Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The Heritage Foundation has the top 10 reasons why ObamaCare is just wrong for this nation:

1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans–whether employer plans or individual plans–would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.
4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?
5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

And the people are waking up from their messiah coma and starting to understand this is not the direction they want to go in:

…the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 22-26 among 1,506 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that many of the health care proposals being debated in Congress are sparking negative reactions, especially from those following the debate most closely. By a 44% to 38% margin, more Americans generally oppose than favor the health care proposals now before Congress. Opposition rises to 56% among people who say they have heard a lot about legislation to overhaul the health care system. Concerns about the costs and increased government involvement in the health care system are volunteered most often by Americans critical of the health care proposals.

Hell, Mike shows us that not only do the people not want socialized health care, they are starting to find some negatives in the Obama armor.

In a number of polls Obama is at or below the percentage of votes he had in the 2008 election meaning he is losing support directly from the people who voted for him.

And it only took six months. I didn’t think it was possible. I believed it would be a good two years before this came about.

Back to the topic at hand, who do the Democrats blame for this ObamaCare negative press? The evil insurance companies. Not the frivolous lawsuits and the ambulance chasing lawyers, but the insurance companies because….get this…they don’t want the competition from the Government.

More like they know this will put them out of business:

A day after formally delaying a vote on a healthcare bill and having to accept a further weakening of a public option to compete with private insurers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lashed out at the health insurance industry and urged her members to do the same during the August recess.

“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”

Bulls&%t.

We just don’t want this to happen to our country:

Millions of adults in England and Wales haven’t been to an NHS dentist since April 2006 mainly because they couldn’t find one to treat them, says new research carried out for national charity Citizens Advice as it urges Primary Care Trusts to spend newly allocated resources to improve access.

~~~

It was mentioned by 31% of respondents in England and Wales who have not been to an NHS dentist since April 2006. This is the equivalent of approximately 7.4 million people who have not been to an NHS dentist since April 2006 because of difficulties in finding one. Of these, the equivalent of approximately 4.7 million have sought private treatment instead and the equivalent of approximately 2.7 million have gone without treatment altogether.

~~~

A [charity] in North Yorkshire reported a pensioner on a low income who needed emergency dental treatment in hospital. They advised her she would need further treatment and would need to find an NHS dentist. There were two available in the area but both have 12 month waiting lists…

also:

Obama Won’t Use the Word “Victory” in Afghan “War”

But he does know how to apologize!

Historians always used to say that it was important for a President, the leader of the Free World, to have a vision. I wonder if that rule has been scrapped in favor of the affirmative action President who doesn’t seem to understand how important a concept like victory in war is to those fighting it:

EDITORIAL: No substitute for victory
The president equivocates on the Afghan war
Washington Times
July 27, 2009

President Obama isn’t sure if victory is the U.S. objective in Afghanistan. On July 23, ABC’s Terry Moran asked the president to define victory in Afghanistan. He responded, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” Fidelity to history requires us to note that Emperor Hirohito did not sign the Japanese articles of surrender on the Battleship Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945, and was not even at the ceremony.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

While the President and the Democrats in Congress continue to move forth with their plan of impoverishing America’s working and middle class families under the weight of government-run health care, Speaker Newt Gingrich is moving forth with a simple, common-sense plan to get the economy rolling:

1. Cut the Payroll Tax in Half for 2 Years.

2. Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains.

3. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate.

4. Abolish the Death Tax.

I’m not sure the Speaker’s plan goes far enough. I would tie-in appropriate cuts in discretionary spending, and make the cut in the payroll tax permanent and not a temporary, two-year tax, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.

For too long, Democrats like President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Governor O’Malley have tried to sell the public on a bill of goods that implies that only massive bureaucracy, wasteful government spending, and immoral levels of taxation can get us out of our current economic funk. But as we have shown time and again, higher taxes and wateful spending do nothing but put the onus of government largesse on the backs of America’s middle and working class families. And I am more every day that the American public is becoming more and more fed-up with the status quo on taxes and spending, something that can be seen with the rise of the size and influence of the tea party movement in America.
(more…)

by laryn

53%, his lowest yet, down slightly from his previous low of 54%, yesterday.

And his disapproval ooches back up to its high of 39%. (It had fallen, statistically meaninglessly, to 38% yesterday.)

