DEMOCRATS: YOU DON’T LIKE OUR POLICIES---GO TO JAIL

The liberal left continues its assault on capitalism with their propaganda that individual prosperity is the direct result/cause of the poor and disadvantaged brought about by an unfavorable condition or circumstance. Basing their ideology on the premise that prosperity promotes greed, (and promoting this as a human defect), by their reasoning, we should feel guilty and show remorse for having the propensity to be successful or prosperous, (see “The Story of Stuff”) The current economic conditions are ripe for a takeover of the debate that it is the government’s responsibility to provide for our needs and aspirations to protect the needy. At this point, the Democrat’s class warfare is gaining steam. Every argument is based on fear and crisis supplanted by unknown facts and distortions. By promoting the rhetorical scare tactics, such as “a global warming crisis”,”economic crisis”, and now the “healthcare crisis, the “progressive left” furthers their vindictive mentality of entitlement verses individual responsibility. A free society will not survive when its government has autocratical control over individual choice.

ENTER THE THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT

Not only has this crisis rhetoric taken over the discussion, now your government will implement policy with the threat of fines and imprisonment:

Via Politico--- “Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

As Richard Conley brilliantly said just a month ago:

"And now the Democrats’ contrived crisis awaits: health care. Madison’s warning in Federalist 63 takes on a particularly eerie prescience “... there are particular moments in public affairs when the people ... misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.”

Health care “reform” is about to be imposed from above on a skeptical public. No one is theoretically exempt from paying the tab, as key Obama advisers have now made public. Gazing with envy across the Atlantic to the burgeoning welfare systems and “nanny states” of Europe, Democrats are oblivious to those countries’ stagnant economic growth and structural double-digit unemployment, which stem from inept government intervention in the private sector, state-controlled health care and insufferable taxation."

I would make the suggestion that if this government and our President intends to impose fines and jail sentences for those who cannot afford, or chose not to purchase health insurance--by injecting illegal social policy—then the Supreme Court should bring down the full weight of their authority under our constitution that protects us from an overbearing or tyrannical government. This is not communist China Mr. Obama, where policy is written with the threat of imprisonment. I like the idea of a government like Honduras, where its Supreme Court can throw its president out of power when he attempts to circumvent its constitution. Fortunately, we have a recurrent electoral process that is supposed to correct this condemnation.

Why Is Healthcare Reform Failing?---Posted at Hot Air in the Greenroom.

It's Time For Our President To Rise Above This Racial Discourse

The “smoking gun” or the 800 lb. gorilla in the room is that even the president or liberal democrats in every city across the country could not ignore a million plus marching down the streets of D.C. last weekend. Not even the "radical behavior", that the mainstream media selectively sought out can compare with the majority of protesters still frying over this new debt that has more than tripled since the left took control in '06. Hard to believe that it's already been three years since this spending spree began. Couple that with corruption scandals like Acorn pimping another country's children and the sudden interest in the president’s Czars, it's a small wonder the president’s 29 speeches on healthcare are tasting like a watered down cocktail. If the Democrats had any common sense, they would lick there wounds and try to salvage what's left of poor policy decisions that could most likely end the House and Senate control in one full swoop. The Republican Party can thank Ms. Pelosi for setting the table, starting with an omnibus bill fraught with the smell of pork right up to the present legislation where trillions in national debt doesn’t seem to be enough to satisfy these piglets gorging on your tax dollars. While the mainstream media makes a feeble attempt to ignore the wide spread corruption of Acorn, (or as Norah O’Donnell puts it, “entrapment designed to embarrass the president”), the most embarrassing discourse that is coming from the left---and being condoned by a silent President---is the cry that any dissent against the policies enacted is directly related to the color of our President’s skin. The New York Times domestic diva, Maureen Dowd, even suggested that she heard “you lie, boy” when Joe Wilson “broke the decorum” in Obama’s address to Congress. (Note to Ms. Dowd: Joe Wilson’s four sons all joined the military to preserve and protect your right to make these asinine statements without the threat of regression.) Some are suggesting that the President himself is setting back race-relations in this country decades by allowing these ridiculous accusations to be spread by the media and his own subordinates. This tactic was also used effectively during Obama’s campaign run to silence his critics or subvert the vetting process.

