That's The United States of Ever Growing Bureaucracy.
I had no more finished typing "How many times since the swearing in has he announced, “I’ve appointed …who will report directly to me.”?", when I came across President Barack Obama asked Congress on Tuesday to create a new agency to police the fine print on consumer products like credit cards and mortgages and determine what fees, penalties and interest rates are fair. Good Lord, is it just me or is there another “czar” just around the corner?
So what’s this latest power grab about?
The President is proposing a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee consumer financial protection because what this country needs is another agency with a great big staff and a great big budget to ‘guide’ the poor, little ignorant sheeple who can’t manage their own financial affairs without Big Brother holding their hand. More concisely, Michelle Malkin calls it a Fine Print Czar.:
I don’t know about you, but the idea of anyone in Washington fuming about fine print while they ram thousand-page bills through Congress that no one bothers to read is, well, triple-snort-worthy.
The Daley Gator is also snorting:
Good freaking grief! These idiots cannot do anything right, yet they are reaching deeper into our lives every day. How about they stop trying to micro-manage our lives and start reading what they vote on, after they all read the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION! Lord knows they could use a refresher course on that document!
Can I get an AMEN! Sheesh, how has this country survived 200+ years without Obama and his team of mighty flying monkeys up our tailpipes and dictating our every move? Enough with the bureaucracy.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama And Consistency
Via Babalu:
Krauthammer on Honduras via NRO
Well, the president has a knack for getting all of these big decisions wrong. Two weeks ago, he refuses to meddle in a country where peaceful demonstrators are getting shot by a theocratic dictatorship. He doesn't want to choose sides.
And now he's eager to meddle on behalf of the president in Honduras who is a Chavez wannabe, who is strong-arming his way to a referendum—that has been declared illegal by his Supreme Court—as a way to...establish a constituent assembly which will establish a new constitution, which will be a Chavez-like dictatorship.
In both Iran and Honduras, President Obama has been absolutely consistent. He is against freedom. He has stated repeatedly that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions and current events haven’t changed his mind. He wants to ‘normalize’ relations with Chavez and Bashar al-Assad. Now, he is calling for the re-instatement of a president who has acted in direct contradiction to his own country’s Constitution. What are we to make of that? Is up now down?
If Barack Obama symbolizes anything, it is not hope or change; it is The Ruling Class and the concentration of power. How many times since the swearing in has he announced, “I’ve appointed …who will report directly to me.”? We’re up to what, twenty ’czars’, replete with staffs and multi-million dollar budgets, accountable to one man only. And now we have word of a Queen.
If Obama seems at best unconcerned about the ‘will of the people’ in other lands he has been contemptuous towards the opinions of the citizens in his own country. To his credit, he’ll never be accused of ruling by poll results.
The upshot is that Obama admires the Ahmadinejads, Chavezs and Castros of the world. Look for more and more control to become more and more concentrated.
There's A Time To Stop Talking
June 30, 2009
The Honorable Mark Sanford
Columbia, South Carolina
RE: SC gov 'crossed lines' with women
Dear Gov. Sanford:
With all due respect sir, I have a request. Shut up. Please, just shut up.
Your wife is showing an incredible amount of dignity under the circumstances and she deserves better than to be subjected to your public confessions of love for another woman.
Best I can figure out, you do have deeply held religious beliefs. You conducted yourself in contradiction to those beliefs and now you feel guilty. You should. Understand, you have not earned the right to unburden yourself at your families expense. And trust me, you only make yourself look worse (if possible) by mooning about Chapur being your “soul-mate”. In fact, it would be better that you not mention Chapur again.
The lost little puppy dog act needs to stop. You have a state to run and a family to heal. This isn’t about you. Take care of business and learn to say, “no comment.”
Sincerely,
Carolyn
The Honorable Mark Sanford
Columbia, South Carolina
RE: SC gov 'crossed lines' with women
Dear Gov. Sanford:
With all due respect sir, I have a request. Shut up. Please, just shut up.
Your wife is showing an incredible amount of dignity under the circumstances and she deserves better than to be subjected to your public confessions of love for another woman.
Best I can figure out, you do have deeply held religious beliefs. You conducted yourself in contradiction to those beliefs and now you feel guilty. You should. Understand, you have not earned the right to unburden yourself at your families expense. And trust me, you only make yourself look worse (if possible) by mooning about Chapur being your “soul-mate”. In fact, it would be better that you not mention Chapur again.
The lost little puppy dog act needs to stop. You have a state to run and a family to heal. This isn’t about you. Take care of business and learn to say, “no comment.”
Sincerely,
Carolyn
Monday, June 29, 2009
Paul Krugman: Preaching To The Hicks
First, in Paul Krugman’s words:
But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.
And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax — a tax on consumers — which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.
And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.
Now, a plain English interpretation by Stephen Spruiell:
"The goal of Waxman-Markey is make the cheapest form of energy we have more expensive, consequently making everything produced in this country more expensive. It would defeat the purpose of this legislation to allow U.S. consumers to evade this energy tax by purchasing products from countries like China that choose not to adopt a similar tax. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to restrict Americans' access to products from these countries, and the president is wrong to oppose such restrictions. What about that don't you dumb hicks understand?"
Well jeez, why didn’t he just say that to begin with? Like dumb hicks everywhere I tend to take my elite speak with a grain of salt. As a man who has remained childless, Krugman hasn’t any real stake in the future so I can only assume his current chirping is more about feeding his own exaggerated sense of self then any actual belief in a discredited “science”.
An over-sized ego isn’t the end of the world; a lot of people suffer from it. However, it would be appreciated if Krugman could find a less dangerous way to express his conceit.
But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.
And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax — a tax on consumers — which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.
And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.
Now, a plain English interpretation by Stephen Spruiell:
"The goal of Waxman-Markey is make the cheapest form of energy we have more expensive, consequently making everything produced in this country more expensive. It would defeat the purpose of this legislation to allow U.S. consumers to evade this energy tax by purchasing products from countries like China that choose not to adopt a similar tax. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to restrict Americans' access to products from these countries, and the president is wrong to oppose such restrictions. What about that don't you dumb hicks understand?"
Well jeez, why didn’t he just say that to begin with? Like dumb hicks everywhere I tend to take my elite speak with a grain of salt. As a man who has remained childless, Krugman hasn’t any real stake in the future so I can only assume his current chirping is more about feeding his own exaggerated sense of self then any actual belief in a discredited “science”.
An over-sized ego isn’t the end of the world; a lot of people suffer from it. However, it would be appreciated if Krugman could find a less dangerous way to express his conceit.
The 'Victims" In The Housing Crisis
In Home Buyers As Victims: Spare Me, Please Dan Riehl writes: Via The New York Times and Clusterstock picks up on the victimization meme. What seems to be lost is that no one "pulled their teeth" to get the homeowners to sign deals they probably never should have signed in the first place ... if they had the brains God gave your average Termite. In my experience, you can't buy a home today without knowing every detail of the deal you signed, such are the disclosure laws already on the books. In one way or another, these people gambled - now they've lost. But the big bad bank should now take it on the chin?
Well now, isn’t it much easier to claim that you didn’t know what you were signing than to admit that, at the time, you really didn’t care? After all, at some point home ownership stopped being a ‘dream’ that if you worked long enough and sacrificed enough could be achieved, and became a ‘right’ that every citizen ‘deserved’. (Note: President Obama’s choice for ‘Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies.)
The emphasis focused on getting people into homes, not keeping people in a house. Enter ‘creative financing’. As long as the buyer qualified on closing day, the lender was happy. They were going to sell the loan, and the risk, anyway. Three years down the road when the payment adjusted, the property taxes had gone up and homeowner’s insurance skyrocketed and the monthly payment was no longer affordable, the original lender had long bundled and sold the mortgage.
It is easy to blame the banks, brokers, realtors, etc., but ultimately the blame falls on the people who bought homes they could not afford. Too many people felt that they deserved to own a home and they reasoned that they would deal with the increased payment later, somehow.
Ultimately, a growing sense of entitlement among the public crossed paths with the good intentions of the progressive class. So many should have stood up, including the ’victims’, and said, “this is nuts.” But nobody did, and there is plenty of blame to go around. And as so often happens, the taxpayers are left to clean up the mess.
Well now, isn’t it much easier to claim that you didn’t know what you were signing than to admit that, at the time, you really didn’t care? After all, at some point home ownership stopped being a ‘dream’ that if you worked long enough and sacrificed enough could be achieved, and became a ‘right’ that every citizen ‘deserved’. (Note: President Obama’s choice for ‘Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies.)
The emphasis focused on getting people into homes, not keeping people in a house. Enter ‘creative financing’. As long as the buyer qualified on closing day, the lender was happy. They were going to sell the loan, and the risk, anyway. Three years down the road when the payment adjusted, the property taxes had gone up and homeowner’s insurance skyrocketed and the monthly payment was no longer affordable, the original lender had long bundled and sold the mortgage.
It is easy to blame the banks, brokers, realtors, etc., but ultimately the blame falls on the people who bought homes they could not afford. Too many people felt that they deserved to own a home and they reasoned that they would deal with the increased payment later, somehow.
Ultimately, a growing sense of entitlement among the public crossed paths with the good intentions of the progressive class. So many should have stood up, including the ’victims’, and said, “this is nuts.” But nobody did, and there is plenty of blame to go around. And as so often happens, the taxpayers are left to clean up the mess.
Wonkette Dazzles With Her Wit(?)
Wonkette, a recent graduate of the Roseanne Barr Comedy School for Angry Feminists, has come up with quite the little zinger. She’s taken to photoshopping Trig Palin, the one year old son of Sarah Palin, aka the woman who drives feminists even crazier than they are naturally inclined to be (which is saying a lot).
