For Whom Was The Term "Imperial Presidency" Coined, Again?

Got an email from Barack Obama today. It says, in part (boldface in the original):

We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.

Yeah. Because when every Republican votes against your bill, that's not "too polarized".

He talks as if the American people rallied together around this cause; as if this were change that most Americans believe in; as if most Americans weren't against it.

This is the change that he believes in, perpetrated on us by a bunch of people with insufficient spine to stand up to Chicago politics.

It amazes me that people claimed that George Bush had an "Imperial Presidency". This whole process has been such a staggering display of ego it's hard to describe.

---

Obama's Idea of "Common Purpose" and His Real Similarity To Abe Lincoln

I was struck by this graphic from the Wall Street Journal. The raw partisanship of it expresses so much.

No, I'm not surprised. Obama has been telling us that this is his modus operandi all along.

Of course, one could misinterpret Obama's candidacy announcement, and his talk of "common purpose".

In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union....

It was here we learned to disagree without being disagreeable -- that it's possible to compromise so long as you know those principles that can never be compromised; and that so long as we're willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst....

This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But nobody should be fooled by these musings of togetherness and common purpose. In the same speech, Obama talked about Lincoln rallying people during the Civil War, in which the South hated "Northern aggression" enough to fight and die for it -- and Lincoln was unwavering in bringing those renegade states to heel.

In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free.

That's what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people....

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through." That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

Is it possible that he really believes his statement that this legislation "runs straight down the center of American political thought"? I don't think so. I think he can see the same graphic that I did at the top of this post, and come to the same conclusion.

This is Obama's model: He believes his purpose to be as great as Lincoln's, and he has waged a total war to impose it. That he divides his nation to do it is immaterial to him.

As long as I'm calling this fight a war, perhaps it won't seem too melodramatic to quote Lincoln against Obama.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

---

Liveblogging the State of the Union Address

I wasn't sure I was going to do this, but I heard the ABC commentators claim that Nancy Pelosi was wearing purple because (paraphrasing) "it's not blue, it's not red, it's right in the center. I don't think that's an accident. I think it's symbolic." I had to laugh. Nancy Pelosi is right in the center, of course -- of the Politburo.

9:14 It's interesting that he can claim that "these are the reasons" -- the struggles of ordinary Americans -- are the reason he ran for President. He never could articulate that during the campaign.

9:18 We all hated the bank bailout. His discussion here assumes that it's better to prop up failing businesses and to prevent homes from being foreclosed upon.

Joe Biden grins like an idiot.

9:19 I love the way the banks are going to pay a "modest fee". Didn't they already pay back the bailout, with interest?

9:20 We cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Yet. I guess letting the GWB tax cuts lapse doesn't count. I guess if you don't count their efforts to force people to buy insurance as a "tax".

9:22 Economists on the right say that the ARRA worked? Please. Yes, it saved individual jobs. There are plenty of anecdotes for him to point to. Take enough opium and you'll feel great -- until you overdose.

9:24 He's calling for a new jobs bill. Wanna bet it's another stimulus package?

9:25 Outstanding. He's going to force banks to lend to small businesses. Mark my words, this will be like the Community Reinvestment Act -- it will force people to lend to minority-owned and women-owned businesses and those in depressed areas. Don't expect them to last as well as the average small business will. He didn't say it, but I'll bet you a dollar.

9:27 Create jobs through infrastructure: by which he means increase spending. Expect more government money to be spent on pet projects and pork.

9:30 He mentions education costs. If you ask me, we provide too much money in financial aid to students. Increasing the demand-side funding will increase the supply-side costs.

9:31 "China's not waiting." Does he know that China's emphasis on not waiting has caused them to expand their factories so much that they don't have enough manufacturing demand to keep them in business? Does he know how wasteful that kind of centralized planning is?

9:33 We need consumers and families to have the information needed to make financial decisions. As if they don't now? There's never been so much information as is available now. And when you demand that the government dictate how much information is provided, you're assuming that American legislators and regulators know more about the risks of various instruments than the people who invest in them do. I don't think so.

9:34 Hey! Nuclear power! I actually agree with him on something!

9:35 ...and the offshore drilling stuff, too. Of course, then he has to make tie this into a climate bill. But note what that means in practice -- the second item on this post.

9:39 The formula is simple -- reward success and not failure. Nice. Makes you wonder whether he felt the same way about the Palestinian problem, for which he now says, "It's hard. It's really hard."

9:42 Again with the subsidizing education, which will ultimately cause the cost of education to go up. And then he says that colleges and universities have to fix their part of the problem, too. But how, Mr. President, and why? What incentive do they have?

9:43 Finally mentions health insurance reform. Note they're not saying "healthcare reform" anymore. That's long dead.

9:44 IT'S SO not true that he didn't take healthcare on because it's good politics. Of COURSE he thought it was good politics. In the bubble he lives in, everyone believes it's a good idea.

9:45 Would your approach preserve the right of Americans to be left alone with respect to health insurance?

No. Didn't think so.

The CBO, by the way, crunches numbers according to the formulae that the the politicians give them. It's not like they're objective.

9:47 You won't turn your back on the Americans who are having trouble with healthcare. How about the unborn Americans? How about the elderly for whom there won't be sufficient resources?

You can't eliminate ill health. Therefore, the only thing that government-run health care will do is put bureaucrats in charge of what is considered "ill enough to treat, and not too expensive to treat." Everything else will go by the wayside.

9:51 Okay, let's hear the amount by which the federal government will tighten its belt.

Sorry, Mr. President, but a spending freeze is not tightening your belt. I'm waiting to hear about one program that will come down.

"We will not continue tax cuts." So part of his "cut" is forcing people and companies to pay more in taxes.

Oh, and we're going to tighten our belts -- um, next year.

9:55 "Do our work openly"? Is that really Barack Obama talking?

9:59 Did you notice that the President is doing a lot of calling on Congress to do stuff? It's how he can sidestep almost every issue, giving no details and making platitudes while still coming off like an "idea guy".

10:02 Saying "no" is leadership. It's opposition leadership, but it is leadership. And the Republicans haven't filibustered -- they've only threatened to do so. If the laws that the Democrats want to pass are so divisive and unpopular that the Republicans are willing to take this radical step, and that they're not sure they can get 60% of the senate to agree to call it up for a vote, then maybe we shouldn't be passing it.

10:05 Why does he insist on giving a timeframe? It's like telling your poker opponent that you're going to stop bidding at ten dollars.

All of our combat troops out of Iraq by this August. Just hang on a little longer, Al Qaeda. The Americans will leave, and you can fill the torture rooms again. (And by torture I don't mean "enhanced interrogation techniques".)

10:08 I don't get it. Why would the leader in nuclear technology cowtow to those who aren't nearly as capable as we are? It will disarm us, and won't stop Iran or North Korea.

Of Iran's leaders he says: "They, too, will face growing consequences." I believe that's the 21st-century cry of "Wolf!"

10:14 Oh, great -- more government regulation of business by forcing people to hire quotas of people in order to avoid lawsuits. Thanks, Mr. President.

10:15 Yes, we are a "nation of immigrants". But immigrants from everywhere don't simply have those values. Even legal immigration, if it's of too many people from a country that doesn't share our values -- Saudi Arabia, Kenya, perhaps, dare I say it, Mexico -- the more we dilute the American values that the President is praising.