How much longer the general voting public will put up with this disgusting charade that “we can’t deal with the president’s agenda because of the color of his skin” is not only wearing thin, the left is basically running out of legitimate arguments to sustain their mission to place this nation in generational debt. The folks in the tea parties did not march on Washington to discuss the skin color of our president, and the president knows this. If he really means to show that his campaign promise of bi-partisan unity is not another slogan void of substance or human dignity, Mr. Obama needs to step up to the plate and put an end to these “calls of racism” to every challenge in his agenda. By his own silence on this issue, he is admitting to the public that they are ignorant and tolerant of this repulsive abomination. This American society, for the most part, has risen above, and looked past the color of a citizen’s skin. It is beneath the office of the President to use this as a tool for any purpose to deny its citizens their constitutional right of redress of grievances. How our President rises above this in the days ahead will shape the character of this office in the 21st century----or, it could set us all back decades. This is not a choice, Mr. President----this is your responsibility to your country and our children that are watching this unfold. Anything less is a complicit admission that you condone these despicable acts.

Who's The Liar?

Last night, in a burst of frustration, one congressman shouted "you lie" during president Obama's speech to the joint session of congress. The president had just finished admonishing "high ranking political officials" of spreading false information contained in the health care bill. With the assistance of Sarah Palin, death panels took center stage last week. While Palin did not mean that death panels were not written into the bill specifically, the fact remains that there is legislation in the bill that will require (at taxpayers expense), doctors to consult patients with end of life decisions and choices in the event that the patient may seek alternatives to expensive procedures that drive up health care cost.

President Obama's rhetoric rose to a fever pitch while Republicans sat there in silence listening to the president make claims that Bush and the Republican Party had failed to supply efforts to reform the health care system. Does anyone know that the last time Obama called any Republican to the White House for consultation or input was last April? When Obama finally made the claim that no illegal immigrants would be afforded assistance under his bill, Congressman Wilson shouted "liar". The facts are that if no legislation is written into the bill that forbids undocumented "citizens" from receiving federal assistance, illegal aliens WILL receive these benefits. To date, there is nothing in the bill that specifically states what residents of this nation are to receive assistance.

The Republican Party has submitted plenty of amendments and substitutes to the Democrats and Obama's legislation, (which is still only coming out in bits and pieces that requires legal experts to decipher). The House's version of the bill still has a public option written into the bill that is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. National polls do not favor a government run health care system that will threaten a majority of Americans that currently have and are happy with their health care policies. With the current debts and deficits this nation is facing, many are questioning the cost of a program that will run over a trillion dollars and come under the ultimate control of another failed entitlement run by bureaucrats in Washington. We, (American citizens), already see Social Security and Medicare heading into red figures in the near future with no offer of reform from the Democratic Party. President Obama claimed last night that "now is the season for action", and the mainstream media is fawning over his passion and commitment to passing a bill that effects one sixth of our economy. Most of our left wing news media is also calling Mr. Wilson a "heckler" who has brought shame to the institution. But many commenters on the conservative blogs are asking the simple question---why only Joe Wilson?

What President Obama did last night was throw hardballs in challenging Republicans to participate in this nightmare legislation that is fraught with the dreams of controlling a health care industry that no other nation in the world can compare with when it comes to providing quality, quantity, and in a timely manner. In the history of this nation, no government program has EVER provided sufficiently any service that private enterprise could not do better, more efficiently, and competitively. While Obama threw hardballs, only one man stood up to the plate and said no----you liar. While the forum may not have been appropriate, the Republican Party better seize on the public opinion across this nation that are also "stepping up to the plate" and calling Obama's plan what it is----a deceptive plan to make your health care come under direct control of YOUR GOVERNMENT. While the balance of the Republican Party have chosen to remain silent with the rest of the Washington elite in not challenging the presidents rhetorical fabrications, Joe Wilson chose to "take a swing" at this crap. If the GOP chooses to "sit on the bench" silently, they may also find themselves completely out of the game when 2010 comes around with a strong message from their constituents----lead, follow, or get out of the way! At least Joe Wilson stepped up to the plate and called it like he saw it-----a pack of lies.