Apparently those of Wonkette’s superb comical acumen have tired of mere name calling, though “The Virgin Palin, Our Lady of Eternal Anger,” is just as clever now as it was when my friends and I used it to describe our awful natural sciences teacher back in the sixth grade. My how we laughed in the lunchroom about that one!
William Jacobsen writes: It really is hard to understand why some adults feel the need to make fun of Trig Palin, a one-year old who has Down Syndrome. Politics alone cannot explain it. If you don't like Sarah Palin, fine, but why go after Trig?
Duh! Because Sarah Palin broke the first rule of Being an Acceptable Women According to Modern Feminist Doctrine. Palin is a conservative. Enough said. She I fair game, her family is fair game. If she has any pets, they are fair game.
Pity we didn’t have Photoshop back in the sixth grade. That would have been so way cool.
See also: American Power, The Rhetorican
Apparently those of Wonkette’s superb comical acumen have tired of mere name calling, though “The Virgin Palin, Our Lady of Eternal Anger,” is just as clever now as it was when my friends and I used it to describe our awful natural sciences teacher back in the sixth grade. My how we laughed in the lunchroom about that one!
William Jacobsen writes: It really is hard to understand why some adults feel the need to make fun of Trig Palin, a one-year old who has Down Syndrome. Politics alone cannot explain it. If you don't like Sarah Palin, fine, but why go after Trig?
Duh! Because Sarah Palin broke the first rule of Being an Acceptable Women According to Modern Feminist Doctrine. Palin is a conservative. Enough said. She I fair game, her family is fair game. If she has any pets, they are fair game.
Pity we didn’t have Photoshop back in the sixth grade. That would have been so way cool.
See also: American Power, The Rhetorican
Sunday, June 28, 2009
God Lord!
Via Track-A-’Crat:
What do John Edwards and Paris Hilton have in common? If you guessed that they are both self-centered airheads, correct but not what we’re looking for here. Give up? Sex tapes!
Former Edwards aide Andrew Young says the ex-senator and his former mistress, Rielle Hunter, once made a sex tape, according to someone who has seen Young’s book proposal.
St. Martin’s Press just inked a deal with Young, who also says in his proposal that, contrary to his public statement last year, he is not the father of Hunter’s infant daughter — Edwards is. Edwards has denied that.
Is being STUPID a requirement for public service?
What do John Edwards and Paris Hilton have in common? If you guessed that they are both self-centered airheads, correct but not what we’re looking for here. Give up? Sex tapes!
Former Edwards aide Andrew Young says the ex-senator and his former mistress, Rielle Hunter, once made a sex tape, according to someone who has seen Young’s book proposal.
St. Martin’s Press just inked a deal with Young, who also says in his proposal that, contrary to his public statement last year, he is not the father of Hunter’s infant daughter — Edwards is. Edwards has denied that.
Is being STUPID a requirement for public service?
Shutting Down Scientists Who Oppose Global Warming
What happens to experts whose scientific opinions contradict Global Warming or Climate Change, or whatever the latest incantation is? According to the Telegraph, their more politically correct brethren shut them out:Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".
Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been studying polar bears for over thirty years. Unfortunately for Dr. Taylor, he cares more about honesty than being the messenger of a flawed political, quasi-scientific assumption. The “science of Global Warming is settled” only because opposing views have been silenced.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.
Over 700 of the world’s top scientists disagree with the theory of climate change. In fact, far more oppose the current theory than support it. If those who favor the theory that global warming is man made are so confident in their position, why are they so opposed to debate? I say follow the money. There are those who stand to profit greatly and those who wish to see our free market destroyed. These two factions have joined forces and less we take a strong stand against this farce the consequences will be the devastation of our economy.
From Power Line: The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.
The Administration is suppressing the truth. Surprise, surprise. Read the entire post.
The Future Of Health Care, Part II
Yesterday I wrote about Ava Stinson, a baby born 14 weeks premature, in The Future of Health Care. Ava was born in Canada but is being treated in the USA because thanks to rationed health care in Canada, there are beds available for her at home. I concluded with this:
“Slow health care is no health care. It doesn’t cost the government anything if you die waiting in line.”
Today I read Ed Morrissey’s take on the same story at Hot Air:
Well, it’s impossible to look at this situation without seeing the relative merits of the American and Canadian systems. First, the child would have gotten care in the US, too, regardless of insurance status. People get emergency care regardless in this country. There is a difference between health insurance and access to care that some people elide for purposes of political argument. No one gets turned away from emergency care for lack of ability to pay.
But why wasn’t there a NICU bed for the child in the entire nation of Canada? The government of Canada won’t pay for more. They don’t exist to expand supply to meet demand; their single-payer system exists to ration care as a cost-saving mechanism. In a free-market system, supply expands to meet demand, which is why Canada could subcontract out to a US hospital for capacity. Michael writes that paragraph as if it was mere luck that an NICU bed happened to be open in the US, but that’s a function of the system, and not luck. These parents are separated from their child at the moment through the fault of Canada’s government and not the US.
It’s a good lesson for both Americans and Canadians as the administration and Congress attempt to push a systemic overhaul of the US health-care system that will cost trillions and push us towards the same kind of single-payer system that Canada has. When we handle our health-care system like Canada, where will Canadians send the next NICU case they can’t handle? And where will America send ours?
Well, I think Ed knows the answer. If we allow this administration to nationalize our health care we will have nowhere to turn when rationed health care determines who receives treatment and who does not.
UPDATE: A great question (and a great post) by The Daley Gator:
Rationing services? That is a key part of the Canadian model. Let me pose this question. The Left says health care is a right. Do they also accept that rights, can be rationed? That question, more than any other is one we should pose to them.
“Slow health care is no health care. It doesn’t cost the government anything if you die waiting in line.”
Today I read Ed Morrissey’s take on the same story at Hot Air:
Well, it’s impossible to look at this situation without seeing the relative merits of the American and Canadian systems. First, the child would have gotten care in the US, too, regardless of insurance status. People get emergency care regardless in this country. There is a difference between health insurance and access to care that some people elide for purposes of political argument. No one gets turned away from emergency care for lack of ability to pay.
But why wasn’t there a NICU bed for the child in the entire nation of Canada? The government of Canada won’t pay for more. They don’t exist to expand supply to meet demand; their single-payer system exists to ration care as a cost-saving mechanism. In a free-market system, supply expands to meet demand, which is why Canada could subcontract out to a US hospital for capacity. Michael writes that paragraph as if it was mere luck that an NICU bed happened to be open in the US, but that’s a function of the system, and not luck. These parents are separated from their child at the moment through the fault of Canada’s government and not the US.
It’s a good lesson for both Americans and Canadians as the administration and Congress attempt to push a systemic overhaul of the US health-care system that will cost trillions and push us towards the same kind of single-payer system that Canada has. When we handle our health-care system like Canada, where will Canadians send the next NICU case they can’t handle? And where will America send ours?
Well, I think Ed knows the answer. If we allow this administration to nationalize our health care we will have nowhere to turn when rationed health care determines who receives treatment and who does not.
UPDATE: A great question (and a great post) by The Daley Gator:
Rationing services? That is a key part of the Canadian model. Let me pose this question. The Left says health care is a right. Do they also accept that rights, can be rationed? That question, more than any other is one we should pose to them.
BREAKING NEWS!
Via Babalu:
The Real Cuba reports:
June 28 - Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya, an ally of Hugo Chávez and the Castro brothers, was arrested on Sunday morning by soldiers.
Zelaya had pledged to go forward with a referendum on constitutional reform despite the opposition of the Supreme Court, the military, Congress and members of his own party.
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez was behind Zelaya's illegal referendum.
Zelaya was trying to follow the same tactic used by Chávez and his puppets in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador of trying to change the constitution to allow them to remain in power for life.
Planes from the Venezuelan Air Force had landed in Honduras to bring all the materials required for Sunday's referendum, despite the decision by Honduras' Supreme Court that it was illegal.
Earlier this month, after the OAS met in Honduras and decided to lift the sanctions against the Castro regime, Zelaya was full of praise for the Cuban dictator.
I have had the news on all morning and I hadn't heard this but then, Micael Jackson is still dominating the airwaves. This is one hell of a development. I'll update as more becomes known.
UPDATE: The L.A. Times confirms that a coup as taken place:
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) — More than a dozen soldiers arrested President Manuel Zelaya and disarmed his security guards after surrounding his residence before dawn Sunday, his private secretary said. Protesters called it a coup and flocked to the presidential palace as local news media reported that Zelaya was sent into exile.The chief executive was detained shortly before voting was to begin on a constitutional referendum the president had insisted on holding even though the Supreme Court ruled it illegal and everyone from the military to Congress and members of his own party opposed it.
From RedState:
Fausta has background here: if you don’t have time to read it, note that proto-dictator Hugo Chavez (and whoever’s channeling Fidel Castro this week) is spitting nails on this. Given that, as the Wall Street Journal notes, this entire thing got started over President Zelaya’s attempt to set up a referendum* in opposition to pretty much the opposition of the rest of the Honduran government, civilian and military… well. A man is known by his friends, and I wish I knew what the equivalent Spanish idiom is.
Moe Lane
*One that would allow him to run for re-election. The Honduras Constitution forbids that; given of what I know of South American history, this isn’t exactly surprising
Fox News is finally reporting on this . Our President has released a brief statement that basically said, "let's all play nice." Remember, this came to pass because Zelaya was trying to ala Castro and Chavez have himself named President for Life. Perhaps Obama should speak out a little more strongly, unless of course, he has no problem with the concept of a lifelong presidency.