10:16 Democracy in a country of 300 million people can be noisy and messy -- which is why I did everything I could possibly do to ram healthcare down your throat. And, he says, by the way, please ignore the voters. Don't worry about your poll numbers, do what you think is right, even if the public hates it. Mr. President, are you a populist who loves the American people and this nation of immigrants, or are you an oligarchist who knows better than the common man?

10:20 I totally agree that you don't quit, Mr. President. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

---

Who is Ellie Light? What in the world is going on here?

Instapundit.com and Hot Air broke this story about an alleged citizen concerned over Barack Obama's issues after the Massachusetts election (and after the NJ and VA elections as well). From Hot Air:

Someone appears to be doing a little Astroturfing for Obama.
In recent days, a letter defending Obama has appeared in dozens of newspapers throughout the country — all signed by an “Ellie Light.” In the letters, which all use identical language, Ms. Light explains that Obama never promised to fix all our problems quickly or painlessly.

She declares:
Today, the president is being attacked as if he’d promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did. It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

Editors all over the country found Light’s message strangely compelling. It was reprinted at The Politico; the Philadelphia Daily News; the San Francisco Examiner; the Washington Times; and a USA Today blog. In addition, the letter has appeared at literally dozens of small-town papers across the country, with names like the Los Banos Enterprise, the North Adams Transcript, and the Danbury News-Times.

What is going on here? I get that someone might make the attempt to rehabilitate the disaster that has become the Obama administration. But using the same name and same words? And how did all of these 'news' organizations ALL DECIDE to publish the same thing from the same person? From Hot Air:

With the help of my commenters, I have been keeping a running total at my blog of the places where Light’s letter has appeared. At last count, her letter has appeared in at least 47 newspapers in at least 23 different states.

What is going on indeed.

---

Barack Obama: The Teflon President...NOT

Barack Obama today blamed the GOP for the economy and anything else that would make his life difficult (from Reuters):

U.S. President Barack Obama packed an economic speech with a political punch on Tuesday, blaming Republicans for creating high deficits, mismanaging bank bailouts and obstructing efforts to reform healthcare.

I am not sure what it is about this president. He is incapable is taking any responsibility. Anything bad is someone else's fault. In the rare case when he takes responsibility he doesn't really have his heart in it. This excerpt is from a speech in March regarding the AIG bonus fiasco(AFP):

"Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the president," Obama said at a "town hall" meeting in Costa Mesa, California, where his bid to sell his economic revival policies was swamped by news coverage of the bonus fiasco for a fourth day.

"We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate -- but it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure that stuff doesn't happen like this," he added, amid outrage across the United States.

In the same sentence he takes responsibility he blames someone else. That isn't taking responsibility, it is deflecting it.

He can blame Bush because his liberal following lives for that pap. However, we remember who created the housing bubble and it wasn't Bush(just ask Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). TARP was a byproduct of his friends at Goldman Sachs just as much as Bush(he should know this, they all work in his administration now). And while we can forgive Bush for taking decisive action in the middle of a major economic crisis we may as well for the Democratic congress that authorized the "Bush" plan, isn't that right Mr Obama?

He wants to blame Bush for deficits? Sorry Mr President. President Bush was fiscally irresponsible. YOU sir, are a spending GLUTTON! Bush produced a deficit. You quadrupled it.

Grow up President Obama. And start fixing the problems that the average American thinks are important. Such as:

1. Jobs (and next time you hold a summit on jobs, talk to real job producers not your liberal donors and unions)

2. Spending (repeal the stimulus and try again without advice from Pelosi and Reid)

3. The Economy (stop sabotaging the greatest economic engine in the world. Between Cap and Trade, your new EPA regulations, threatening to tax everything that moves and 22 visits to the White House by your union "muscle", business is running scared and it is YOU that scares them)

4. Corruption (Democrat leaders promised to drain the swamp. I dare say you have found a way to pollute it!)

5. Borrowing (Stop borrowing money at the Federal level to pay States to avoid getting their fiscal house in order-you are actually prolonging the necessary steps to fix the problem. Every state that had a deficit this year before the stimulus will have one again next year only worse. And they will have to take action either with higher taxes or job cutbacks. And your policies will be credited with the "double dip recession" that is almost sure to come after the holidays when the states have to take action. Stop it!)

Then, once the economy starts to rebound and spending is under control and people are back to work...we can look at healthcare. Any maybe this time you might actually look at the problem instead of trying to socialize medicine and find jobs for your SEIU thugs.

---

A must read on Obama's Afghanistan speech..."drunkblogging"

This was so good I had to share with our readers. Last night, Pajama's Media blogger Vodkapundit "drunkblogged" the speech. Excerpts like this give you a taste of the narrative:

5:23PM Afghanistan is not another Vietnam! Well, of course it isn’t. Obama would never have sent more troops to fight communists.

5:23PM “There are those…” First of the night! Everybody drink.

5:24PM “There are those…” number two! Shoot a double, folks.

5:26PM Camera shifted to Hillary, who looks more bored than the cadets, and more disdainful than Darth Vader confronting an Imperial Janitor who left a dustbunny trailing on Vader’s cape.

Read the entire post here. It is worth the time. Hat tip Instapundit!

---

Obama: Who's in charge?

Today was an interesting day. Barack Obama left yesterday after a visit to Alaska to go to Japan (I am not sure why). Then the news broke this morning that the economy continues to melt down. Then the announcement that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 would be tried in New York. And then, the end of the line for the White House Attorney. And the replacement will be the husband of the White House Communications Director who was canned after losing a stupid battle against Fox news. What do these things have in common?

One. That they are all distractions. A series of announcements were made during the Friday news cycle when most people are not paying attention.

Two. That the President is one of the distractions.

Three. Someone other than the President is calling the shots.

We live in really strange times.

---

Obama: "Teabaggers" not FT Hood Shooter are Extremists

I couldn't help not noticing that Barack Obama couldn't bring himself to pass judgement on the Muslim extremist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. But he has no problem labelling citizens who are against his out of control spending sprees as such (from the Corner on National Review):

President Obama, in his pitch to Democrats on the Hill today (from the New York Times):

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

This man has some serious issues.

---

Corzine and Obama Billboard - Keep what going?

As I am driving to Trenton today to catch and Amtrak to DC, I notice a billboard with Barack Obama in the foreground and Jon Corzine in the background. In large bold letters the billboard reads "Keep it going". That made me start to think...what is Jon Corzine trying to tell me? To understand the billboard, you must understand how Corzine or Obama define IT.

Let's take a shot from Obama's perspective:

Keep IT Going!

- does he mean New Jersey politicians voting in lockstep with you regardless of the impact on the state?
- could he mean that he wants more Acorn volunteers working in Trenton, Newark and Camden hustling "voters"?
- maybe he means NJ should keep adding more and more citizens to the roles of public assistance as jobs are driven from the state
- how about, keep the unions in charge of the state

Or from Corzine's perspective:

Keep IT Going!

- keep New Jersey as the state with the worst business climate
- keep New Jersey as the state with the highest in the nation property taxes
- Democrats in New Jersey could keep filling up the federal corruption dockets and going to jail
- Citizens in New Jersey can keep electing politicians who do not listen to their concerns and see them as a unending piggy bank for special interests
- Jon Corzine could keep paying off cronies when investigators dig into his ethics violations
- keep leading the charge to drive productive business out of the state
- pushing more and more of our citizens to states with a more family friendly tax policy
- laughing with his Democrat buddies knowing that no matter how many Democrats are arrested and jailed for corruption, they will be more to take their place!

I guess I get it after all.

---

While Obama campaigns for Corzine: Afghanistan gets worse.