Steny Hoyer: "The fact of the matter is, though," he added, a moment later, "that on this bill, we have said, a) it will be paid for. It will be paid for. And if it’s not paid for, I’m not going to vote for it.”

Who ever said a Democrat couldn't see a fiscal crisis coming down the road never met Steny Hoyer (apparently). Hoyer says no way, no how. And while you may hear a comment like this from staff occasionally, it's rarely this large coming from number two in the House. If Mr. Hoyer is serious, more power to him.

Waldorf, Md., (CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) told a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that the health care reform legislation under consideration in Congress will not increase taxes or deficit spending, and must be paid for or he won't vote for it.

A participant at the town hall meeting that was held in Waldorf, Md., asked Hoyer if he believed the health care bill would cause a "tax increase or an increase to the deficit?"

"Neither," Hoyer replied.

"The fact of the matter is, though," he added, a moment later, "that on this bill, we have said, a) it will be paid for. It will be paid for. And if it’s not paid for, I’m not going to vote for it.” link

Mr. Hoyer's statement puts the brakes on a soured nationalized option that would put this nation further in debt. Can a main stream media, that's looked the other way for months just ignore Hoyer's remarks or his profound intentions? Further, can Nancy Pelosi and her far left constituents come to the same realization that universal health care, written in its current form, is a political and financial train wreck.

Update: It looks like AP and Mz. Huffington's site has got this one wrong, (again). While AP writes on the same town hall meeting, both AP and Huffpo fail to report Hoyers "proclaimation".

Sep 1, 2009 ... WALDORF, Md. — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told cheering and jeering constituents Tuesday he still supports a public health insurance ...

.........what a difference a daaaaaaay makes.

Howard Dean: "No Tort Reform Because Congress Fears Trial Lawyers"

(CNSNews.com) - Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.” LINK

As Ed Morrissey posted here, congress’s refusal to include tort reform in the legislative process makes the Democrats craven and rather callous in their efforts to bring down health care cost.

And, as Morrissey wrote here, malpractice actions account for around 10% of ALL medical cost. But Ed also concedes that the “chances of any serious tort reform by a "congress full of lawyers" is not likely.”

President Obama has claimed that this nation can no longer afford the cost of healthcare and serious reform is needed. Dean says the writers of the bill chose not to take on the trial lawyers because it would create too many "enemies" at a time when "everybody else they were taking on" is more than enough. One has to wonder who Dean thinks "everybody else" is. With Obama already reaching agreements, (and support), with the giants in the pharmaceutical companies, and the health insurance industry--who have already spent 35 million in lobbying congress to defeat the public option, who are these mysterious enemies that Dean claims congress is taking on? But let's take a moment to look a little further into these "agreements" that are supposed to bring down health care cost.

The Great Pharmaceutical Company Pledge:

Obama said that drug companies have pledged to spend $80 billion over the next decade to help reduce the cost of drugs for seniors and help pay for a portion of Obama's health care legislation.

"This is a significant breakthrough on the road to health care reform, one that will make a difference in the lives of many older Americans," Obama said in the White House's Diplomatic Room.

He was joined by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who struck the deal with the White House; Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Barry Rand, head of the senior citizens' advocacy group AARP. Notably absent was a representative from the pharmaceutical association.

"It was always designed to be an AARP event," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the association. "We don't think we should have been invited to it." LINK

In 2007, U.S pharmaceutical companies took in $315 billion in revenues while making the claim the high prices of drugs were necessary for the industry to maintain its research and development. But, and independent report shows pharmaceutical companies actually spend more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they do on research and development. Should the “pledge” to Obama and the apparent “agreement” with the AARP go under the marketing portion of the drug company’s budget? Further questions have arisen over AARP’s involvement in the development of the healthcare plan. A recent post in Politico show’s the AARP in a struggle with the drug companies and their control over exclusive rights to sell biologics. A Senate committee is, (so far), planning to leave in this provision of the bill:

"At issue is the creation of a federal approval process for generic biologics, drugs such as insulin that are proteins made by living organisms. Name-brand drug makers want exclusive rights to sell biologics for 12 to 14 years before a similar generic version can be marketed. AARP is pushing for a shorter window.