Rasmussen and Zogby are proven accurate. Rasmussen has him at 49-50 among likelies, once again at -10 on that thing you know I don’t really get.

Same deal in the NBC/WSJ poll. A commenter wrote that the MSNBC stooges were tearing their hair out about it.

Despite his public-relations blitz over the past two weeks to promote his plans to reform the nation’s health-care system — including holding two town halls on Wednesday — President Barack Obama has lost ground on this issue with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Pluralities now say that the president’s health care plan is a bad idea, and that it will result in the quality of their care getting worse. What’s more, just four in 10 approve of his handling on the issue.

The poll also finds that Obama’s overall job-approval rating has dropped to 53 percent. And it shows a public that has grown increasingly concerned about the federal government’s spending as the administration defends its $787 billion economic stimulus and supports a $1 trillion-plus health-care bill.

I am beginning to realize it is no accident that these polls — which always previously told us the disapproval number as well — keep hiding it.

They’re doing it deliberately. To them, it doesn’t matter how many people disapprove of Obama. The only thing that matters are the people who matter, and those are the 53%.

I cannot remember ever having to search for Bush’s disapproval figure. But this is like the third poll in three weeks where I have to go to the crosstabs for the stat. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

They got their 30 pieces of silver. The rest of us will be crucified!

The “Blue Dogs” in the House Democrat caucus caved in to pressure today and signaled they would no longer block health care “reform” legislation from moving forward. Their price? $100 billion in cuts from a bill set to cost a $trillion and up.

As Gomer Pyle used to say: “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!”

There were a few other changes in the bill which while welcome, do not overcome the fact that this will be another massive intrusion by the federal government into health care and it will accelerate the financial collapse of Medicare and Medicaid.

The one good point in today’s agreement is that no vote will take place until Congress reconvenes in September. That will give Americans time to understand how dangerous even this watered down Democrat bill is.

My fear is that the majority of voters will be so relieved that the original socialist makeover of health care was defeated that they will be ready to accept the socialist-lite version which is hardly an improvement.

also:

Only In Obama’s World Could We Talk With The Taliban While Doing Zelaya’s Bidding

The Obama world: (h/t Hot Air)

A concerted effort to start unprecedented talks between Taliban and British and American envoys was outlined yesterday in a significant change in tactics designed to bring about a breakthrough in the attritional, eight-year conflict in Afghanistan.

Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with “second-tier” local leaders now the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.

Meanwhile: (more…)

From Red Maryland

(Crossposted at Maryland Politics Today)

One of my biggest criticisms of President Obama is that he and those around him are beholden to the 90s when President Clinton was in office. This group wants desperately to bring back the good times, to the point they have recently pulled out the playbook which included health care reform. By the way, if you really want to know the gist of government ran healthcare, I invite you to google the Randy Stroup story from last year.

But what the President and the rest of the Democrats have failed to realize the other part of the 90s…the Republican revolution. It was the Republicans who helped with bringing in those good times. Now, there are a couple of things you should probably know about me. For starters, I believe a good politician is a good politician, despite the letter. In addition, I also do not believe in one-party rule, especially when it’s Democrats. Sorry folks, but watching the fun here in Maryland will do that to you.

In any event, with people falling out of love with the President and the continuing disappointment with congress, everything is setting up nicely for Republican gains on Capitol Hill. While I do not think it will be a revolution, I would not be surprised if the Democrats will lose one side of the Capitol to the GOP. For that to happen though, the GOP needs start focusing and start screaming their ideas and platform.

The distraction of the left pushing Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party is over. The self-righteous people in the Republican Party (Sarah Palin NOT included by the way) have gone on to green pastures. More importantly, people are starting to wake up. This is what a perfect storm looks like and it is not looking good for the Democrats and Obama.

Meantime in here in the free state, The GOP nationally does not seem to be making any significant investments which is a shame. The Democrats might control 75 percent of the House of Delegates and Senate, but do not think that the populous is happy. As evidenced by those who attended tea parties across the state, people are tired of the shenanigans of the O’Malley Administration as well as those of House Speaker Michael Busch (D-Dist. 30) and Senate President Thomas Mike Miller (D-Dist. 27). Despite the left’s assertion that the tea parties were largely attended by racists who hate the Black President, I saw differently. Watching the coverage on television, radio and online, I saw a diversified crowd who is fed up about being the ATM for the powers that be. (more…)

by James H. Lilley

First and foremost every American should know that Mr. Obama, his family, our senators, their families and our congressmen and their families are exempt from the very Health Care Plan they are fighting desperately to shove down our throats. If it is so good for the American people, why are they choosing to exempt themselves?
The following are excerpts from the Obama Health Care Bill, titled HR 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which should be very eye opening to every American citizen.