Many people are starting to question whether Barack Obama is delaying his decision on his Afghanistan strategy until after next weeks elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Whether or not you believe it is true, the lack of a decision is severely impacting the effort in Afghanistan as 8 more die today (from AP):

The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan. The previous high occurred in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential elections amid a wave of Taliban insurgent attacks.

President Obama is due in New Jersey on Saturday to campaign for Corzine having been here just last week. I would suggest that the President would be better served if he sat down and stayed in the Oval office and made a decision on this topic rather than run around campaigning. One of his advisers needs to tell him the role of the executive requires him to actually make decisions. Senators debate and discuss. Presidents decide.

If we no longer are committed to the mission, so be it. Remove the soldiers now. If not, so be it. Announce your strategy and start executing it now. The vacuum is helping no one. I am starting to worry that Hillary's famous campaign advertisement about the phone call in the middle of the night was off the mark. It wasn't a question of who was going to answer the phone. It was whether the President would answer it at all.

---

Burlington County Embarassment - Education Indoctrination

By now everyone has seen and heard the Burlington County, New Jersey school children being indoctrinated to worship Barack Obama. My biggest issue is that I live in Burlington county and my tax dollars helped pay for this teacher to "teach" these children in this way. In addition, the school district allowed an outsider to film the students and then post the video on Youtube.

The controversy continues as more facts come to light but most disturbing is that the leaders of the school initially acted like nothing was wrong. In addition, the letter home from school district officials doesn't exactly suggest that they get it (from Foxnews):

The performance and the videotaping at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., have sparked a review by school officials, according to a letter to parents from Christopher Manno, Burlington Township's superintendent of schools.

"We are carefully evaluating what occurred and will implement any additional needed procedures to prevent children's images in school from being publicly posted without permission," Manno wrote on Friday. "We will also provide reasonable direction and guidelines so that classroom activities will not give the appearance of promoting a particular political perspective."

A lot of people are expressing the opinion "what's the big deal?" or "it's completely innocent!" and that may be true. But given that this song is originally an religious song about Jesus, what would those same people's reaction be if the teacher had the children sing these original lyrics in the assembly:

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white
They're all precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

Would THAT be indoctrination?

---

Irresistible Gorrell Cartoon

---

Healthcare: Alternative ideas but the White House and Democrats aren't listening!

Whenever you read in the paper that Republicans are obstructionists and the people are just complaining at town hall events, there is a common thread in the story. And it is that no one is offerring alternative ideas to the load of garbage being put forward by House Democrats and the White House. The sad thing is that there are a lot of ideas suggested to fix both the cost and the coverage aspects of healthcare that our current crop of politicians absolutely refuse to comprehend.

And all while Obama insists on demonizing insurers. The unfortunate thing is that the industry is far from healthy and is hurting in a major way. In my business, we work with all kinds of organizations and the insurance companies have been shedding employees for the past 5 years. They are not making massive profits. As a matter of fact, if you graph Barack Obama's and Chris Dodd's last eight years revenue against individual companies in the insurance industry, you will find that both Obama and Dodd fared far better in terms of growing their revennue base. The insurance industry in fact makes less than 1 penny for every dollar in premium received (Forrester research).

We have the Obama and Democrat narrative:

- Insurance companies are evil and healthcare unions are good
- Companies that provide insurance are bad and government providing insurance is good
- Competition is bad when private companies do it, good when the government fixes it
- People that speak at town halls are astroturf while union thugs beating them up are good
- Anyone questioning Democrats is fake while paid protestors are good
- Old people are bad but illegal immigrants are good
- Doctors are bad but Tort lawyers are good

It's no wonder people are fed up.

Here are some ideas that will never find their way into the debate despited being offerred up by Republicans, the insurance industry and free market advocates:

Controlling cost and adding flexibility

1. Insurance Portability. Make it a requirement that all insurance it portable. If every firm needs to accept the rule, it will be so. The insurance industry has already agreed to do this early into the debate.
2. Tort Reform. I know I know. The Democrats need to protect poor Dicky Scruggs so that he can own ten airplanes while filing bs lawsuits against doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical firms. But you cannot control costs without addressing frivilous lawsuits.
3. Drop interstate limitations on competition for insurance. Right now we have 50 different states plus the Federal government regulating insurance and blocking competition. Remove these barriers and then maybe Joe Smith in New York will stop paying 5 times what Jim Smith in Tennessee is paying.
4. Have a discussion about moving the responsibility for insurance from the employer to the employee. And help provide a transition from the business entity which will gain long term in cost control to the employee. Then the employee will be free to take advantage of the increased competition to buy the kind of coverage that will be optimal for their family.
5. Health savings accounts. Cash is king even in the healthcare marketplace. Remove the requirement to submit claims for insurance completely and the doctor can perform certain care much more efficiently and cost effectively.
6. Eliminate government based care and hospital mandates so that the private sector can stop underwriting goverment programs and citizens are not paying twice for the same thing. For example, we all pay for medicare at both the state and federal level. Then the goverment only pays the hospital 5 dollars for a 20 dollar procedure. Who pays the rest? We do through private insurance as we will get charged 35 dollars to make up for it. This is goverment competition and is contributing to our current damaged system. Obama and Democrats just don't talk about it.
7. A national fraud database to track both doctors patients who abuse the system and real penalties when they are caught.

Once costs are brought under control, we can have the discussion about insuring the 12 million people who legitimately may need assistance. Not the illegal aliens. Not people who can afford insurance but choose to keep their money in their pocket. And not the fictitious people who cannot get insurance until you really investigate their story and find out they really do have coverage.

All of these things would add to the debate but you will never hear them proposed. Why? Because they don't add power to the unions and Democrats in congress.

---

Healthcare Bill - Why are people so angry?

Many on the left trully do not understand why people are so angry about the healthcare legislation. And because they do not understand, they assume that the protestors are ginned up by insurance company and lobbyists. The sad thing is that their lack of understanding contributes to their ignorance and in a spiral to anger generated by their comments.

Reason 1. The holier than thou claim that they are the only ones who want to fix healthcare.

Perhaps the problem with this reasoning is that not everyone is trying to fix the same thing. Most people are happy with the current healthcare ranging from 54-80 percent agreeing depennding on the poll. The rub for many is the rising cost as a percentage of personal expenses that health insurance consumes (even if your company pays for most of it). To fix this problem you need to have a serious discussion of the subsidization of government Medicare and Medicaide patients by private health insurance patients. You also need to discuss torts and their impact on Doctor behavior, insurance company allocation and Pharmaceutical firm pricing policies. You also should add to the mix the growing number of illegals being treated for free at emergency rooms around the country.

But very little of the items above have been discussed. In addition, Barack Obama wants to fix the "50 million uninsured". We will discuss that below. Nancy Pelosi wants to penalize health insurance companies. If you cannot agree on the nature of the problem, you cannot take corrective action.

Reason 2. No one believes the 50 Million Uninsured number.

And the President keeps repeating it as fact. Lets take some facts from the Business Media Institute study on this number:

Myth: There are between 40 million and 50 million uninsured Americans. President Obama referred to “46 million uninsured Americans” in May 2009.

Fact: Anyone who reports that there are more than 46 million uninsured is exaggerating since the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured at 45,657,000 people.

Fact: Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” That makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million is wrong.

Myth: The 40 million to 50 million uninsured cannot afford health insurance.

