

The Church has gotten criticism from leftists and opportunists who claim that it sat idly by during the Holocaust. Pinchas Lapide, an Israeli diplomat, concluded after extensive research that some 860,000 Jews were saved by the Church. Most notably has been criticism of Pope Pius XII. Some want to portray him as idly sitting by during the Holocaust. Even the most shallow examination of the evidence proves otherwise. Among the Pius XII's supporters are two Israeli Prime Ministers, Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett.

Jerusalem Post: Pope Benedict XVI on Monday paid tribute to the memory of six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, pledging to work tirelessly to prevent such hatred from recurring in the hearts of mankind again.

Benedict says, "Church feels deep compassion for the victims."
But the pontiff's closely-watched speech at Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial stopped short of an apology on behalf of the Catholic Church, producing palpable disappointment among those Israelis who had expected a historic address from the German-born pope on the first day of his visit here.

"We're talking about the pope, who is also a representative of the Holy See, which has a lot to ask forgiveness from our people for," Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said during an interview on Israel Radio on Tuesday. "And he is also a German, whose country and people have asked forgiveness. But he himself comes and speaks to us like a historian, as an observer, as a man who expresses his opinion about things that should never happen, and he was - what can you do? - a part of them."

"If we let this go, in the end they'll say, 'the Jewish people can manage,'" the Knesset speaker said.

Rivlin added during the interview that "there is one thing which is forbidden to forget, and we must not allow ourselves to forget it, not even in the act of giving up on it in one way or another due to protocol. The Holocaust is not protocol."

After the pope's speech, the Knesset speaker - who was absent from all of the welcoming festivities other than the visit to Yad Vashem - said that "everything that we feared came to fruition."

"I came to the memorial not only to hear historical descriptions or about the established fact of the Holocaust. I came as a Jew, hoping to hear an apology and a request for forgiveness from those who caused our tragedy, and among them, the Germans and the church. But to my sadness, I did not hear any such thing," he said.

"The visit to Yad Vashem does not constitute an expression of regret as such," added Rivlin. "The eyes of Jews across the world, and of the nation in Israel, were directed here, in anticipation of hearing honest communion - personal and determined - regarding the Holocaust of their people. And we heard nothing of the sort."

Benedict had said during Monday's speech that "I have come to stand in silence before the monument erected to honor the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah."

"They lost their lives, but they will never lose their names. These are indelibly etched in the hearts of their loved ones, their surviving fellow prisoners, and all those determined never to allow such an atrocity to disgrace mankind again."

The solemn memorial service, which was held at the Holocaust Memorial's darkened Hall of Remembrance, was seen as the highlight of the pontiff's visit to the Jewish state, especially in light of the recent controversy over the pope's decision to revoke the excommunication of a bishop who denies the Holocaust.

"I reaffirm - like my predecessors - that the church is committed to praying and working tirelessly to ensure that hatred will never reign in the hearts of men again," he said.

The English-language address by the pontiff, which was peppered with biblical quotations but which never referred to the Nazis and avoided all Holocaust-related issues of contention, was preceded by the pope's rekindling of the eternal flame in the chamber, which has a mosaic floor engraved with the names of 22 of the most infamous Nazi murder sites.

He also laid a wreath over a stone crypt containing the ashes of Holocaust victims.

"As we stand here in silence, their cry still echoes in our hearts. It is a cry raised against every act of injustice and violence. It is a perpetual reproach against the spilling of innocent blood," he said.

"I am deeply grateful to God and to you for the opportunity to stand here in silence: a silence to remember, a silence to pray, a silence to hope," he concluded.

The chairman of the Yad Vashem Council, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, who is a Holocaust survivor, expressed disappointment at the pope's speech, saying that "there certainly was no apology expressed here."

"Something was missing. There was no mention of the Germans or the Nazis who participated in the butchery, nor a word of regret," Lau said. "If not an apology, then an expression of remorse."

Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev said that the "certain restraint" in the formulation of the speech was a "missed opportunity."

"I did not expect an apology, but we expected more," he told The Jerusalem Post. "This is certainly no historic landmark."

"I had expected a historic speech from the German pope at the site which is a memorial altar for the victims of Nazi Germany," said Prof. Shevah Weiss, a former Yad Vashem chairman and Holocaust survivor. "And though the speech was moving - it wasn't that."

Others said that too much focus should not be put on the one speech.

"His very presence at Yad Vashem is a statement, particularly against those Holocaust deniers who challenge the history of the Shoah," said Rabbi Arthur Schneier, senior rabbi of Park East Synagogue in New York, who hosted the pope last year and was here for the papal visit.

The august ceremony, which included a brief encounter between the pope and six Holocaust survivors as well as a Righteous Among the Nations, concluded with the pope signing the guest book and the singing of "Hatikva."

"His mercies are not spent," the pope wrote, quoting from the Book of Lamentations.

The pope arrived at Ben-Gurion Airport late Monday morning and was welcomed by President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

After the greetings, the pope flew by helicopter to Jerusalem, where he was met by Mayor Nir Barkat and scores of flag-waving Jewish, Christian and Muslim children.

"You will feel at home because you, too, Your Holiness, are a shareholder of this great city," Barkat told the pope, in a brief welcoming ceremony at the city's Mount Scopus tarmac.

Later, at Beit Hanassi, Peres and Benedict planted an olive tree together.