UPDATE: It seems that these days it is quicker and easier to get breaking news from Twitter than from the MSM. So go to Twitter Breaking News for the latest.
Both Obama and Sec. Clinton have voiced their support for Pres. Zelaya and “the rule of law.” What a joke. Have either of them ever heard of FREEDOM? Zelaya was trying to follow in the footsteps of his buddies Castro, Chavez and Ortega. Holding an election when the results have already been pre-determined does not a democracy make. Once again, Obama has shown that he has little regard for the principals he took an oath to defend.
The latest update from Fausta:
Zelaya was arrested right before the voting on the referendum was scheduled to start. The referendum had been declared unlawful by the country’s courts.
Noticias24 reports that four units of 200 soldiers stormed the presidential residence at 6AM.
Electricity has been cut off in the capital, and it is rumored that Zelaya has been flown out of the country.
It’ll be interesting to watch what Hugo Chavez’s reaction will be, considering that he was saying
Hugo Chavez declared that “we are not going to watch with our arms crossed the goings-on in Honduras,” and insisted “we will do what we will have to do so the sovereignty of the Honduran people will be respected.”
Unconfirmed rumors say that Zelaya was flown to Venezuela.
The Real Cuba reports:
June 28 - Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya, an ally of Hugo Chávez and the Castro brothers, was arrested on Sunday morning by soldiers.
Zelaya had pledged to go forward with a referendum on constitutional reform despite the opposition of the Supreme Court, the military, Congress and members of his own party.
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez was behind Zelaya's illegal referendum.
Zelaya was trying to follow the same tactic used by Chávez and his puppets in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador of trying to change the constitution to allow them to remain in power for life.
Planes from the Venezuelan Air Force had landed in Honduras to bring all the materials required for Sunday's referendum, despite the decision by Honduras' Supreme Court that it was illegal.
Earlier this month, after the OAS met in Honduras and decided to lift the sanctions against the Castro regime, Zelaya was full of praise for the Cuban dictator.
I have had the news on all morning and I hadn't heard this but then, Micael Jackson is still dominating the airwaves. This is one hell of a development. I'll update as more becomes known.
UPDATE: The L.A. Times confirms that a coup as taken place:
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) — More than a dozen soldiers arrested President Manuel Zelaya and disarmed his security guards after surrounding his residence before dawn Sunday, his private secretary said. Protesters called it a coup and flocked to the presidential palace as local news media reported that Zelaya was sent into exile.The chief executive was detained shortly before voting was to begin on a constitutional referendum the president had insisted on holding even though the Supreme Court ruled it illegal and everyone from the military to Congress and members of his own party opposed it.
From RedState:
Fausta has background here: if you don’t have time to read it, note that proto-dictator Hugo Chavez (and whoever’s channeling Fidel Castro this week) is spitting nails on this. Given that, as the Wall Street Journal notes, this entire thing got started over President Zelaya’s attempt to set up a referendum* in opposition to pretty much the opposition of the rest of the Honduran government, civilian and military… well. A man is known by his friends, and I wish I knew what the equivalent Spanish idiom is.
Moe Lane
*One that would allow him to run for re-election. The Honduras Constitution forbids that; given of what I know of South American history, this isn’t exactly surprising
Fox News is finally reporting on this . Our President has released a brief statement that basically said, "let's all play nice." Remember, this came to pass because Zelaya was trying to ala Castro and Chavez have himself named President for Life. Perhaps Obama should speak out a little more strongly, unless of course, he has no problem with the concept of a lifelong presidency.
UPDATE: It seems that these days it is quicker and easier to get breaking news from Twitter than from the MSM. So go to Twitter Breaking News for the latest.
Both Obama and Sec. Clinton have voiced their support for Pres. Zelaya and “the rule of law.” What a joke. Have either of them ever heard of FREEDOM? Zelaya was trying to follow in the footsteps of his buddies Castro, Chavez and Ortega. Holding an election when the results have already been pre-determined does not a democracy make. Once again, Obama has shown that he has little regard for the principals he took an oath to defend.
The latest update from Fausta:
Zelaya was arrested right before the voting on the referendum was scheduled to start. The referendum had been declared unlawful by the country’s courts.
Noticias24 reports that four units of 200 soldiers stormed the presidential residence at 6AM.
Electricity has been cut off in the capital, and it is rumored that Zelaya has been flown out of the country.
It’ll be interesting to watch what Hugo Chavez’s reaction will be, considering that he was saying
Hugo Chavez declared that “we are not going to watch with our arms crossed the goings-on in Honduras,” and insisted “we will do what we will have to do so the sovereignty of the Honduran people will be respected.”
Unconfirmed rumors say that Zelaya was flown to Venezuela.
Keep The Links Going
Okay, we lost the first battle in Cap & Trade but the war isn’t over. As The Left Coast Rebel says, it is time to put on those activist caps.
Our Congressmen need to know that there is a price tp be paid for screwing over the American public and that price is their seat. The time to get loud is now, before the Senate votes on this bill and before anyone has voted on that crap sandwich, National Health Care.
As I posted yesterday, Michelle Malkin has the contact for the eight RINO sell-outs. Link the Left Coast Rebel, link Michelle and get loud.
Our Congressmen need to know that there is a price tp be paid for screwing over the American public and that price is their seat. The time to get loud is now, before the Senate votes on this bill and before anyone has voted on that crap sandwich, National Health Care.
As I posted yesterday, Michelle Malkin has the contact for the eight RINO sell-outs. Link the Left Coast Rebel, link Michelle and get loud.
Just a thought, we know that Nancy Pelosi is positioned to make millions off of Cap & Trade. Who else is set to profit? Any of the above?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Michael Jackson
It has only been 48 hours and already I feel like I am in Michael Jackson purgatory. I’ve heard the 911 call dozens of times. I know the coroner’s preliminary results. I know the family has request a second autopsy. I know what time Janet arrived at the house. I know the children’s mother may get custody. I know the nanny may get custody. Will this ever end?
Michael Jackson had talent. At one time he had a great deal of talent, but that was a long time ago. His greatest claim to fame in the last two decades is that he was possibly the weirdest person on Earth. Next to Jackson, Herbert Khaury (Tiny Tim) was merely a bit odd.
Mark Steyn writes:
For a while, the weirdness exercised a global fascination. The prestigious Oxford Union invited him to address their members, and Michael Jackson flew in to Britain wearing his trademark surgical mask, a wise move considering the country was then in the grip of Mad Cow Disease. On an official tour of Blenheim Palace, which must have been a bit of a comedown after Neverland, they rolled out the red carpet, but he insisted it be heavily disinfected, and it squelched under his crutch. Crutch, not crotch. Due to some domestic mishap, he was grabbing the former rather than the latter. At Oxford, he called on the world to adopt his Children’s Bill of Rights, including “the right to be thought adorable” and “the right to be listened to without having to be interesting”. The right to a $30 million out-of-court settlement, won by a 13-year old former playmate of his, was not mentioned.
And there’s Jonah Goldberg discussing the media’s insistence that Jackson was an “icon”:
“Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’"
Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.
I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.
Since at least 1993, Michael Jackson was less a talented entertainer and more a real life creepy Willy Wonka. The Johnny Depp version. This story won’t be over any time soon. Next will be the fight over his kids, his money, his songs and his “image”. It is a shame.
Michael Jackson had talent. At one time he had a great deal of talent, but that was a long time ago. His greatest claim to fame in the last two decades is that he was possibly the weirdest person on Earth. Next to Jackson, Herbert Khaury (Tiny Tim) was merely a bit odd.
Mark Steyn writes:
For a while, the weirdness exercised a global fascination. The prestigious Oxford Union invited him to address their members, and Michael Jackson flew in to Britain wearing his trademark surgical mask, a wise move considering the country was then in the grip of Mad Cow Disease. On an official tour of Blenheim Palace, which must have been a bit of a comedown after Neverland, they rolled out the red carpet, but he insisted it be heavily disinfected, and it squelched under his crutch. Crutch, not crotch. Due to some domestic mishap, he was grabbing the former rather than the latter. At Oxford, he called on the world to adopt his Children’s Bill of Rights, including “the right to be thought adorable” and “the right to be listened to without having to be interesting”. The right to a $30 million out-of-court settlement, won by a 13-year old former playmate of his, was not mentioned.
And there’s Jonah Goldberg discussing the media’s insistence that Jackson was an “icon”:
“Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’"
Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.
I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.
Since at least 1993, Michael Jackson was less a talented entertainer and more a real life creepy Willy Wonka. The Johnny Depp version. This story won’t be over any time soon. Next will be the fight over his kids, his money, his songs and his “image”. It is a shame.
The Future of Health Care
Via Memeorandum:
Ava Stinson was born Thursday at St. Joseph's Hospital, 14 weeks premature. Unfortunately, this particular St. Joseph’s Hospital is located in Hamilton, Ontario. Canada. The country who’s health care is soooo much better than ours.
There wasn’t a single available neo-natal bed in the entire province so little Ava was transported to Buffalo, NY. Lets here it for National Health Care aka rationed health care.
I heard this earlier on Fox News (I believe it was Steve Forbes), “Slow health care is no health care. It doesn’t cost the government anything if you die waiting in line.”
Ava Stinson was born Thursday at St. Joseph's Hospital, 14 weeks premature. Unfortunately, this particular St. Joseph’s Hospital is located in Hamilton, Ontario. Canada. The country who’s health care is soooo much better than ours.
There wasn’t a single available neo-natal bed in the entire province so little Ava was transported to Buffalo, NY. Lets here it for National Health Care aka rationed health care.