Fact: More than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year (the median household income of $50,233) – 8.4 million make $50,000 to $74,999 per year and 9.1 million make $75,000 or higher. Two economists working at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that 25 to 75 percent of those who do not purchase health insurance coverage “could afford to do so.”

Myth: The 40 million to 50 million uninsured do not get health care.

Fact: The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that uninsured people get about $1,500 of free health care per year, or $6,000 per family of four.

Fact: An Urban Institute study found that 25 percent of the uninsured already qualify for government health insurance programs.

Myth: People will remain uninsured without government assistance.

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office says that 45 percent of the uninsured will be insured within four months. CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin also said that the frequent claim of 40+ million Americans lacking insurance is an “incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the uninsured population.”

Fact: Liberal non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation put the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million. (The 8.2 million figure includes only those uninsured for two years or more.)

Fact: CBO analysis found that 36 million people would remain uninsured even if the Senate’s $1.6 trillion health care plan is passed.

Reason 3. Democrats desire to ram the legislation through congress.

We have commented here many times on the "rush to bad legislation" technique perfected by this congress. Haste makes waste and this Congress and President are experts at waste. And the citizens have caught on. The know their legislators are not reading the legislation and are wondering why. They are also wondering who is really writing the legislation and suspect that there is far more influence coming from lobbyists than from many representatives. They KNOW that they do not have a seat at the negotiating table yet George Soros does and they don't like it.

Reason 4. You reap what you sow.

Democrats have long espoused that dissent is important to the democracy and they are correct. But once normal people start dissenting, all of a sudden they don't like it. For years they have dispatched unions, Code Pink, Al Sharpton, Jessie "extortion" Jackson and a variety of other organnized protestors to events to put pressure on various entuities and lawmakers. Regular people have woken up and after 7 years of watching these organnized groups protest George Bush, they have decided not to stand up for themselves.

Reason 5. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have disdain for the citizens of this country.

We all know when we are being talked down to and mocked. Barack Obama tries to demonized those who do not agree lockstep with everything he espouses. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared in the USA Today that the protestors are fake and un-American. Here is a statistic for you. Since I work in New York City, I know a lot of people who are very left of center. I also have numerous conservative friends. I do not know one single person who has attended a peace demonstration during the Bush years. And I know at least 10 who have attended tea parties or town halls on healthcare. And they didn't get bussed in-the drove their SUV's.

Astroturf. I don't think so. All of this is pissing people off. Assuming the Democrats continue on their current course, it will get worse long before it gets better.

---

Want universal healthcare? Everyone shoulld pay.

The debate around universal healthcare has been too slanted for too long. The current debate purports to position a new benefit to every American (FREE HEALTHCARE) allegedly paid for by "THE RICH GUY". Despite the fact that it would be impossible to tax the rich guy enough to pull that whopper off, the Democrats are pushing that line because they think they can bring along all of those voters who believe that there is such a thing as a free ride.

The real debate around this topic should be as follows:

1. Do we all want universal healthcare?
2. Should it or can it be managed by the government?
3. What track record does the government or ANY government have in effectively and efficiently managing healthcare for its citizens?
4. Would this healthcare plan be so appealing that the congressman who are sponsoring it will drop their current gold plated system and move to this new one?
5. ARE YOU PERSONALLY WILLING TO PAY OUT OF YOUR POCKET TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL?

I guarantee you, if the average person following this debate answered those questions honestly to themselves, the current approach being pushed by the Democrats would go nowhere. You see, this entire debate is about using a group of people who see a "FREEBIE" and want to take advantage. Some of these people are consumers. And some are business owners that believe that they may be able to drop the coverage the currently pay for and dump their employees into a government plan. Either way, each one want something for nothing. And as my father told me a long time ago, there is no such thing as a free ride.

---

A Leadership idea for Obama - Fix the Current Stimulus!

Scott Rasmussen released numbers today that showed for the first time people who strongly disapprove of Obama over strongly approve at an 8 percent (negative) advantage. For some time Obama has been happy to take advantage of bad times to ram legislation through in the hope that the economy would improve on its own and his "revolutionary" changes would transform American into his brave new ideal. But the facts on the ground are working against him and his stimulus (while never read by a single congressman) has proven to be completely un-stimulating.

So, instead of a second stimulus, he would be far better off rebuilding the current stimulus. Here is how he could pull it off:

1. Rescind every spending item outside the next 12 months.
2. Re-evaluate all of the stimulus proposals ignore in round one and convene a bipartisan "executive panel" to do it-not party hacks on either side. Folks like Warren Buffet could really add value here.
3. Submit a set of proposals that could be discussed and evaluated with proper review in the congress.
4. Engage in constructive debate (not "I won" but "I want to fix it")
5. Create a bill that the country has confidence in and both parties could rally around.

While this would not be popular with either the hard left of the hard right, it would be VERY popular with an electorate that it turning strongly against the President. And it would also allow him to actually have the confidence of the people when presenting his ideas for health care and other programs which will not only have bipartisan support but likely no support outside of hard core liberals and toadies. And it would seperate him from his Democratic party approval boat anchors Pelosi and Reid (about 70 percent of the country would agree that these two deserve a place under the front wheel of the bus).

Just an idea. He won't do it. But if he was really the transformational LEADER he claims to be, he would.

---

House Democrats want higher taxes for healthcare. Big shocker.

The word is that House Democrats will be proposing higher taxes on "high" wage earners to pay for their healthcare proposals. From Bloomberg:

Two people familiar with closed-door talks by committee Democrats said a House bill probably will include a surtax on incomes exceeding $250,000, as Congress seeks ways to pay for changes to a health-care system that accounts for almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy. By targeting wealthier Americans, a surtax may hold more appeal for House Democrats than a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits.

“The surtax is obviously more attractive to Democrats in the House because it’s more progressive, which they find attractive in and of itself,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on policies affecting low- and moderate-income families.

The real joke here is that Democrats and President Obama keep proposing taxes on the "rich guy". And for every one of these proposals, the "righ guy" keeps changing. I am willing to guarantee that this will eventually translate into a tax across the board for all productive members of society.

But the bigger problem is that Democrats said they were going to pay for the stimulus by taxing "rich people". Then they were going to pay for their irresponsible budget by taxing "rich people". Then they were targeting "rich people" for the carbon tax. It seems to me that they have used this tactic to "pay for" every spending increase they have proposed.

Time to wake up America. We cannot afford another House spending proposal.

---

Health Care Reform - Mass vs Ga

I saw this today at The Corner on National Review Online. It's a must see.

---

Palin resigns. What a shame.

Sarah Palin resigned today which is not news to many who follow this blog. What is sad in a way here is that she has become a target of a pathetic political class that includes both Democrats and Republicans. Whether or not you like her (and in the sense of full disclosure I do respect this woman for what she has done), she has handled herself quite well despite some of the most vicious attacks any politician has faced.

I don't blame her for bowing out as she has become a lightning rod for every liberal wacko who has a grudge and standing with a court in Alaska. I am sure Geoge Soros is laughing tonight thinking that he has eliminated another potential candidate against Obama next time around. Maybe if George Soros moves back to the United States, our citizens should take him more seriously but we are stuck with his influence whether we like it or not.

I often wonder if Barack Obama faced a similar level of scrutiny, we would not be referring to President Hillary Clinton. Just wondering.

---

Cap n Trade Jobs Bill - 2,600 up 467,000 down

After Republicans went on the record calling the Pelosi/Waxman Cap and Trade Bill an energy tax, the Democrats went on every television show they could declaring the energy bill a "JOBS BILL". And they, including President Obama touted the big job gains in this bill(from Whitehouse.gov):

Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill. We’re already seeing why this is true in the clean energy investments we’re making through the Recovery Act. In California, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 permanent jobs. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people.