"We believe strongly, along with many other consumer, business, labor, insurance, [pharmacy benefit managers], and provider groups, that a double digit exclusivity period is simply too long and therefore not acceptable. We would be explicitly negative if this is the bill the Committee reports out," Super wrote." LINK

Explicitly negative? If the AARP and Obama’s Democrats are concerned about bringing down health care cost, why not remove all exclusive rights? This “tangled web” continues here with this assertion from a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist:

"A senior pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, who opposes the AARP-sought changes, said the e-mail illustrates that the seniors' organization, which offers insurance products and could stand to gain from cheaper drug prices, puts its business interests before its public policy concerns.

"The worst kept secret in health care circles is that AARP is more about its insurance wing than it is about seniors. If this isn't the smoking gun, I'm not sure what is," the lobbyist said. "I can't believe that AARP would threaten the Senate with pulling its support for health reform for their insurance wing. They say they have a firewall. Some firewall, huh?" LINK

Which brings us full circle to the insurance industry. The LA Times reports that the health insurance industry has already spent valuable time and money while successfully entrenching legislation into Obama’s (strike) Kennedy’s bill:

"Reporting from Washington - Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.

The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums....

..... The bills vary in the degree to which they would empower government to be a competitor and a regulator of private insurance. But analysts said that based on the way things stand now, insurers would come out ahead.

"The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and . . . they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide -- plus their administrative costs." LINK

Does anyone care to guess who pays for these “full cost” of benefits? Perhaps the better question is how the President and the Democrats, (in their quest to have the government enter the health care industry), plan to bring down cost? Why not just ask a lobbyist? They seem to have everything figured out. And maybe this was what Dean meant when he said he didn’t think it was a good idea to take on “everybody else”. With the AARP, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical companies, and the full weight of their lobbyist entrenched; why not let the lawyers and tort reform into the fray? Or perhaps they’ve already paid their penance long before everybody else.

Krauthammer v. Palin---The "Death Panel" Debate

Charles Krauthammer wrote a column over at Town Hall. It begins with:

“Let's see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling.

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.”

In response, East of Eden* wrote:

Dear Mr. Krauthammer:

If one thinks that a "death panel" is always and only a handful of implacable bureaucrats -- be they doctors, scientists, ethicists or some other suitably selected expert -- functioning like a parole board or the rank and tenure committee at a university, then, of course, you will not find "death panels." Whether by incompetence or morally culpable indifference, those charged with designing "Obamacare," have conjured far more insidious death panels.

Consider but one part of 1233:

(3) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-

(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

And now consider Pres. Obama's well-known remarks to Mr. Leonhardt of the NY Times:

"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now." LINK

Now, there is clearly much that is objectionable about Pres. Obama's comments. But the point is: Of course some supplicant will not be hauled before some tribunal. Rather the "death panel" will be further removed, more amorphous, hence more noxious yet no less real. No, the death panel will be that task force, or panel of experts, or "consensus-based organization," or "independent group that can give you guidance." And they will appropriate physicians as the mechanism of implementation, under the guise of incentives, but it will really be the coercive bureaucracy that routinely judges whether physicians meet the standards of care determined by our "consensus-based organization."

Or consider the "independent group that can give you guidance" now being used by the Veteran's Administration to counsel those facing difficult choices, in the grimly ironically titled "Your Life, Your Choices":

"Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living." (from Jim Towey, "The Death Book for Veterans," WSJ, Aug 18, 2009)

Because he calls it a "death book", should we ask Mr. Towey to leave the room, too, as you have asked Ms. Palin to leave the room?