Page 22 – mandates that the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure.
Page 29 lines 4-16 – Your Health Care is rationed.
Page 30, Section 123 – There will be a Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you receive.
Page 42 – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice.
Page 50, Section 152 – Health Care will be provided to ALL non-U. S. Citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 – The Government will have real-time access to an individual’s finances and a National ID Health Card will be issued.
Page 59, lines 21-24 – The Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65, Section 164 is a payoff, subsidized plan for retirees and their families in labor unions and community organizations (such as ACORN)
Page 72, Lines 8-14 – The Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under government control.
Page 84, Section 203 – The Government mandates all benefit packages for private HC planes in the HC Exchange.
Page 85, Line 7 – Specifies Benefit levels for all Plans (The Government will ration your Healthcare) AARP Members – your Health Care will be rationed.
Page 91, Lines 4-7 –The Government mandates linguistic services. Example-translation for illegal aliens.
Page 95, Lines 8-18 – The Government will use groups i.e., ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government Health Care Plan.
Page 102, Lines 12-18 – Medicaid Eligible Individuals (redefined elsewhere as all those under 133% of poverty level) will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice)
Page 124, Lines 24-25 – No company can sue the Government for price fixing. No judicial review against a Government monopoly.
Page 127, Lines 1-16 – Doctors/AMA – The Government will tell you what you can earn.
Page 145, Lines 15-17 – An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. (No choice)
Page 146, Lines 22-25 – Employers MUST pay for Health Care for part time employees AND their families.
Page 149, Lines 16-24 – ANY Employer with payroll of 400K and above who does not provide public option, pays an additional 8% tax on all payroll.
Page 150, Lines 9-13 – Businesses with payroll between 251k and 400k who don’t provide public option pays an additional 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167, Lines 18-23 – ANY individual who does not have acceptable Health Care according to the Government will be taxed an additional 2.5% of their income. (Who decides what is acceptable?)
Page 179, Lines 1-3 – Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes.
Page 195 – Officers and employees of the Health Care Administration will have access to ALL Americans’ financial/personal records. (more…)

By Dick Morris

In 1993-94, when the Clintons tried to pass healthcare reform, the opposition to their proposals was concentrated among middle-aged voters, galvanized by the “Harry and Louise” ads. But opposition to the Obama proposals centers among the elderly, who suspect that it will mean a sharp curtailment of their medical care.

The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll of July 21-24 found that voters over 65 opposed the Obama plan by 35-47. They oppose a government-run insurance plan to compete with private plans by 31-56 and believe that the Obama plan will “cost me money” rather than “save me money” by 57-20! Only 24 percent of the elderly feel that the Obama plan will lead to better healthcare for “you and your family,” while 45 percent believe the quality of care will be worse.

By 61-29, elderly voters reject the idea that “it is possible to have major healthcare reform without increasing the budget deficit. They also say, by 65-29, that it is impossible to have it without raising taxes. Three-quarters expect their personal taxes to go up if the plan passes.

Oddly, for a population that now gets its health services through government-run Medicare, they would rather be in a privately run system than one managed by the government, by 67-7.

Most resistant to change, the elderly voters cite fears that they “will have to change existing healthcare arrangements” as the greatest reason to oppose the Obama plan.

The political impact of these findings is enormous. Instead of facing an inchoate unease about Obama’s proposals, Democrats who vote for them are likely to find themselves running into the teeth of strong, concentrated elderly opposition. Fears of rationing and the denial of care are stoking opposition to a fever pitch among the elderly. So widespread is the dissatisfaction with the Obama plan that it may drive the elderly into Republican ranks as surely as Bush’s Social Security reforms alienated then in 2005 and drove them into the arms of Democrats.

The factors that animate elderly opposition to the Obama plan are not generally those under discussion in Washington. The polling shows that the elderly are not as fixated on macro issues like the deficit or what taxes must be raised to pay for the program as they are on very specific personal concerns about their continued access to quality medical care. Seniors are less interested in whether there will be a government insurance option than whether they will face rationing of care. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Ask a Canadian!