I heard this earlier on Fox News (I believe it was Steve Forbes), “Slow health care is no health care. It doesn’t cost the government anything if you die waiting in line.”
Feminists And The Stoning Of Soraya M.
Writing in The Corner, Manda Zand Ervin discusses The Stoning of Soraya M.:
The Stoning of Soraya M. must be shown at the annual conference of the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women, to which I was a delegate. But, of course, this kind of movie will never be shown because of the politics — UNIFEM is receiving millions of dollars from the Islamic regime every year, paid off to see no evil and hear no evil. The hypocrisy is revolting, the immorality is beneath contempt.When I got home, I communicated with a woman activist inside Iran about the movie. She said:
As barbaric as the act of stoning is, it is the brutal assault against the human dignity of a female person that makes me cry of pain and shame. It is the absolute helplessness that makes me cry out in protest and get arrested again and again.How can the powerful women on your side of the world be so indifferent towards the women in this globalized world of theirs? How can they think for one minute that their freedom and equality is worth anything as long as there are women living under these conditions?
Monir K. is one of the many brave Iranian women who have spent many years of her life battling against the sharia laws that makes the stoning of women and young girls legal.
The trust-fund ladies and their friends in Hollywood go to Iran talk to hand-picked Iranians while their “travel handlers,” who are plain-clothed Revolutionary Guards, assigned by the regime, are watching every move people make and every word they utter to the visitors. The ladies of leisure take publicity photos in the mandatory Islamic robes and head covers and come home to talk about their visit to the “exotic Islamic third world.” Iranian women call them “Cultural Imperialists.”
Cultural Imperialists attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, praising the woman selected by the Islamic regime, but they will not utter one word of support for the real activists, the women who are in prisons, getting tortured and hanged, trying to take back their place among the respected people in the world.It is a fact that the feminist American culture, the culture of Hollywood, is one of the major issues that Islamists like Khomeini, Bin Laden, Hezbollah, the Muslim brotherhood, and the Taliban have against America and the West. But this culture supports the Islamists by its silence and indifference to the issue of human rights.
The Stoning of Soraya M. should have received many academy awards, many Cannes awards, and many movie reviews. It is the least this culture can do for the Iranian women suffering to gain the same human rights that American feminists exploit.
I have seen no indication that feminists in the West give a rat’s ass about the rights or dignity of women living under the brutality of Sharia law. Just the opposite, groups like Code Pink, Boobs Not Bombs, et al, support and aid the degradation of women held prisoner by Islam by their refusal to stand up for freedom and democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
How can women of conscience turn their backs on their sisters who are being stoned to death because they have been raped? The answer is that feminists are not women of conscience and that in the most profound sense, they do not support freedom for their less fortunate sisters or anyone else.
The Stoning of Soraya M. must be shown at the annual conference of the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women, to which I was a delegate. But, of course, this kind of movie will never be shown because of the politics — UNIFEM is receiving millions of dollars from the Islamic regime every year, paid off to see no evil and hear no evil. The hypocrisy is revolting, the immorality is beneath contempt.When I got home, I communicated with a woman activist inside Iran about the movie. She said:
As barbaric as the act of stoning is, it is the brutal assault against the human dignity of a female person that makes me cry of pain and shame. It is the absolute helplessness that makes me cry out in protest and get arrested again and again.How can the powerful women on your side of the world be so indifferent towards the women in this globalized world of theirs? How can they think for one minute that their freedom and equality is worth anything as long as there are women living under these conditions?
Monir K. is one of the many brave Iranian women who have spent many years of her life battling against the sharia laws that makes the stoning of women and young girls legal.
The trust-fund ladies and their friends in Hollywood go to Iran talk to hand-picked Iranians while their “travel handlers,” who are plain-clothed Revolutionary Guards, assigned by the regime, are watching every move people make and every word they utter to the visitors. The ladies of leisure take publicity photos in the mandatory Islamic robes and head covers and come home to talk about their visit to the “exotic Islamic third world.” Iranian women call them “Cultural Imperialists.”
Cultural Imperialists attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, praising the woman selected by the Islamic regime, but they will not utter one word of support for the real activists, the women who are in prisons, getting tortured and hanged, trying to take back their place among the respected people in the world.It is a fact that the feminist American culture, the culture of Hollywood, is one of the major issues that Islamists like Khomeini, Bin Laden, Hezbollah, the Muslim brotherhood, and the Taliban have against America and the West. But this culture supports the Islamists by its silence and indifference to the issue of human rights.
The Stoning of Soraya M. should have received many academy awards, many Cannes awards, and many movie reviews. It is the least this culture can do for the Iranian women suffering to gain the same human rights that American feminists exploit.
I have seen no indication that feminists in the West give a rat’s ass about the rights or dignity of women living under the brutality of Sharia law. Just the opposite, groups like Code Pink, Boobs Not Bombs, et al, support and aid the degradation of women held prisoner by Islam by their refusal to stand up for freedom and democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
How can women of conscience turn their backs on their sisters who are being stoned to death because they have been raped? The answer is that feminists are not women of conscience and that in the most profound sense, they do not support freedom for their less fortunate sisters or anyone else.
Rodents In The House
From Michelle Malkin:
Shown above are the eight RINO rats who voted FOR Cap and Trade. Hold these rodents accountable for selling out and work to ensure that this will be their last term in the House.
UPDATE: Just sitting here wondering when we became so stupid. I came across this apt but depressing analogy at Babalu:
Well, amigos. Many of us engage in ritual self-flagellation: "How did so many Cubans fall for Castro? Wasn't his message transparently idiotic? (authoritarian) I mean, to all such "idealistic measures" there are questions: Who's paying?...and how much?...demand?..supply?.. etc?"
Yet multitudes of morons (and scoundrels) hailed Castro?
Well, with the (narrow) passing of this "cap and trade bill," let's admit that 1959 era Cubans were not peculiar by their stupidity.
In brief: We're now royally F***ED!
Unreal
Shown above are the eight RINO rats who voted FOR Cap and Trade. Hold these rodents accountable for selling out and work to ensure that this will be their last term in the House.
UPDATE: Just sitting here wondering when we became so stupid. I came across this apt but depressing analogy at Babalu:
Well, amigos. Many of us engage in ritual self-flagellation: "How did so many Cubans fall for Castro? Wasn't his message transparently idiotic? (authoritarian) I mean, to all such "idealistic measures" there are questions: Who's paying?...and how much?...demand?..supply?.. etc?"
Yet multitudes of morons (and scoundrels) hailed Castro?
Well, with the (narrow) passing of this "cap and trade bill," let's admit that 1959 era Cubans were not peculiar by their stupidity.
In brief: We're now royally F***ED!
Unreal
Poitical Spoils
Peruse the Top All-Time Donors 1989-2008 Summary and ask yourself if there is any correlation between campaign donations and this fro Bloomberg:
Unions’ Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Proposal
The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.
The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.
As the Top Donors chart shows, the Democratic Party owes the unions a mighty debt. If Sen. Baucus gets his way the union’s payback will come out of our pockets. I don’t mean to imply that Nationalized Health Care is at its base a cheap political ploy, but if it walks like a duck…
Unions’ Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Proposal
The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.
The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.
As the Top Donors chart shows, the Democratic Party owes the unions a mighty debt. If Sen. Baucus gets his way the union’s payback will come out of our pockets. I don’t mean to imply that Nationalized Health Care is at its base a cheap political ploy, but if it walks like a duck…
The Class President
Instapundit has this gem from The Atlantic:
The Obama Administration appears to me to be pursuing many goals, poorly. Here are four:
1) The stimulus failed to meet Larry Summers' famous criteria of timely, targeted, or temporary.
2) The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.
3) The proposed financial reforms are mostly cosmetic and fail to address the key issues of housing policy and regulatory capital arbitrage.
4) In championing health care reform, the President stresses the unsustainability of our current system, while insisting that nothing will change (you can keep your insurance, keep your doctor, etc.).
The pattern that I see is one of following the path of least political resistance, even if it means failing to make any significant contribution to solving the actual public policy problem. I cannot say that I am completely shocked by this. It is sort of Public Choice 101. But there are a lot of bright, highly-educated people in the Obama Administration who, if they were to step back and evaluate what is happening, would see the pattern for what it is. They believe that they inherited such bad policies that they could not possibly do worse. That belief is starting to look shaky.
President Obama reminds me of the kid in high school who ran for class president and won by promising to do all kinds of really cool stuff like making every day Pizza Day in the school cafeteria and eliminating calculus from the curriculum. Turns out the doofus had no idea what he was talking about and at best, the only thing he did was make things worse. Makes you wonder, where are the grownups?
The Obama Administration appears to me to be pursuing many goals, poorly. Here are four:
1) The stimulus failed to meet Larry Summers' famous criteria of timely, targeted, or temporary.
2) The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.
3) The proposed financial reforms are mostly cosmetic and fail to address the key issues of housing policy and regulatory capital arbitrage.
4) In championing health care reform, the President stresses the unsustainability of our current system, while insisting that nothing will change (you can keep your insurance, keep your doctor, etc.).
The pattern that I see is one of following the path of least political resistance, even if it means failing to make any significant contribution to solving the actual public policy problem. I cannot say that I am completely shocked by this. It is sort of Public Choice 101. But there are a lot of bright, highly-educated people in the Obama Administration who, if they were to step back and evaluate what is happening, would see the pattern for what it is. They believe that they inherited such bad policies that they could not possibly do worse. That belief is starting to look shaky.