Our juries comprise 12 or perhaps a couple dozen citizens. But as you well know, some 500 hundred Athenians sat on Socrates' jury. Juries can be quite large or small. And "death panels" may be found behind an inconspicuous door, where sits a small handful of "health care jurists," waiting to give some anxious and fearful family our current President's idea of guidance.

Or death panels, Mr. Krauthammer, may be dozens or even scores of Dr. Robert Pearlmans, distributed throughout the country, perusing the health care data summaries prepared by technocratic lackeys, so that the Pearlmans may then anonymously conjure the protocols that will "guide" but "not be determinative of" some "incentivized" doctor as he or she "counsels"...who? those from the Greatest Generation? the Baby Boomers that promise to swell the ranks of Medicare recipients? my mother? you?...counseling that "You've had a good life; perhaps now is a good time to think about other options."

Our bureaucracy doubtless will not put a name plate on the door that says "Death Panel." But death panels there may be, nonetheless.

I do not know whether Sarah Palin is the only person in the room who saw through the ominous jigsaw that is HR 3200. But she is the one who named it. And while you have my sincerest respect, asking her to leave is simply ingracious..........END.

In this case, I'm inclined to agree with E of E, that while the term "death panel" may be considered extreme or even extraneous, I would submit that the intentional dialogue, (currently written in this healthcare bill), is indeed fraught with government intervention into our still private health care choices. Whether this remains the case, is, (hopefully), still up for debate.

* (note: "East of Eden" is a longtime friend who provides me with some reasonable insights from time to time, and prefers to remain anonymous)

Will Barack Obama Listen to His Financial Mentor?

Warren Buffet wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times warning us about soaring debts and deficits. But as recent as July 9th of this year, Buffet also called for a second stimulus. It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out these are conflicting assessments. But first let's look at Buffet's current warning in what he titles "The Greenback Effect". While Buffet applauds the efforts of George Bush, Obama, and the federal reserve in the "crisis" last fall, he warns that the levels of borrowing could crush this fragile economy if there is not fiscal reconciliation:

"The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.

To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent." (emphasis mine) LINK

While Buffet explains there are three ways to finance this enormous debt, he conveniently leaves out the one that could bring about fiscal responsibility:

"An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money."

How about STOP SPENDING Mr. Buffet? Is this little fact not considered in your quest for financial stability? Could there possibly be ulterior motives? As much disdain I have for the folks at the Huffington Post, I can't help referring to this commenter:

"Warren Buffet frets about surreal deficits and how they might affect the economy. He heaps praise on both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and of course the Federal Reserve, for saving the world, but now saved, it's back to the business of growing his already obscene fortune, while perversely lecturing the country about living within its means.

Most of Mr. Buffet's core holdings (Wells Fargo, GE, American Express) were slated for destruction but for the "heroics" of trillions in bailouts/backstops. Just lucky, I guess. Nuthin' to do with a destroyed budget. Sure." link

Of course, the idiot that wrote about Buffet's op-ed in Huffpo titles his post, "Why Warren Buffet Must Support Taxes on the Super-Rich", complete with the ad hominem "pay their fair share" argument. (I've tried not to use the word "idiot" when describing the rhetorical regurgitation's of our lost liberal friends, but in this case, the man is simply AN IDIOT.)

Returning to "Buffets Baffoonery", after Warren proceeds to explain the remedies that suits his "priorities", the political ramifications enter the conversation:

"Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime. Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can’t come close to bridging that sort of gap. Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Have you got this straight folks? Mr. Buffet is completely ignoring Obama and the Democrats spending spree, and advocating the process of inflation to provide cover for his political cronies. What's another few more dollars at the pump, or for that matter, insurance premiums can use a little boost, can't they? Oh wait, if Obama and the liberal socialist have their way, wouldn't this become more government debt?