Today, unemployment numbers were announced and another 467,000 Americans lost their jobs this month. Maybe the President should stop trying to re-invent our country and concentrate on helping hard working Americans who want to work. Every move this White House makes seems to want to support those who "through no fault of their own" find themselve hurting instead of helping those hard working people who want to work and want to earn be successful.

I guarantee you that I have never worked as hard as the average PA coal miner. And I never will. And neither will you Mr President.

---

Presidential Shame

What does it say about a United States President who stands idly by while Persian woman and children are beaten by government thugs in the streets of Tehran...fearful that he may be seen as meddling in the messy business of oppression?

And that same President racing to the support of a dictator in waiting who actively attempted to circumvent his country's constitution, got caught and through properly authorized legal channels, was removed from Honduras.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Yet I see too much emphathy between our President and dictators. And not enough emphathy for freedom and democracy. Just saying.

---

2nd Stimulus? Let's repeal the first one!

President Obama told a press conference today that a second stimulus wasn't needed yet because the results of the first were not clear. I beg to differ. The promise was that the rushed stimulus was needed to avoid job losses reaching percent. Congress passsed the stimulus and we blew past that mark heading toward 10%.

Maybe this country needs the debate we didn't have with the first stiumulus. Step 1, repeal the first stimulus. Step 2, discuss what if anythign REALLY needs to be done to stimulate the economy. Step 3, pass the legislation that should have been passed the first time but couldn't get past the congressional porkfest. And the beauty of this orginal stimulus is that since it was never intended to stimulate anything, most of the spending is back loaded. There is still time to correct this if the people would make more noise about it.

---

Responsibility: Obama and Corzine

President Obama makes a habit of blaming everyone in the past(Bush, Clinton, Reagan) every time he wants to ram through some massive spending plan. For example, Bush was at fault because he ran a deficit. However, Obama's projected deficit over the next 10 years based on the budget he passed, the stimulus he rammed through and the spending he is proposing will be more than the deficits of EVERY President before him added together. Now the President is losing sleep over it:

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that worrying about US finances "keeps me awake at night" but defended increasing government spending to prevent the recession from worsening.

Fast forward to Jon Corzine. He refuses to take any responsibility for the explosion in new taxes and spending on his watch, the increase in the state employee roles while private sector jobs collaps and his crowning glory, New Jersey's highest tax burden of any state. Click here to see the numbers.

Corzine says he is dealing with what has occurred. Noone told him to spend like he has the past several years. Noone told him to borrow long term to pay today's operational shortfalls. The voters told him they didn't want state funded Stem Cell research but he tried to do it anyway. And is was Corzine that said the he "didn't take this job to be scrooge".

It's time for Jon Corzine to go. And if the next guy is scrooge, so be it. This state needs a penny pincher because we haven't had one in some time.





/a>

---

GOP: Governor Deficit's (aka Jon Corzine) Budget

PolitickerNJ.com ran an article based on the GOP criticism of Jon Corzine's budget scheduled to be debated this week. The article listed Corzine's ill conceived "time bomb", or bad decisions for today that we will pay for horribly tomorrow:

The Corzine Pension Deficit -- Governor Corzine's budgets have underfunded the pensions off teachers, police officers, and other government employees. The total during his administration, including for fiscal 2010: More than $7.5 billion. This includes $6.5 billion in unpaid state contributions, and incredibly irresponsible legislation this year that allows municipalities to defer more than $1 billion in payments to the funds.

The Corzine Federal Aid Deficit – Governor Corzine has relied on $2.2 billion in one-time federal stimulus aid to create the illusion he is cutting that much in spending. He didn't cut this spending. He merely used federal aid to pay state bills. Next year, that federal money will not be available. The governor hasn't provided an answer on how he will fill this $2.2 billion addition to next year's deficit.

The Corzine 'Temporary' Tax Deficit – The governor is relying on more than $1 billion in tax increases this year that he is labeling "temporary." He is raising the income tax and eliminating the deductibility of property taxes for many middle class residents. Again, the governor hasn't told legislators what he plans, if anything, to eliminate this $1 billion hole next year.

The Corzine Property Tax Rebate Deficit -- More than 1.7 million New Jersey homeowners who got rebates in the past will not get them. The governor says the cancellation of rebates is temporary. He doesn't say where he will find the $1 billion needed to restore them.

The Corzine Unemployment Fund Deficit – Governor Corzine will borrow $1.6 billion from the federal government because of past raids on the unemployment benefit fund. He has no announced plan for how he will pay this loan back.

The Corzine Debt Service Deficit – The governor will skip $450 million of payments on bonds next year. He hasn't said one word on how much extra this will cost taxpayers over the long haul, or where he intends to find the money to pay for the borrowing in the future.

The Corzine Biden Buyoff Deficit – The governor has promised a 7 percent pay increase to state workers, half that will come 12 months from now and the other half in 18 months. This will cost the state $350 million. Again, the Governor has committed to a plan that will cost taxpayers for decades without finding a way to pay for the expense.

The sad thing about the Governor's budget is that while he is getting creative in kicking the can down the road, he once again does not make a single difficult decision. He has not cut people, he has not cut patronage, he has not cut back over generous services that the state can no longer afford and he has not decreased any part of the budget in a meaningful way. This is the same cowardice he has shown during every budget cycle.

President Obama keep harping on the failure of the financial industry which has hurt every segment of our economy. Jon Corzine was one of the people who became rich during that time and we now see that his enrichment was not based on competence. I wonder when we will hear President Obama criticize Corzine and his destructive greed and incompetence?

Crickets chirping....

---

White House mad at British press - because they can't control them!

Drudge linked today to a report from Politico that described Press Secretary Gibbs attacking the British press:

“I want to speak generally about some reports I’ve witnessed over the past few years in the British media. And in some ways, I’m surprised it filtered down,” Gibbs began. “Let’s just say if I wanted to look up – if I wanted to read a writeup today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champion’s League cup, I might open up a British newspaper. If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be in the first pack of clips I’d pick up.”

“You're not going to find very many of these newspapers and truth within 25 words of each other,” Gibbs continued.

I suspect he was talking about the fact that the British papers in some cases chose not to print stories that were either too inflammatory (prisoner abuse photos) or were not sufficiently loose toward the release of information that might endanger secret government programs aimed at keeping US and British citizens safer. The real joke in this story is that it is pretty clear to me where his real issue resides.

He doesn't like that the British press will not accept the Obama White House narrative without question. That is his version of "truth". It's also why I read a lot more of the British press the the US press anymore. When US journalists talk about the tingling up their leg when Obama talks, it is really hard to take the seriously at all.

So keep at it British press!

Read the Politico story here.

---

Sotomayor's real downside

I know that many blogs on the right are buzzing with anti-Sotomayor rhetoric and that is fine. The left blogs did the same thing for every Bush nominee and it is to be expected to a certain extent. I have read quite a bit both about the nominee, said nominee's colleagues, her resume and lawyers that have appeared in front of her.

Oh yes, I have also heard the speech at Berkeley and her borderline racist commentary. They will provide plenty of fodder for her to be questioned when she goes through her confirmation hearings. As a matter of fact, they provide plenty of opportunity to have thoughtful questioning of the nominee.