President Obama reminds me of the kid in high school who ran for class president and won by promising to do all kinds of really cool stuff like making every day Pizza Day in the school cafeteria and eliminating calculus from the curriculum. Turns out the doofus had no idea what he was talking about and at best, the only thing he did was make things worse. Makes you wonder, where are the grownups?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday Night Roundup
Pat Austin at So It Goes In Shreveport posts on Cap and Trade here and here. Both posts are well worth the read. My suggestion now that this economy wrecking bill has passed in the House, get a second job. Babalu has the cost at $12,021.75 per family.
El Campeador has the latest pearls of wisdom from Joe Biden. What I say except that’s our Joe, ever thoughtful and one heartbeat away…
Paco has his Happy Feet Friday up. If you haven’t much to smile about lately it is a good place to start.
The Other McCain has become the hands down, hands on, go to guy on the IG scandal. So much for the Administration’s promises of transparency and accountability.
When you think you’ve heard it all, consider this Jewish School Held Racist. Apparently it is racist to require student at Jewish schools to be Jewish. Who knew?
Do you ever think about what really happens just 90 miles from our border?
Lastly, a tribute to freedom.
El Campeador has the latest pearls of wisdom from Joe Biden. What I say except that’s our Joe, ever thoughtful and one heartbeat away…
Paco has his Happy Feet Friday up. If you haven’t much to smile about lately it is a good place to start.
The Other McCain has become the hands down, hands on, go to guy on the IG scandal. So much for the Administration’s promises of transparency and accountability.
When you think you’ve heard it all, consider this Jewish School Held Racist. Apparently it is racist to require student at Jewish schools to be Jewish. Who knew?
Do you ever think about what really happens just 90 miles from our border?
Lastly, a tribute to freedom.
What's Jim Brown's Problem With Tiger Woods?
How much do you know about the Tiger Woods Foundation? Did you know it has served over 10 million youth since 1996? Tiger Woods is one of those rare celebrities who does his job and lives his life without the need to call a lot of attention to himself. I find Wood’s low key attitude incredibly refreshing but according to this post at The Daley Gator, NFL Hall of Famer Jim Brown has a problem with Tiger:
“You know what’s so interesting about Tiger to me?” Brown said. “He is a killer, he will run over you, he will kick your ass. But as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible. Because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that’s his contribution. In the real world, I can’t teach kids to play golf and that’s my contribution, if I’ve got that kind of power.” This isn’t the first time Brown has criticized Woods; last year Brown said he thinks Woods is too politically correct.
To each his own but I prefer people who chose act charitably without a lot of fanfare. Too many times famous people more than offset any good they do by calling attention to themselves in ways that are less than admirable and Mr. Brown is no exception:
Brown’s brief career with the Cleveland Browns put him in the Hall of Fame, but it was his embrace of an identity as a civil-rights activist in the face of rabid discrimination that set him apart from many other contemporary black athletes. His activism, including the creation of the Black Economic Union, drew the attention of the FBI—beginning a monumental investigation that would follow his every move for most of his life. Jim Brown’s private life was less admirable. Domestic violence, battery, and rape charges shadowed Brown’s reputation.
Tiger Woods and Jim Brown have taken a different path to helping others. Mr. Brown doesn’t help his cause by belittling a man who is admired both on and off the course and who has helped million of young people.
“You know what’s so interesting about Tiger to me?” Brown said. “He is a killer, he will run over you, he will kick your ass. But as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible. Because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that’s his contribution. In the real world, I can’t teach kids to play golf and that’s my contribution, if I’ve got that kind of power.” This isn’t the first time Brown has criticized Woods; last year Brown said he thinks Woods is too politically correct.
To each his own but I prefer people who chose act charitably without a lot of fanfare. Too many times famous people more than offset any good they do by calling attention to themselves in ways that are less than admirable and Mr. Brown is no exception:
Brown’s brief career with the Cleveland Browns put him in the Hall of Fame, but it was his embrace of an identity as a civil-rights activist in the face of rabid discrimination that set him apart from many other contemporary black athletes. His activism, including the creation of the Black Economic Union, drew the attention of the FBI—beginning a monumental investigation that would follow his every move for most of his life. Jim Brown’s private life was less admirable. Domestic violence, battery, and rape charges shadowed Brown’s reputation.
Tiger Woods and Jim Brown have taken a different path to helping others. Mr. Brown doesn’t help his cause by belittling a man who is admired both on and off the course and who has helped million of young people.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
ABC Tanks
David Westin: I would have thought that a subject as important as the health care received by the American people would rise above this sorry spectacle. Our citizens need and deserve more. We are proud to be making a serious effort to go beyond mere punditry or stylized, bipolar debate; we are proud to work for a network and a company willing to devote valuable airtime to serious consideration of a subject so worthy.
Apparently the American viewing public doesn’t think health care is a subject worthy of wasting an evening on:
The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour (against NBC's "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.
So what did ABC do? From Don Surber:
After a careful analysis of his infomercial on the All Barack Channel last night, ABC’s top experts concluded that he is more awesome than he let on.
Well thank goodness ABC isn't biased!
Unfortunately, just like American’s tuned out last night’s infomercial, the Administration has tuned out the American public.
Apparently the American viewing public doesn’t think health care is a subject worthy of wasting an evening on:
The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour (against NBC's "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.
So what did ABC do? From Don Surber:
After a careful analysis of his infomercial on the All Barack Channel last night, ABC’s top experts concluded that he is more awesome than he let on.
Well thank goodness ABC isn't biased!
Unfortunately, just like American’s tuned out last night’s infomercial, the Administration has tuned out the American public.
The True Cost of Cap And Trade
RS McCain quotes Rep. Spencer Bachus on Cap and Trade:
The Democrat leadership is preventing the public from learning important details about the cap and tax plan by bypassing several key committees. . . .
My committee should be given time to review "green housing" mandates that could lead to stiff fines against owners and builders. Penalties for violating the act are $100 per day. A day! What effect does such a law have on home prices, on seniors trying to sell their home in a tough market, and builders struggling to sell their inventory of unsold homes?
I am very disturbed by the repeated pattern of the House leadership in rushing expensive legislation like cap and tax, the so-called stimulus package, and appropriations bills to a vote without adequate review or debate…
This is the wrong bill and the wrong time but the Democrats are trying to ram it through at break neck speed without proper review. If passed, this bill will lead to higher unemployment, higher energy bills and will kill an already struggling economy.
Remember, higher energy costs affect every aspect of our lives. That it will cost more to drive to work or heat or cool our houses is a given but it won’t stop there. The cost of every item that we purchase will increase due to increased transportation costs. Municipalities will be forced to increase property taxes to cover the increased energy costs for schools, libraries, public transportation, on and on.
It is the middle and lower classes that will suffer most. This is not the change that candidate Barack Obama promised but it is the change that President Barack Obama is responsible for.
Update: Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them Well they’d never get the damn thing passed if they were honest would they?
The Democrat leadership is preventing the public from learning important details about the cap and tax plan by bypassing several key committees. . . .
My committee should be given time to review "green housing" mandates that could lead to stiff fines against owners and builders. Penalties for violating the act are $100 per day. A day! What effect does such a law have on home prices, on seniors trying to sell their home in a tough market, and builders struggling to sell their inventory of unsold homes?
I am very disturbed by the repeated pattern of the House leadership in rushing expensive legislation like cap and tax, the so-called stimulus package, and appropriations bills to a vote without adequate review or debate…
This is the wrong bill and the wrong time but the Democrats are trying to ram it through at break neck speed without proper review. If passed, this bill will lead to higher unemployment, higher energy bills and will kill an already struggling economy.
Remember, higher energy costs affect every aspect of our lives. That it will cost more to drive to work or heat or cool our houses is a given but it won’t stop there. The cost of every item that we purchase will increase due to increased transportation costs. Municipalities will be forced to increase property taxes to cover the increased energy costs for schools, libraries, public transportation, on and on.
It is the middle and lower classes that will suffer most. This is not the change that candidate Barack Obama promised but it is the change that President Barack Obama is responsible for.
Update: Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them Well they’d never get the damn thing passed if they were honest would they?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I Will Leave It To Others To Throw The First Stone
I would be surprised if anyone who saw the countless headlines yesterday about Gov. Mark Sanford being MIA thought to themselves, “eh, so he’s taking a couple of days off.” Let’s face it, governors don’t just disappear for a few days.
So, today it is all out in the open. I’ve traveled the web tonight and made all the usual stops. I have a different take on this than I have seen on other conservative sights so this particular post will be link free.
I am not angry at Mark Sanford. I am sad that he has fallen short of his duty. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and ordained by God. I believe in turn, God blesses a marriage with children. I believe that within a marriage, the husband and wife have a duty to God, to each other, to their children and to themselves. Mark Sanford failed on all counts.
We conservatives hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than our progressive brothers and sisters. We should. We should also recognize that none of us is infallible. This doesn’t mean that when people fail that we should give them a pass. Each of us are accountable for our actions and if our morals and convictions mean anything, we must hold others responsible for their actions.
How Gov. Sanford conducts himself going forward will determine whether he is holding himself accountable and whether he is willing to do the hard work of healing the harm he has done. At this point I am not willing to throw the first stone.
UPDATE Via Instapundit:
JOHN DICKERSON: The disturbing glee at Mark Sanford’s downfall. “What Mark Sanford seemed to be trying to say is that he screwed up, in the biggest possible way, because he lost his bearings. He lost his self-control. He was indulgent. He forgot that there were other humans in the world. Yet in the constant flow of abuse, joke-making, and grand conclusions about his failings, it seemed everyone having a good time pointing at his self-indulgence was also engaging in a form of it.
Exactly. Why are Christians, who have been taught, and who should believe, that "we have all fallen short of the Grace of God" being so mean spirited and so willing to dump the concept of redemption? Is our faith so fragile that we are somehow threatened by human failure?