From a Chicago Tribune article:

"Barack is here to increase the abundance, but to spread it around a little more so that it is inclusive prosperity," Buffett said.
Obama responded with plenty of praise and some humility. "Not only am I a less successful investor, but my jokes aren't as funny," Obama said, later calling Buffett "an example of what's best in this country."
Obama said he gets plenty of advice on the campaign trail, but "Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to." LINK

I would submit that the JOKE is being played on the American public by Buffet, Obama, and a Democrat Party that are laughing all the way to their government subsidized banks----and few of us are joining in the laughter. Perhaps if they spend some quality time in the unemployment lines, (or in jail where they belong), they can work on polishing Obama's jokes.

Fairness Doctrine Raises Its Ugly Head Under New FCC “Diversity Czar”

posted at 1:48 pm on August 13, 2009 by Rovin

What’s a poor liberal progressive to do when the radio airwaves are dominated by conservative talk and they can’t seem to “get a word in”? Why not diversify it? After Dan Rather got hammered recently for suggesting the news media needs a public handout, now on the horizon is an FCC Diversity Czar calling for private broadcasting companies to fund public broadcasting companies their total operating cost. Matt Cover at CNSNEWS.COM files this report:

(CNSNews.com) - Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. LINK

Lloyd not only wants the money to come from private companies, he is planning on regulating the content:

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming. (see link above for complete story)

Pravda anyone?

Lloyd wrote a book back in 2006 that must have caught someone in the Obama administration’s eye titled Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press. Matt Cover explains that “Lloyd wrote Prologue to a Farce while a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. In that capacity, he co-authored the 2007 report The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”

The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices

Did you catch that? These unfortunate liberals have been “driven” off the radio. Why wait for the liberals to produce a fairness doctrine when you’ve got a Diversity Czar under the White House’s thumb?

Cross-posted at Hot Air--The Green Room

Michelle Malkin on The View




The crew at the view, especially Joy and Whoopi are just speechless.........

VIDEO: OBAMA EXPLAINS HOW HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL ‘ELIMINATE’ PRIVATE INSURANCE

Video: Has The Media Also Met Its Waterloo?



Limbaugh contended “they have sacrificed whatever integrity, character, professionalism, ethics that they've had” so now “their total reason – most of them –for existence” is “propping this guy up.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air agrees with Rush that the media has committed their "voice" to supporting Obama's economic policies:

"Rush has this dead-on correct, especially in the weird promotion of the press conference. Perhaps they did the same thing for George Bush, who held very few prime-time press conferences in eight years, but I don’t recall it. The media, especially the televised media, appear to have hung their economic fortunes on Obama."

From Brent Bakers post at the Media Research Center recapping Rush's interview with Greta:

"Journalists are “sitting around with the tingles up their legs all day” as “they marvel at how Obama is so smooth and elegant,” yet, Limbaugh observed in the interview conducted in Florida, over 50 percent of the people “oppose this health care plan,” prompting him to ask and answer: “Who's telling the people what's in it? Alternative media, your network, talk radio, the conservative blog network. The mainstream media has cashed in its chips, they have become nothing more than stenographers for Rahm Emanuel.”

As I posted here a while back, (that Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer pointed out), the mainstream media is not only "cheerleading" for Obama and the Democrats agenda to nationalize healthcare, they refuse to REPORT ON ANY FACTUAL LEGISLATION that is getting "created" in the House or the FINANCIAL IMPACT this nation must endure over the next decade. While Ms. Pelosi and Rham Emanuel believe they have enough votes in the House to ram this bill through, the reality is this debate if far from over. The direction "our" mainstream media lapdogs for this liberal agenda may very well become their Waterloo. Stay tuned.

Independent Thoughts

"The Iraqi people have decided that they want a unified country"........Joe Biden

Gee Joe, what a novel thought.........Do you think this unification obsession might also include yearning to be free from an oppressive and intrusive government? Is this “decision” even possibly inherent in most civilized societies when they discover that a representative government means each individual has a say in how they will be governed? Does “we the people” ring any bells? Further, did the Iraqi people also have “an enlightenment” when they realized that an embraced religion could be a matter of choice, and not a mandate by their government? Could other neighboring societies such as Afghanistan and Iran also be looking inward to ask similar questions about how their futures could look like? Lastly, did George W. Bush possibly facilitate his own version of Reagan’s vision to “tear down these walls”?