What bothers me about Sotomayor is the repeated suggestion that she 'isn't that smart'. That is not a good trait in a justice of the supreme court. This country survives because of the relationship between the Executive (job needs competence), Legislative(founders built balance into a system that could potentially breed over politicized incompetence - see Pelosi) and the Judicial (requires the maximum competence) branches of government functioning together.

What is the evidence? My first clue is in her 3 out of 6 success rate when her appellate cases were reviewed by the court. Worse, she is likely to also lose the New Haven case which is so clearly unconstitutional. So she could literally be confirmed in time to bring the ultimate jurisprudence losing record to the supreme court.

And that scares me.

---

Maersk Captain Saved by Navy Seals

From the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Navy Seal sharpshooters brought a five-day hostage standoff to an abrupt end Sunday with a hail of bullets that killed three pirates holding the captain of an American-flagged cargo ship.

The Navy acted after concluding Capt. Richard Phillips was in "imminent danger," said Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of naval forces in the Middle East.

I haven't lately had reason to write positively about our President but I will today. President Obama handled this exactly as it should have been handled and gave the commanders on the ground the correct latitude to do their jobs. And they did it in true United States Navy form.

Good job Mr President. And congratulations to a job well done to the Navy. We send our best wishes with pride and respect as always.

---

Obama - The Earmark King!

During the campaign last year, candidate Obama insisted that the would not sign earmark loaded legislation if it came across his desk. He promised hope. And he promised change. From the AP:

President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, but he is cracking down on lawmakers' penchant for stuffing such legislation with billions of dollars in pet projects.

Apparently, the 8,600 earmarks(Taxpayers for Common Sense) in the budget bill are not really earmarks. Just as the trillion dollars of pork in the stimulus was not earmarks either. But wait, the Obama team has a new spin(from Yahoo):

Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."

Let's examine this. Allegedly, voters picked change. The only change in this budget is that former President Bush would not sign it. So the Democrat congress held it over until President Obama took office. And he signed. Earmarks and all.

Change you can believe in.

---

WSJ: Obama and the Economy

The Wall Street Journal had an excellent opinion piece in regard to the President and his advisors and their economic policies. One of the most telling items was in the subtitle:

As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.

This was no partisan screed. It was documentation of the impact that Obama's policies are rapidly having on the only economic indicator that can react to events close to when they occur.

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

While it is clear that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid along with the Obama Administration have incited absolute class warfare. The problem is that they are doing it by scaring away the people they will need to fuel the programs they insist are so important. And what's worse is that they are hiding behind the economic situation to push their agenda through hoping that no one is noticing. But the market is clearly paying attention.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

Read the entire article here.

---

Tax Tea Party Movement Growing!

(photo from Instapundit)

I have avoided writing on this as many other bloggers have been taking the ball on organizing that advertising Tax Tea Parties all over the countrty. There have been significant events in Kansas, Denver, Seattle, Chicago and DC in the past two weeks. It has been enjoyable to watch but it really seems to be building.

From Michelle Malkin:

Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.

David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has a nice piece out today spotlighting the growing taxpayer revolt the rest of the MSM won’t cover. He interviewed our registered commenters Liberty Belle Keli Carender, who spearheaded the Seattle anti-pork protest, and HuskerGirl Amanda Grosserode, who organized today’s anti-stimulus demonstration against Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, KS.

Read the entire post by Michelle here. If this thought has crossed your mind, you will not be disappointed following these links. I would also recommend Instapundit's coverage of some of these events including some awesome pics!

---

Hope and Change - Trenton style

So here I am this morning walking into the newly renamed Trenton Transit Center to catch a train to New york. Standing outside speaking very loudly about Obama's speech were two maintenance employees for the station smoking cigarettes. Here's what I heard:

State employee 1: Do you hear what I am saying? All these people going to school and all these technology jobs. Doesn't mean anything anymore...

State employee 2: I know what you are saying.

State employee 1: It's a waste. Did you hear it? Going to college is a waste. there is no point to it.

State employee 2: I heard it. The government is going to take care of everything.

Clearly this conversation is not representative of what Barack Obama said last night. But I think it is very instructive of the continuation of the "I will hear what I want to hear" that may in the end by Obama's biggest achilles heel. Since none of the national discourse is being matched to the reality of what is happening (for example the stimulus that was anything but stimulative to the economy), people are left to fill in the blanks. And they are. And one day soon, reality will set in along with a healthy dose is disappointment.

---

When will Obama stop bad mouthing the economy?

It was just a week ago that Barack Obama stood up and told the country that unless the economic stimulus package was passed last Friday, doom and gloom would occur. He proceeded to set up an environment where it was physically impossible to read the entire disasterous pork bill. Well, the bill passed and Barack Obama signed it....4 days later. And the economy tanked again.

I am starting to wonder at what point Obama will be forced to stop his strategy of declaring everything a disaster so he can continue to push through policies in this country that would NEVER be passed when examine in the light of day. We now finish the week much worse than when we started it. And Obama wants another 1 trillion for banks and also wants to bail out people who cannot afford their mortgages.

The media love to compare this president to Lincoln, Roosevelt and JFK. Why is that I keep thinking that he is more of Millard Filmore than not.

---

Earmarks vs Porkulus

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats keep touting a canard that this wonderful stimulus bill they are ramming through is "completely free of earmarks". Let's examine that statement. The definition of an Earmark is as follows (from Wikipedia):

In US politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

So if we parse the words, to be an earmark it should:

a. the direction of funds in a bill
b. be inserted by a senator or member of congress
c. to benefit their states or districts financially

I have reviewed the drafts of pieces of this legislation and the summaries. I would estimate that more than half of this entire bill is an earmark. Just because the spending size is so large that multiple senators and members of congress are taking home the loot, doesn't negate it fact that it is for an earmark.

Some favorites rumored to be in the final legislation:

- LA to Vegas train (Reid)
- $30 million dollars in wetlands preservation for San Fran (Pelosi)
- $200 million dollar power plan in IL (Obama)
- Major funds for building govt building projects in Maryland, Virginia and Georgia
- 80 billion for outright payments for state who have through their out of control spending are in financial trouble (see California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey)
- 6.5 billion for National Institute of Health as a buyout for Republic Arlen Specter


If it looks like an earmark, costs like an earmark, is hidden into legislation like and earmark with no attribution....it's an earmark.

---

Who's the dope now? Obama and Biden

We just spent 8 years listening to the mainstream media about the stupidity of George W. Bush. There is no doubt that W could really mangle a participle. But the real comparison is whether or not the team surrounding the President have their act together. And while W did an ok job early on, Barack is failing miserably.

. Before he even starts, several key Democrats have scandal problems
- Barney Frank on fannie something
- Chris Dodd on Countrywide
- Charlie Rangel can't pay his taxes
- Pelosi's husband on conflict of interest
- Harry Reid's land deal
- No lobbyists in the admin until there are
And then, we have nominees who are completely unsuited
- Geithner(Treasury) - taxes
- Daschle(HHS) - taxes
- Clinton(State) - Influence
- Panetta(CIAE) - Banking fees
- Steven Chu(Energy) - The sky is falling, run for your lives
- Joe Biden(VP) - taxes are patriotic except for Democrat nominees

And then there is Barack Obama who thinks we should ram the most pork laden non-stimulus bill spending more than the Department of Defense in wartime and no-one seems to be paying attention?

This is like the circus. With no disrespect to the real ones, Ringling or Big Apple. They are even amateurs at that. Is our new President paying attention?