Mark Sanford should no more resign from his position than any other person who has fallen short of the Grace of God should resign theirs. If there is a chance that this family can find a way to remain intact through forgiveness and redemption, no one should being calling on a wife to "kick him to the curb."
Mark Sanford did not hurt the Republican party. Not every single thing is about us. Will liberals make hay? Yep. Let them, they only abase themselves and I have no giddy schoolgirl desire to aid them.
So, today it is all out in the open. I’ve traveled the web tonight and made all the usual stops. I have a different take on this than I have seen on other conservative sights so this particular post will be link free.
I am not angry at Mark Sanford. I am sad that he has fallen short of his duty. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and ordained by God. I believe in turn, God blesses a marriage with children. I believe that within a marriage, the husband and wife have a duty to God, to each other, to their children and to themselves. Mark Sanford failed on all counts.
We conservatives hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than our progressive brothers and sisters. We should. We should also recognize that none of us is infallible. This doesn’t mean that when people fail that we should give them a pass. Each of us are accountable for our actions and if our morals and convictions mean anything, we must hold others responsible for their actions.
How Gov. Sanford conducts himself going forward will determine whether he is holding himself accountable and whether he is willing to do the hard work of healing the harm he has done. At this point I am not willing to throw the first stone.
UPDATE Via Instapundit:
JOHN DICKERSON: The disturbing glee at Mark Sanford’s downfall. “What Mark Sanford seemed to be trying to say is that he screwed up, in the biggest possible way, because he lost his bearings. He lost his self-control. He was indulgent. He forgot that there were other humans in the world. Yet in the constant flow of abuse, joke-making, and grand conclusions about his failings, it seemed everyone having a good time pointing at his self-indulgence was also engaging in a form of it.
Exactly. Why are Christians, who have been taught, and who should believe, that "we have all fallen short of the Grace of God" being so mean spirited and so willing to dump the concept of redemption? Is our faith so fragile that we are somehow threatened by human failure?
Mark Sanford should no more resign from his position than any other person who has fallen short of the Grace of God should resign theirs. If there is a chance that this family can find a way to remain intact through forgiveness and redemption, no one should being calling on a wife to "kick him to the curb."
Mark Sanford did not hurt the Republican party. Not every single thing is about us. Will liberals make hay? Yep. Let them, they only abase themselves and I have no giddy schoolgirl desire to aid them.
Huckabee Blasts NRSC Backing of Crist
As reported at Babalu yesterday, former Arkansas govener, Mike Huckabee, has formally endorsed Marco Rubio for the Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez. In an interview with The Hill, Gov. Huckabee had some strong criticism for the NRSC and its endorsement of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the same race:
“I’m disgusted that they would take a position in a hotly contested race when you have a quality candidate like Marco Rubio, who was the youngest Speaker in the Florida House,” Huckabee said. “This is not just some nameless, faceless guy that decided to throw his name in, who had no chance and no credibility.”
He continued: “I thought that their endorsement not only was premature, but was outrageous. And they ought to get behind the guy who would do a whole lot more, in my mind, to unite and fire up Republicans, and that’s Marco Rubio.”
Huckabee declined to comment directly on Crist, who has drawn some heat from conservative Republicans unhappy with his support for President Obama’s stimulus legislation and other centrist positions.
But Huckabee did allude to that support in talking about his endorsement of Rubio.
“The establishment Republicans have made this endorsement for the same reason that they’re in so much trouble,” Huckabee said. “They go out there and support stuff like TARP bills and stimulus packages, pork-barrel spending and huge debt, and they wring their hands and act like, 'This is not good, but we don’t have a choice.' "
Rubio, has also been endorsed by Sen. Jim DeMint, has strong conservative creditials in stark contrast to Crist, who bills himself as a “centrist”. Unlike Crist, he is an advocate of fiscal responsibility and is a critic of the stimulus package that Crist embraced.
“I’m disgusted that they would take a position in a hotly contested race when you have a quality candidate like Marco Rubio, who was the youngest Speaker in the Florida House,” Huckabee said. “This is not just some nameless, faceless guy that decided to throw his name in, who had no chance and no credibility.”
He continued: “I thought that their endorsement not only was premature, but was outrageous. And they ought to get behind the guy who would do a whole lot more, in my mind, to unite and fire up Republicans, and that’s Marco Rubio.”
Huckabee declined to comment directly on Crist, who has drawn some heat from conservative Republicans unhappy with his support for President Obama’s stimulus legislation and other centrist positions.
But Huckabee did allude to that support in talking about his endorsement of Rubio.
“The establishment Republicans have made this endorsement for the same reason that they’re in so much trouble,” Huckabee said. “They go out there and support stuff like TARP bills and stimulus packages, pork-barrel spending and huge debt, and they wring their hands and act like, 'This is not good, but we don’t have a choice.' "
Rubio, has also been endorsed by Sen. Jim DeMint, has strong conservative creditials in stark contrast to Crist, who bills himself as a “centrist”. Unlike Crist, he is an advocate of fiscal responsibility and is a critic of the stimulus package that Crist embraced.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama's Falling Poll Numbers
Via Instapundit:
The confounding paragraph of the day was brought to us by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic on President Obama’s falling poll numbers:
I have a slightly different spin on this, which is that it's the spending and the modest success it seems to have brought in stopping the total collapse of the banking and financial system. If the economy felt like it was in the same free fall that it was a few months ago, he'd be doing better because there'd be less questioning of government spending and more calls to pour everything on the fire. But with the respite in the fall comes the freedom to question spending. Or, to put it another way: The firemen saved your house but now you're pissed off about all the water damage in the den.
Well yeah, you’d be pissed at the water damage in the den but you wouldn’t be pissed at the firemen who saved your house. Suggesting that Obama is dropping in the polls because his policies are working is ludicrous on so many levels. First, Ambinder must exist an a far different plane than the rest of us if he hasn’t noticed that Americans don’t believe that the President’s policies are succeeding . In fact, on the stimulus and the bailouts people believe that the President’s policies are making things worse.
Second, the public is worried about the President’s proposed policies. Nationalized health care? According to a recent ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. Newsflash Marc, we aren’t feeling real rosy about Obama’s health care policy. Would you rather talk about Cap and Trade? Probably not. Cash for Clunkers? To quote Michelle Malkin, “snort”.
Obama is dropping in the polls because the public is no longer buying his shtick. There's no other way to spin it.
The confounding paragraph of the day was brought to us by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic on President Obama’s falling poll numbers:
I have a slightly different spin on this, which is that it's the spending and the modest success it seems to have brought in stopping the total collapse of the banking and financial system. If the economy felt like it was in the same free fall that it was a few months ago, he'd be doing better because there'd be less questioning of government spending and more calls to pour everything on the fire. But with the respite in the fall comes the freedom to question spending. Or, to put it another way: The firemen saved your house but now you're pissed off about all the water damage in the den.
Well yeah, you’d be pissed at the water damage in the den but you wouldn’t be pissed at the firemen who saved your house. Suggesting that Obama is dropping in the polls because his policies are working is ludicrous on so many levels. First, Ambinder must exist an a far different plane than the rest of us if he hasn’t noticed that Americans don’t believe that the President’s policies are succeeding . In fact, on the stimulus and the bailouts people believe that the President’s policies are making things worse.
Second, the public is worried about the President’s proposed policies. Nationalized health care? According to a recent ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. Newsflash Marc, we aren’t feeling real rosy about Obama’s health care policy. Would you rather talk about Cap and Trade? Probably not. Cash for Clunkers? To quote Michelle Malkin, “snort”.
Obama is dropping in the polls because the public is no longer buying his shtick. There's no other way to spin it.
Give Leadership A Try
Via Gateway Pundit:
"What's happened in Iran is profound and we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out," Obama said. "It's not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it." He said there is a path for the country to engage with the global community.
While President Obama is “waiting to see how it plays itself out” people are being beaten in the streets and then arrested when they go to the hospital seeking medical treatment. Certainly, Obama used stronger language today in condemning the violence in Iran but today is day eleven. It shouldn’t take the leader of the free world eleven days to forcefully speak out on favor of freedom.
Obama, who seems to care so much about world opinion, is failing miserably as the face and voice of America. Right now we appear weak and disengaged. Whether Obama likes it or not, basking in the glow of his presidency isn’t an option. It is past time to give leadership a try.
"What's happened in Iran is profound and we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out," Obama said. "It's not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it." He said there is a path for the country to engage with the global community.
While President Obama is “waiting to see how it plays itself out” people are being beaten in the streets and then arrested when they go to the hospital seeking medical treatment. Certainly, Obama used stronger language today in condemning the violence in Iran but today is day eleven. It shouldn’t take the leader of the free world eleven days to forcefully speak out on favor of freedom.
Obama, who seems to care so much about world opinion, is failing miserably as the face and voice of America. Right now we appear weak and disengaged. Whether Obama likes it or not, basking in the glow of his presidency isn’t an option. It is past time to give leadership a try.
Tyranny And The Right To Bear Arms
Josh Kraushaar at Politco finds the following tweet by Marco Rubio “curious”: “I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours,” Rubio tweeted on Sunday.