That it can be argued, (as our dear liberal friends on the left profusely perfected), that “we” (our government), should not be in the practice of “nation building”--while using terms such as “occupiers”—doesn’t our own history of leaving “conquered” governments, (that were oppressive to its people and other nations), back into the hands of its people? Does the perfect examples of liberated countries like Germany and Japan, (two nations that transformed themselves into relatively peaceful democratic societies), after they were crushed by a determined American army hell bent on ending their oppressive and destructive governments? Or are words like liberty and freedom only reserved for the elite left who think other societies and governments should be left alone to fester their oppressive tendencies? Reagan saw the Soviet Union breaking down from within, and, (without firing a shot), he built up our defenses in a “race” he knew the Soviet government could not win, but felt compelled to participate in. By shifting precious, (and limited), economic resources the Soviet government destroyed their infrastructure preparing for a battle that would never come to fruition. And the people of the Soviet Union trusted their leadership in this decision through a state run media that had no input or dissenting opinion to change the course. The rest is history.

Are there any similarities here where a government, (who clearly has an overly zealous media that inhibits impartial judgment) is embattled in a philosophy/ideology that it is the governments’ sole responsibility to provide every need of its people? And are we dangerously ceding* too much control and power to this government to the point where reliance becomes outright dependency? The “shifting of resources” from a private market system, (capitalism), to a government run entity, (dare I say embracing socialist tendencies), may be enticing and appear to have good intentions, but at what point did “we the people” decide to cede* our independence, liberty, and freedoms, (where we proclaimed individual responsibility, and rights endowed by our creator), to our government?

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

On this “Declaration of Independence Day”, perhaps “WE THE PEOPLE”, should revisit the separation our forefathers intended between a government and its people where the delicate balance may be dangerously shifting too far in one direction.

*(special thanks to "lefty" in comments for correcting my grammar---seeding/ceding)

11th-hour votes on state budget fail
Rich Pedroncelli / Associated PressAssembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), with Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), responds to a question concerning the cash crisis during a news conference at the Capitol.


Full story posted at Hot Air----The Green Room

(Sister Toldjah has a caption contest up here, but I've respectfully protested, claiming these two above also deserve recognition.)

Fireworks on Morning Joe: Joe Scarborough vs. Chris Matthews on Health Care Bill

Matthews also accuses Mika of getting caught up in this argument and pussyfooting!

This morning on Morning Joe, Chris Matthews, the ever loving liberal, (who never saw a government program he didn't like), takes on Joe and Mika for questioning Obama's health care plan, (as objective journalist should), and instead insist the cost of the program is neither relevant or debatable. Matthews, in his arrogant and narcissistic tone, makes the claim that this trillion dollar program is a moral judgement "that must get done by October", with out even considering the moral and fiscal bankruptcy that will ensue. This six and a half minute video will both make your blood boil and, (at least), thank Scarborough's sanity for looking ahead to the future cost that will devastate all three programs, including the already fiscally unsound social programs, Medicare and Medicaid.




As much as I loath to link this site, you can watch the entire 14:26 interview with Joe, Mika, Chris--"the Obama leg thrill tingler", and others here.

The 2009-10 Species Regeneration Act


The 2009-10 Species Regeneration Act
(Aka: The U.S. Species Regeneration Act)
(Aka: The 2009 Darwin Act)
(Aka: The Species Preservation Act)


Resolved, that in the event of an unforeseen or catastrophic occurrence where by the human species of the planet earth cease to exist for reasons stated in this declaration, it is the decision of this body, the 111th United States Congress that the conflicting decisions of these current “elected representatives” be collected and adhered to, set forth in the strict guidelines of the Species Regeneration Act, (SRA), and placed in a time capsule with the following recommendations:

Recommendation # 1: That a time capsule is created with the intent that if any other species discovers this said capsule, the permanent inscription on the outside of the capsule must read in unencumbered and legible words: EXTREME DANGER, INCINERATE IMMEADIATLY AT ALL COST---OPENING THIS CAPSUAL WILL LEAD TO THE CERTAIN EXTERMINATION OF YOUR OWN SPECIES.