---

Treasure nominee Geithner - Not fit to run the IRS

There has not been enough in the media in regard to Timothy Geithner's nomination to head the US Treasury. His nomination made it through the Senate yesterday and will be voted on by the full senate on Monday. The disturbing thing is that this man is clearly not fit to be responsible for the IRS. Why?

According to Senate documents, Geithner made several mistakes on his taxes. The first are typical for our elected and appointed political classes-domestic help issues. Geithner neither checked the immigration status of employees as required by law nor do he properly pay taxes on said employees.

The worse transgression was in regard to his employment for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As a rule, employees of that organization do not have self employement taxes taken out of their checks. United States employees are required to pay self employment taxes on what they earn from the organization and the IMF through multiple means notifies them of that fact. Apparently, this elite financial guru forgot to pay his taxes.

But that isn't all to this story. He was caught by the IRS on the self employment tax issue and had to amend his return and pay the taxes he owed. So he was CLEARLY informed that he incorrectly(fraudulently?) filed a tax return those years by NOT DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME. If we assume it was an honest mistake, why is it he then did not correct the EXACT SAME MISTAKE for years 2001 and 2002. The first mistake may have been okay (that is debateable), the second one is clearly TAX FRAUD.

Please refer to this document from the United States SenateFinance committee and read it through.

The net is this is that in a civilized society:

. You do not allow felons to be police officers
. You do not allow arsonists to be fireman
. You do not allow child molesters to teach in k-12 schools
. You do not tax cheats to be in charge of the taxing autority

It can happen but it shouldn't.

---

Saxby Wins! And a Franken prediction...

Fox News has projected that Saxby Chambliss will win the Senate runoff in Georgia handily. That to me seemed like an obvious conclusion to this story. Why? Because the media was not drooling like mad dogs in Atlanta predicting the end of Republicans in Georgia. The facts on the ground never supported this liberal invasion and Georgia was no different.

And give the President-elect some credit. His apparently very qualified team knew this was a no-win and didn't bother to make a big push for a candidate that wasn't going to win no matter what they did. And the photo op with the rappers was a loser as well.

And the big loser? Al Franken. Coleman has won fair and square in Minnesota. The General election showed him as a winner. The recount has shown him as a winner. But Senate majority leader Harry Reid suggested that they may intervene? Not a change. Minnesota is decided and unless Reid wants to find himself in a maelstrom of negative protests for no benefit to himself, he will back off. Why you ask? Because President-elect Obama will tell him so.

You heard it here first.

---

Mr Obama - For our country, please don't choose Corzine

President-elect Obama used our governor at the latter stages of this campaign on the economic issue. We can all debate that as a wise strategy but now that he has won, it probably has no significance. But Barack Obama needs to understand what New Jersey residents both Democrat and Republican already know. Jon Corzine is a complete lightweight. He came into this state with a lot of promise due to his economic experience. And all we got was "I don't want to be Scrooge".

It highlighted his cowardice and lack of vision in a big way. We are stuck with him. Our country is not. President-elect Obama, while my instinct is to play Corzine up as a winner to get him out of New Jersey, my concern for the country in this difficult time is far more important. We need a heavy hitter. And Corzine is so much balsawood.

---

Congratulations President-elect Obama

Sorry for the late post but I have been travelling for work. Last night I spent the election in Arlington, Virginia watching the results at a local watering hole. The interesting thing is that the place we selected was clearly biased one way (here is a hint-all tv's were on MSNBC). But it was pretty upbeat and not negative in any way. After we headed back to the hotel to have a cigar outside, we knew the night was over for McCain when we heard Taps being played, likely from Arlington National Cemetary although I couldn't be sure (but I am sure it was Taps).

And the funny thing is that even though I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I wasn't completely devastated. Last night was history and I have to give Obama credit for an almost flawless campaign and he is now our President. And I will respect him as the keeper of that office. Congratulations to him and to our country for a great fight!

Also, I think that conservatives should now show Democrats how one should act in defeat. I am old enough to recognize that there are ebbs and flows. But do you notice that noone on the Republican side threatened to leave the country, noone has expressed Obama derangement syndrome. We all watched the night, were sad to see our guy not make it and move on. Well done all.

---

Democrats Police State Spying on Citizens

We have spent the past 7 years listening to Democrats constantly squeal that the Bush administration has destroyed the rights of innocent citizens through the application of sensible anti-terrorism surveillance tactics. The New York Times even went to far as to publish the result of illegal leaks regarding an effective electronic program the result of which was to cause the program to be shut down. And one interesting fact of all of this is that none of these stories ever have a victim. Even when one is manufactured and they go to the courts, the courts throw them out as having no standing (ie they haven't been harmed).

But now, we have a clear case of the government invading an individual's privacy in an effort to cause them harm. From the Columbus Dispatch:

Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.

Niekamp didn't know she just had checked on "Joe the Plumber," who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain's example in a debate of an average American.

The senior manager would not learn about "Joe" for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.

The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

I have been following this story for a while. The manager responsible for this records search has contributed the maximum to Obama's campaign. The governor of the state of Ohio has already investigated and said nothing was done wrong based on what this woman said:

Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are "thrust into the public spotlight," amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.

Interesting policy. So, if the Bush administration saw and Arab man on television, it would be okay to investigate him because he was holding a sign at a pro-Obama event? Does anyone believe that Obama supporter would consider that Okay? They wouldn't. But in any case, that story is an outright fabrication. Because this is what the employee who was directed to do this search said:

Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. "I've never done that before, I don't know of anybody in my office who does that and I don't remember anyone ever doing that," she said today.

This is a criminal violation of privacy directed by senior officials in the Democratic party against a citizen who asked Barack Obama a question that exposed his real views on redistribution of wealth. A question that not one reporter has ever had the guts to ask Obama. And in return, they illegally directed subordinates to use government records to attempt to destroy someone they determined was a political enemy. THAT is the definition of destruction of the protection of civil liberties. THAT is an outline of just exactly how a party in power could destroy the underlying fabric of our country. And THAT is just okay with Democrats.

Read the entire article here.

---

No seats on the plane, or in Obama's Amerika

It appears that the Obama campaign decided to do some housecleaning and has thrown people who do not agree with them off the plane. From Politico:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirms Drudge's report that two right-leaning papers, the Washington Times and the New York Post, have lost their seats on the Obama plane, along with the Dallas Morning News.

"We're trying to reach as many swing voters that we can and unfortunately had to make some tough choices. but we are accommodating these folks in every way possible," he said.

The Post and the Morning News are both read primarily in states that aren't in play, but the Washington Times is read in Northern Virginia.

The Obama campaign is frankly a bit dopey on this. Tossing the Washington Times aside is just bad politics. If they needed room, they would have been better served by dropping the two non-competitive states and adding a reporter from one of their non-competitive states media. They come across as both petty and vindictive which leads to me next point.

It is becomming more and more apparent that many of us do not have a place in Obama's version of America. At least not an active place. Obama has appeared to me to moving toward the policy of the chief parasite. Those who pay taxes need more taken out while those who don't should receive justice by getting other's money. That's the Obama world that I keep envisioning - and it is from THEIR words, not the McCain campaign.

But hey, just don't complain. Who knows where Obama will send you. Joe the Plumber found out all about that.

---

The Economist's "Global Electoral College"

Okay, this isn't about taxes. Bear with me -- we've only got a week until the election, and I'm on pins and needles.

The Economist's "Global Electoral College" is a funny little application that shows what the Economist's readers think about the Obama - McCain race.