Kraushaar says he’s “Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters…” Um, no, he’s not. It is a simple fact that societies that do not restrict personal gun ownership are also societies that enjoy greater personal freedom. Not surprising, there is a correlation between the ability to protect one’s self from tyranny and not having to protect one’s self from tyranny. So what is it about support for the 2nd amendment that Kraushaar finds curious?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has it right: Rubio was being glib, of course. (Can you be anything else in 140 characters or less?) However, his meaning was pretty clear, and hardly controversial or “curious”. Supporters of the 2nd Amendment offer these reminders whenever oppression makes itself obvious in the world, to help Americans recall the value of the Bill of Rights and the exceptional place it has in human history
Kraushaar says he’s “Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters…” Um, no, he’s not. It is a simple fact that societies that do not restrict personal gun ownership are also societies that enjoy greater personal freedom. Not surprising, there is a correlation between the ability to protect one’s self from tyranny and not having to protect one’s self from tyranny. So what is it about support for the 2nd amendment that Kraushaar finds curious?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has it right: Rubio was being glib, of course. (Can you be anything else in 140 characters or less?) However, his meaning was pretty clear, and hardly controversial or “curious”. Supporters of the 2nd Amendment offer these reminders whenever oppression makes itself obvious in the world, to help Americans recall the value of the Bill of Rights and the exceptional place it has in human history
Monday, June 22, 2009
So It Begins...
Via Instapundit:
AS BLOGS ARE CENSORED, it’s kittens to the rescue! Plus this: “You have to have the sword at home. You don’t want to have to buy a sword at the last minute.”
Kittens are popping up at blogs all over the place. If it will protect me from censorship I’ll play along.
I should be safe now, right? No?
AS BLOGS ARE CENSORED, it’s kittens to the rescue! Plus this: “You have to have the sword at home. You don’t want to have to buy a sword at the last minute.”
Kittens are popping up at blogs all over the place. If it will protect me from censorship I’ll play along.
I should be safe now, right? No?
Women Under Cover
President Sarkozy came out on the right side of women’s rights by saying, "We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told the special session in Versailles. "That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity."The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.
Covering woman is nothing less than an act of overt oppression. This should not be allowed in any free society. What of people who coose to cover themselves in a shroud? Who knows? There is no way to know which women choose the burka and which have it forced upon them. If a society is to err they should err on the side of supporting women’s freedom against a state of subservience.
h/t JammieWearingFool
The Administration's Propaganda Arm
What do you get when the New York Times and CBS intentionally distort a poll in favor of the President’s healthcare plan and ABC turns an entire broadcast day over to the White House to air a healthcare marathon? Indisputable proof that much of the media in this country can no longer be trusted. So far, the Times/CBS hasn’t offered any explanation as how their “sampling” contained Obama supporters by a margin of two to one. ABC on the other hand has promised to be unbiased. I promise to forego my beloved beer for a month. Both promises are equally worthless.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.
What of the public’s right to know? During the previous administration the “public’s right to know” was sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this right has joined “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” as a passé concept.
IBD continues:
Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.
Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.
So, what will the public’s reaction to ABC’s day long infomercial? I hope most Americans will refuse to watch ABC on Wednesday and going forward. The propaganda ploy will only work if people allow themselves to be sucked in. I think Americans are smarter than that.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.
What of the public’s right to know? During the previous administration the “public’s right to know” was sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this right has joined “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” as a passé concept.
IBD continues:
Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.
Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.
So, what will the public’s reaction to ABC’s day long infomercial? I hope most Americans will refuse to watch ABC on Wednesday and going forward. The propaganda ploy will only work if people allow themselves to be sucked in. I think Americans are smarter than that.
Obama's Detachment Towards Iran
It seems that President Obama has dealt with the events in Iran (using the word “dealt” in the loosest means possible) with an air of detachment. What could well be the biggest grassroots uprising of our time simply doesn’t interest the President. It is baffling and frustrating that Obama appears more annoyed at this ‘distraction’ than excited that there hundreds of thousands of people risking their lives on the streets of Tehran in pursuit of freedom. To be clear, Obama simply doesn’t hold democracy in particular, or freedom in general, in high regard.
Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy explains:
The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chà vez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).
Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.
Obama considers himself to be of the Ruling Class. Democracy is inconsistent with Obama’s world view of who should lead and who should follow and what the relationship between leaders and followers should be. This attitude doesn’t bode well for freedom in the world and is particularly troubling for the future of freedom in the United States.
Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy explains:
The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chà vez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).
Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.
Obama considers himself to be of the Ruling Class. Democracy is inconsistent with Obama’s world view of who should lead and who should follow and what the relationship between leaders and followers should be. This attitude doesn’t bode well for freedom in the world and is particularly troubling for the future of freedom in the United States.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Healthcare Hyperbole
Via Memeorandum
Anytime a writer feels the need to claim that he is not engaging in hyperbole it is a pretty good guess that he is. Consider this from Glenn W. Smith at FireDogLake:
The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.
Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.
Not only is Smith’s post grossly over-wrought, he also conveniently leaves out any fact that would lower the emotional tone of his piece. He doesn’t mention that twenty to twenty-five million of the 50 (?) million uninsured are illegal aliens. He doesn’t mention that another 8-10 million uninsured are people who earn over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance. He certainly doesn’t mention that the plan the administration has put forward would cost 1.6 TRILLION dollars and would leave 30 million people still uninsured. And he certainly doesn’t mention that the majority of that 30 million currently have insurance but would lose it under the President’s plan.
Instead of dealing with facts, Smith appeals to white guilt over slavery. That is nothing short of pathetic. I would also like to know how Smith defines “the economic privileged”. Is health insurance yet another class warfare issue?
You would think that if healthcare is so important to Smith that he would deal with it in a straight forward and honest manner
Anytime a writer feels the need to claim that he is not engaging in hyperbole it is a pretty good guess that he is. Consider this from Glenn W. Smith at FireDogLake:
The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.
Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.
Not only is Smith’s post grossly over-wrought, he also conveniently leaves out any fact that would lower the emotional tone of his piece. He doesn’t mention that twenty to twenty-five million of the 50 (?) million uninsured are illegal aliens. He doesn’t mention that another 8-10 million uninsured are people who earn over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance. He certainly doesn’t mention that the plan the administration has put forward would cost 1.6 TRILLION dollars and would leave 30 million people still uninsured. And he certainly doesn’t mention that the majority of that 30 million currently have insurance but would lose it under the President’s plan.
Instead of dealing with facts, Smith appeals to white guilt over slavery. That is nothing short of pathetic. I would also like to know how Smith defines “the economic privileged”. Is health insurance yet another class warfare issue?
You would think that if healthcare is so important to Smith that he would deal with it in a straight forward and honest manner
Today's Ugly Lapdog Award Goes To...
NY TIMES + Ginned Up Poll Data =
The President's healthcare plan has been treading water of late so Obama's faithful lapdog, The New York Times, leapt into action! The result was a poll that showed that 72% of Americans love the President's health and can't wait to pay for. Pretty impressive. Except...
The Times basically faked the poll. They chose respondents who by an aoverwhelming majority voted for Obama. In fact, they chose Obama supporters almost two to one.
As they said over at Maggie's Farm, “The New York Times, otherwise known as the Grey Lady, might more appropriately be known as Obama’s Shady Lady. Believe its poll and get a Times Square disease."
Here are the numbers as reported by NewsBusters:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
It's a shame really. The Times makes one scroungy lapdog.
Andrew Emotes
Today my, “Gee, I wish I’d said that” moment was provided by The Riehl World View:
If Andrew Sullivan wants to jump into the emoting bin at Wal-Mart to pick-out a cheap canned syrupy concoction on Iran to serve up to his readers, he's allowed; but it shouldn't be confused with the insight, or wisdom he colors it up to look to be. And it does matter for reasons that are critically important to America and her security.
Ouch.
I try to read Andrew Sullivan occasionally but must confess I never make it too far. He just seems so easily excitable, and not in a good way. There is something rabid Pomeranian about him that always leaves me queasy. Anyway, the entire post can be read here.
UPDATED: American Power also weighs in on Andrew:
Ayatollah Khomeini did not come to power with the promise of freedom. The revolution of '79 installed a Islamo-fascist dictatorship. Spencer Ackerman sees the Bush administration as a bigger threat to the Iranian regime than the mullahs in Tehran. And Andrew Sullivan, in citing him, is blogging too fast to realize how stupid he makes himself out to be. Once you deconstruct what Sullivan is saying, we see it's all about him and his Man-Crush Dream-Boy Obama.
Well, I guess a man has a right to his dreams no matter how ookey they might be. But to base one’s ideology on the hope that the object of your affection will cast an approving smile your way seems a bit over the top. Of course, we are talking about Andrew.
If Andrew Sullivan wants to jump into the emoting bin at Wal-Mart to pick-out a cheap canned syrupy concoction on Iran to serve up to his readers, he's allowed; but it shouldn't be confused with the insight, or wisdom he colors it up to look to be. And it does matter for reasons that are critically important to America and her security.
Ouch.
I try to read Andrew Sullivan occasionally but must confess I never make it too far. He just seems so easily excitable, and not in a good way. There is something rabid Pomeranian about him that always leaves me queasy. Anyway, the entire post can be read here.
UPDATED: American Power also weighs in on Andrew:
Ayatollah Khomeini did not come to power with the promise of freedom. The revolution of '79 installed a Islamo-fascist dictatorship. Spencer Ackerman sees the Bush administration as a bigger threat to the Iranian regime than the mullahs in Tehran. And Andrew Sullivan, in citing him, is blogging too fast to realize how stupid he makes himself out to be. Once you deconstruct what Sullivan is saying, we see it's all about him and his Man-Crush Dream-Boy Obama.
Well, I guess a man has a right to his dreams no matter how ookey they might be. But to base one’s ideology on the hope that the object of your affection will cast an approving smile your way seems a bit over the top. Of course, we are talking about Andrew.
Protesters In Tehran Stand Up To The Basij
The video is from a post at Gateway Pundit and the words below it are John Howard’s via Instapundit.