(FILL IN THE BLANKS HERE)

My own personal "preamble":

"In the blink of an eye", (read in the King James Biblical scriptures in the book of Revelations), thousands of human beings across the entire planet suddenly and unexplainably disappeared from the face of the earth. This "event", while astounding and baffling even the greatest minds of our time, was just the beginning of the end of this species as we knew it. For the reasons that were foretold in prophecies written over two thousand years earlier, mankind had fulfilled and perpetuated their own demise through the human principals of self inhalation. This process was accelerated in or around the 21st century by a striking political and societal change brought on by United States Presidential election. (see The Obama Archives: aka, The Messiah Archives)

Summary: It may very well be written in historical archives that the moral compass of our society, (that had previously lived under the "guidelines" of personal and individual responsibility), saw the compass needle. (or pendulum), swing radically in a direction where its people surrendered to the allegiance and total reliance of its own government. During this time period, a "majority" government, (under total control of one party in the Congress, (House of Representatives, the Senate), and the President of the United States, Democrats and their "leadership", (see forces outside and inside the proletariat), made the critical decision that it was the soul purpose of our government to place the reliance of fiscal, societal, and moral "direction" into concrete and binding laws. The "change" was so sweeping and contrary to generations of previous governments, (including the warnings written by our "founding fathers") that the proclamation of a limited government must be embraced by its people, or the demise of an overzealous government, (with all the intended purpose of serving the needs of its citizenry), would become our downfall. Therefore, it is my personal recommendation that the above legislation, (The Species Regeneration Act), be written into law at the earliest possible time to prevent “other species” from repeating the cycle of self-extinction.

(I reserve the right to revise and extend)

The U.S. Constitution vs. The 111th Congress
Why is our Constitution being violated by the President and this current congressional body with out challenge?

I wouldn't even begin to profess to have much knowledge in constitutional law, but as long as this current "leadership" seems to NOT know much either, one has to ask the question: IS THIS LEGAL?

The (our) United States government recently purchased two automakers and have spent over thirty billion dollars in what they say is "authorized" money because of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Yesterday, Fred Lucas at CNS News.com wrote that Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) claims that Congress was "specifically authorized" to spend this money:

Hoyer Claims Congress ‘Specifically Authorized’ Obama to Bail Out Auto Companies—Even Though Congress Specifically Declined to Pass Auto Bailout Bill

(CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) said at his press briefing yesterday that Congress “specifically authorized” the Obama administration to bail out the auto industry—thus legally justifying the government takeover of General Motors--even though the highly publicized and hotly debated auto bailout bill that Congress considered in December was defeated when it could not overcome a filibuster in the Senate.........LINK

When the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act” failed to pass in the Senate, the precedent should have been set that there was no congressional authorization for these funds. But, our democrat friends may by "piggy-backing" on a mistake that Bush made just before he left office:

"After it failed, President Bush unilaterally took $17.4 billion out of the TARP funds appropriated for “financial institutions” and used it to make “bridge loans” to Chrysler and General Motors. The move was criticized at the time by observers on both the right and the left, who called it illegal and
unconstitutional because the funds were not appropriated by Congress for the purpose that Bush used them for."

Please read the whole story at CNSNews.com and return to leave me your interpretation of this possible infraction, (or should I say assault) on our constitution.

Megyn Kelly Rips Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont on Government Sponsored Health Care

Some where during this "interview" Bernie gets around to forgetting to admit the Democrats agenda for Social Security (two) will run around 1.5 Trillion dollars and then confesses "there is no plan". Doesn't it just make you feel all warm inside knowing the party in charge is still "winging it" with your grandchildren's debt? (Hat tip: American Powerblog)




Some one has to notify Fox that Kelly's either getting a big fat raise or she needs to be running for Senator in a vacant seat. Bill Hemmer's got it right......."come back when you've got a plan".

Ted Nugent on the Second Amendment




Hat tip---the Green Room (by Keemo)