Here's something interesting to note: Almost all of the countries in the world are deep, deep blue (pro-Obama), including the US (by 81% to 19%, which is clearly a stronger divide than actually exists in the US itself). But one country that is Leaning McCain? Iraq: 59% McCain, 41% Obama.

Here's a publication whose readership leans hard left throughout the entire world, and a majority of its Iraqi readers prefer McCain.

---

Is this a CNN reporter lecturing a McCain supporter with OBama talking points?

Huh?

---

Biden Unplugged! Any questions?

">

---

Obama Donor Fraud follow-up from The Corner

From The Corner on National Review blog site:


Not To Beat a Dead Horse [Jonah Goldberg]


But an e-friend sends this:

So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the "Donate" button.

I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).

Used the following information and it was accepted...

First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
City: Fraudulent
State: AL
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address: allmyinfoismadeup@mediabias.com
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank

And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!

I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard). There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: "Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data", and then: "We have found errors in the information that you have submitted. Please review the information below and try again."

I have screen shots and printouts of all of this as well.

Please tell me what I can do with this information? Is this a violation of FEC law by the Obama Campaign? How do we publicize this???

Thanks for all you do.

Best,


10/23 03:04 PM

---

Powerline breaks major election fraud story!

Because there is no such thing as investigative journalism by media giants like the New York Time in regard to Barack Obama, Powerline once again broke a story about contribution fraud at Obama's web site:

More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:

Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign -- well over the contribution limit of $2,300.

The answer she gave them was simple. "That's an error."

Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions?

It it indeed? Apparently, Powerline readers have been testing the site and have found a criminal lack of basic fraud checking at the Obama donation web site. Interestingly, the McCain has verification clearly in place.

Read the article here. The fact that the fraud is occurring is bad enough. The fact that no media organization will report on it is chilling. If this were John McCain, it would be front page news.

---

Democrats don't understand "Joe the Plumber"

This has been an interesting week. One of the reasons we have spent so much time on the Presidential campaign is that it is VERY MUCH about taxes and the impact on New Jersey citizens. The big news this week is Joe the Plumber. Here's is what has caused the fuss:



There were two things that happened here. Obama walked down Joe's street and Joe came out and asked the candidate a question. Obama answered and frankly, I think he answered truthfully.

What Democrats and Liberals don't understand is as follows:

1. "Spread the weath around" Citizens know Socialism when they see it and this is it. I don't know anyone or any political stripe who believes that we should redistribute wealth. Obama made a major political blunder by exposing this side of his belief system.

2. Most people aspire to more than they have today. The subsequent attacks on this man suggest that he shouldn't like McCain because he would GET MORE from the Government under Obama. Well let me give you some news folks, most citizens do not look to the government for handouts. As a matter of fact, most people consider government handouts as an indicator of failure, not success. Obama's plan to shower voters assumes that people are real believers in the welfare state-and most are not.

3. Personal responsibility. Joe has it. Obama showed he doesn't believe in it. This is a big one. His "spread the wealth" comment is very indicative of a government nanny state philosophy.

4. Joe did what the media seemingly won't. Joe asked an everyman question. Obama answered it. Joe did what thousands of journalists would not and every citizen in this country now knows it. Hillary must be absolutely disgusted tonight.

5. Obama attacks again. He and "fake Joe Biden" will ridicule Joe, he will debase McCain, he will run through Joe's trash and personal history and publish it on the web. But the truth is already out. Obama is a socialist at heart and throwing Joe under the bus won't change that.

6. Fairness. Real people in this country believe in fairness. Obama's treatment of this entire situation will backfire, just as his trashing of Palin did.

7. Change versus Real People. Barack Obama says he represents change. But how is change trashing a citizen who asks you a simple question. Obama is perhaps the most over-funded over-managed candidate in the history of the United States. I am convinced that one this man's donor records are out, he will make the Clinton China issue look like child's play. While a lot of citizens are supporting Obama, I do not believe that all of this money is clean. Nor do many citizens in this country. I am sure that Obama has already put out a fund raiser on the Joe issue. And I am sure that his supporters on the West Bank have contributed...again.

---

Now they are after McCain's wife

So let me get these rules straight. Michelle Obama tells the audience at a POLITICAL RALLY that this was the first time she was proud to be American. Barack Obama and the media blasted anyone who criticized her and called this out of bounds. I will not even begin to get into the logic of crying foul when a political spouse decides to make political speeches and says something stupid. What was more interesting was the reaction of Mr. Obama and his severe indignation. Obama was very adamant that spouses were out of bounds.

Now, the New York Times has published a hit piece in Cindy McCain. Let's ignore for a moment how sick the mindset is that would create that kind of article. Remember, this is the same NY Times that created an affair scandal about McCain from whole cloth. Below was the NY Times in June helping remake Michelle Obama after she said she spent her life "not proud to be American".

Then came some rhetorical stumbles. In Madison, Wis., in February, she told voters that hope was sweeping America, adding, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” Cable news programs replayed those 15 words in an endless loop of outrage.

Barack Obama often blurs identity lines; much of his candidacy has seemed almost post-racial. Mrs. Obama’s identity is less mutable. She is a descendant of slaves and a product of Chicago’s historically black South Side. She burns hot where he banks cool, and that too can make her an inviting proxy for attack.

The tone here is that these attacks are unfair and she is just misunderstood. Shortly after this article, they tipped their hand when the wrote a puff piece on Michelle Obama. Just read this passage below. Michelle Obama is "too authentic" while Cindy McCain is "too fake".

The amount of scrutiny the two spouses face is not commensurate — Mrs. Obama has endured far more virulent attacks by her critics — but it is somehow symmetrical. Mrs. Obama went on a popular television talk show to combat the notion that she is a little too authentic to be a first lady, while Mrs. McCain did it to undercut the image that she is too fake.

So now they create a hit piece about Cindy McCain. They can write about Cindy McCain's drug use but they can't seem to lift a finger to investigate Obama's. We have said this before at this site that the media has been absolutely incompetent this election cycle. They will go through Joe the Plumbers trash but they won't investigate the public record of Obama. And McCain is fighting back:

The campaign's outrage comes on the heels of a letter Cindy McCain's attorney, John Dowd, wrote earlier this month to New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller accusing him of biased coverage for not pursuing more information about Obama's personal life.

"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama," Dowd wrote in the letter, which the campaign has made public now in response to the latest report by the Times.

"You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, 'Dreams of My Father,'" he continued. "Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus there is a terrific lack of balance here."

The McCain camp provided the letter to FOX News on Saturday, the same day the piece was published. In addition to the missive, the McCain released a scathing critique of the story, calling it "gutter journalism at its worst -- an unprecedented attack on a presidential candidate's spouse."

Here is hoping that John McCain keeps fighting back. This election cycle has been unfathomably unfair. First to Hillary Clinton and now to McCain. American's as a whole believe in fairness. I hope Obama pays a terrible price for his quiet approval of this continued trash.

---

The "kill him" comment didn't happen.

All we have heard from the mainstream media is that during a McCain rally in Pennsylvania, rabid crowds yelled 'kill him' during a rally. Now, according to the Secret Service, it apparently never happened. From timesleader.com:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.



The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

So get this, a story is created by a reporter. It is then repeated ad nauseum all over the media. And it is all a lie.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

Hackett said he did not hear the remark.

It is amazing that these stories keep coming up, repeated by the meadia and they aren't true. But the media WILL NOT report real examples that have videos and audio with many witnesses when they are issued by the Obama campaign and their surrogates.

Read the entire article here.

---