If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
Mr. Howard recognized the need to confront evil head on. He knew the difference between being a leader and a figure head. Mr. Howard's brand of leadership is sorely absent these days.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
What kind of democratic leader deliberately chooses to ignore and then downplay a grassroots, democratic movement against tyrants in order to preserve some hope of negotiating with the tyrants for a less-hostile relationship with them? Apparently, only one, and he’s ours.
If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
Mr. Howard recognized the need to confront evil head on. He knew the difference between being a leader and a figure head. Mr. Howard's brand of leadership is sorely absent these days.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
What kind of democratic leader deliberately chooses to ignore and then downplay a grassroots, democratic movement against tyrants in order to preserve some hope of negotiating with the tyrants for a less-hostile relationship with them? Apparently, only one, and he’s ours.
Who Immediately Comes To Mind?
Every once and awhile you come across something that is just too good to pass up on. I found the following at IMAO:
Is The Glow Dimming?
Via Instapundit:
There seems to be a disconnect in the polls between the public’s support for the President personally and public support for the President’s policies. The President remains popular while his policies do not. For some reason many people still view Obama as some mystical being floating gently above us emanating goodness and wisdom. It brings to mind a Lucky Charms commercial.
The firing of IG Gerald Walpin, who had the audacity to question $850,000 in taxpayer dollars being spent to wash Kevin Johnson’s car, and the bullying of IG Neil Barofsky, who is overseeing the bailout, Obama appears, dare I say it, political. John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune sums it up:
The Washington Beltway media pack, exhausted after the cynicism of the Bush years, was eager for change. Many fired up their Hopium pipes and waited, glassy eyed, for the rapture, all but chanting "Yes We Can." Now they're coming down hard.So here's my question:What's the big surprise? What strange, exotic land do they think Obama comes from?Do they think Obama learned his politics in Narnia, while cavorting with gentle forest creatures, some of which have hooves and serve tea and cakes to journalists and well-mannered English schoolgirls on snowy winter afternoons?Did Obama learn politics in Camelot, the magical kingdom where federal czars sit at a great round table, all for the good of the simple peasants? Or did he learn politics along that famous highway, you know, the one that's always paved with good intentions?No. Obama learned his politics in Chicago.And now all of Washington can learn it, too.
Welcome to Obamaland-the official state of Comfortably Numb.
UPDATE: The Other McCain quotes from Michael Barone in the Examiner:
His first political ambition was to be mayor of Chicago, the boss of all he surveyed; he has had to settle for the broader but less complete hegemony of the presidency. . . .Chicago-style, he has kept the Republicans out of serious policy negotiations . . . Basking in the adulation of nearly the entire press corps, he whines about his coverage on Fox News. Those who stand in the way, like the Chrysler secured creditors, are told that their reputations will be destroyed; those who expose wrongdoing by political allies, like the AmeriCorps inspector general, are fired.
There seems to be a disconnect in the polls between the public’s support for the President personally and public support for the President’s policies. The President remains popular while his policies do not. For some reason many people still view Obama as some mystical being floating gently above us emanating goodness and wisdom. It brings to mind a Lucky Charms commercial.The firing of IG Gerald Walpin, who had the audacity to question $850,000 in taxpayer dollars being spent to wash Kevin Johnson’s car, and the bullying of IG Neil Barofsky, who is overseeing the bailout, Obama appears, dare I say it, political. John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune sums it up:
The Washington Beltway media pack, exhausted after the cynicism of the Bush years, was eager for change. Many fired up their Hopium pipes and waited, glassy eyed, for the rapture, all but chanting "Yes We Can." Now they're coming down hard.So here's my question:What's the big surprise? What strange, exotic land do they think Obama comes from?Do they think Obama learned his politics in Narnia, while cavorting with gentle forest creatures, some of which have hooves and serve tea and cakes to journalists and well-mannered English schoolgirls on snowy winter afternoons?Did Obama learn politics in Camelot, the magical kingdom where federal czars sit at a great round table, all for the good of the simple peasants? Or did he learn politics along that famous highway, you know, the one that's always paved with good intentions?No. Obama learned his politics in Chicago.And now all of Washington can learn it, too.
Welcome to Obamaland-the official state of Comfortably Numb.
UPDATE: The Other McCain quotes from Michael Barone in the Examiner:
His first political ambition was to be mayor of Chicago, the boss of all he surveyed; he has had to settle for the broader but less complete hegemony of the presidency. . . .Chicago-style, he has kept the Republicans out of serious policy negotiations . . . Basking in the adulation of nearly the entire press corps, he whines about his coverage on Fox News. Those who stand in the way, like the Chrysler secured creditors, are told that their reputations will be destroyed; those who expose wrongdoing by political allies, like the AmeriCorps inspector general, are fired.
I checked my site meter this morning and saw that I was getting unusually high activity. Cool. I looked to see where the traffic was coming from and lo and behold it was being sent to me from The Other McCain. Very cool. The problem is Smitty linked a piece I did on Mark Steyn last Saturday. I am most happy to re-post it.
I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…
The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Steyn writes:
The all-pervasive micro-regulatory state “enervates,” but nicely, gradually, so after a while you don’t even notice. And in exchange for liberty it offers security: the “right” to health care; the “right” to housing; the “right” to a job—although who needs that once you’ve got all the others?
A lot has been said lately of the crushing debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. Far worse is what we won’t pass on to the next generation if we allow our country to become a socialist republic. Once the government becomes our parent and our citizens become the children, freedom and individuality will be sacrificed to care and (minimal) comfort. Dependency breeds lethargy.
Our children need and deserve to be raised in a “can do” not a “make do” society. We became a world leader not because we wrapped our citizens in a safety net but precisely because we didn’t. We have achieved because we have risked both success and failure. If success is a mighty motivator, the risk of failure is even more so, and societal “tough love” has produced far more individual, and societal, success than the nanny state ever will.
I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…
The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Steyn writes:
The all-pervasive micro-regulatory state “enervates,” but nicely, gradually, so after a while you don’t even notice. And in exchange for liberty it offers security: the “right” to health care; the “right” to housing; the “right” to a job—although who needs that once you’ve got all the others?
A lot has been said lately of the crushing debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. Far worse is what we won’t pass on to the next generation if we allow our country to become a socialist republic. Once the government becomes our parent and our citizens become the children, freedom and individuality will be sacrificed to care and (minimal) comfort. Dependency breeds lethargy.
Our children need and deserve to be raised in a “can do” not a “make do” society. We became a world leader not because we wrapped our citizens in a safety net but precisely because we didn’t. We have achieved because we have risked both success and failure. If success is a mighty motivator, the risk of failure is even more so, and societal “tough love” has produced far more individual, and societal, success than the nanny state ever will.
Blessed Are The Children Who Were Raised By Men Like My Dad
My Dad and I have reached that stage where every day we have is a gift.
I have been totally blessed to have raised by a father who gave me the sun and the moon and then told me that whatever I did with my life was my responsibility. He provided the tools, taught me how to use them and then let me go. No matter the choice I made, Dad has been there, approving or disapproving as the case called for. But always constant.
Dad and I had a laugh today. I was telling him that I saw an elderly neighbor struggling down the street in the hot Florida sun, leaning heavily on his walker and obviously in distress. Long story short, he and his wife had locked themselves out of their house. I broke in to the house for them and the laugh came in as I was describing to my Dad what a sight my over ample backside must have been as I squeezed through their kitchen window.
I tell the story only because at the end my Dad said, “I’m proud of you.” I’ve heard those words before, a couple of times under far more noble circumstances, but each time my heart tightens. I’m proud of him, too.
Happy Father's Day.
I have been totally blessed to have raised by a father who gave me the sun and the moon and then told me that whatever I did with my life was my responsibility. He provided the tools, taught me how to use them and then let me go. No matter the choice I made, Dad has been there, approving or disapproving as the case called for. But always constant.
Dad and I had a laugh today. I was telling him that I saw an elderly neighbor struggling down the street in the hot Florida sun, leaning heavily on his walker and obviously in distress. Long story short, he and his wife had locked themselves out of their house. I broke in to the house for them and the laugh came in as I was describing to my Dad what a sight my over ample backside must have been as I squeezed through their kitchen window.
I tell the story only because at the end my Dad said, “I’m proud of you.” I’ve heard those words before, a couple of times under far more noble circumstances, but each time my heart tightens. I’m proud of him, too.
Happy Father's Day.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
PETA Supports The Brutal Murder Of People Not Flies
I came across the picture of Che Guevara's 24 year-old granddaughter, Lydia, yesterday at Track-A-'Crat. Today I stumbled across Kill Cubans Not Flies at Babalu's.
"Human beings often don't think before they act," laments PETA while explaining their reaction to President Obama's unthinking fly "execution." "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
Apparently the blockheads at PETA learned everything they need to know about Che Guevara from Benicio Del Toro. A much more honest depiction of Guevara was written by Dr. Douglas Young:
The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.Che was a purist political fanatic who saw everything in stark black and white. Therefore he vociferously opposed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest, or any other rights not completely consistent with his North Korean-style communism. How many rock music-loving teens sporting Guevara t-shirts today know their hero supported Cuba’s 1960s’ repression of the genre? How many homosexual fans know he had gays jailed?
Did PETA think through the symbolism of using Che Guevara, and his granddaughter, in their campaign? If the answer is “yes” it speaks volumes to the PETA mentality.
Mike Huckabee Discuss Abortion With Jon Stewart
From TownHall via NTC News:
Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show discussing abortion and I must say Jon Stewart was decent. That isn’t how I would typically describe Stewart so in this case “decent” equals high praise.
Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show discussing abortion and I must say Jon Stewart was decent. That isn’t how I would typically describe Stewart so in this case “decent” equals high praise.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)