For those of you who find the current debate over the details of the Dems proposed health care “reform” too complicated, here’s a one minute eye opener:

Americans overwhelmingly are satisfied with their health care. Why fix something that ain’t broke?

Congress may vote on this issue by the end of the week. Call your Congressman and tell him or her to VOTE NO!

also:

Support For ObamaCare Decreases….MSM Blames The Ignorant American People

Support for Obama’s socialized health care plan keeps dropping and who does our MSM blame for this? The stupidity of Americans:

While viewers may seize upon numbers that indicate the size and scope of reforming health care — 47 million uninsured Americans or costs in the trillion-dollar range — most eyes glaze over when terms like “public option” or “bundled payments” get tossed around on the air.

“It’s not only not a cable TV-friendly story; it’s not a journalism-friendly story,” said John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC.

Harwood, also a political writer for The New York Times, explained that reporters need to first understand the intricacies and nuances of health care policy before they can then try getting the story across to viewers and readers. Last week, Harwood said, he was “trying to get [his] head around the issue of cost control” before penning a Times column.

“It’s incredibly complex to try and explain to people,” Harwood said.

“The problem with health care is that it’s so big and so complicated that the public is never really going to understand all the moving parts of this,” NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner said on air Wednesday.

“So the public is really always going to be sort of amenable, if you will, to demagoguery and arguments one way or the other that don’t necessarily link to what the substance is,” Rovner continued. “We saw this during the Clinton efforts.”

Baloney. We understand this is all smoke and mirrors (PDF). Obama and company want to create a huge increase in the number of people insured by the government which increases demand and the cost associated with that demand. On top of that Obama wants to keep the price low which means quality of care will decrease, as it has in every country with socialized medicine. Look at DMV, look at the VA, look at Medicare. There are many examples for us average Americans to see everyday that tells us the government taking care of our medical needs is a recipe for disaster. (more…)

From Red Maryland

…Because Frank Kratovil is pissing on my leg.

I received a four-page letter (paid for on the taxpayer dime) from Kratovil’s office defending his vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act better known as Waxman-Markey. The letter is not so much a reasoned defense as it is bag of rhetorical tricks, non-sequitors, straw men, and false insinuations regarding the bill’s opponents (I have been a vocal opponent).
Of course, this explanation is a carefully choreographed routine designed to dance around the truth and fool voters and reassure the green special interest groups, who provide campaign cash and volunteers.

Michael Swartz already responded at Monoblogue, but I’d like to add my own thoughts.

Kratovil states that he “thoroughly” reviewed the legislation—all 1,400 pages—including the place holders added just before the vote. This is simply a bald faced lie. I called Kratovil’s office several times during the week before the vote and twice the day of the vote. Staff at both his DC office and Centreville office told me mere hours before the vote that Kratovil had not finished reading the bill yet. If Kratovil or anyone at his office wish to dispute this, I’ll just point them to his party leadership Steny Hoyer and John Conyers, who scoff at the notion of reading bills before voting on them.

That Waxman-Markey would be ruinous for the economy is an undeniable fact. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, the gold standard for think tank analysis shows that Waxman-Markey would:

·Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
·Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
·Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
·Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
·Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
·Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,241; and
·Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation
(more…)

by Laryn

Recently, Barack Obama lectured the Israelis to be more self-reflective when approaching their neighbors (the same neighbors who spread anti-Semitism around the world and make clear their most fervent desire is to annihilate them). Of course, this public hectoring is an insult to the most self-reflective people in the region: a nation with a rich, disputatious culture, one that guarantees the rights of other religions, has a flourishing democracy, has a host of world renowned universities and thinkers, has a number of Non-Governmental Organizations that are hyper-critical and self-reflective enough for all Israelis, and has a publishing industry that has always been a cornerstone of its society (contrast that with the comparably non-self-reflective societies around them).

Now the one -two punch reaches its next stage. Hillary Clinton lectures the Israelis to be patient with America’s approach towards the mad mullahs – one that is composed of overtures routinely rejected. No doubt this message is being delivered by the parade of American officials touring Israel now.

The Israelis have been paragons of patience when it comes to the Iranians, Hamas, and Palestinian and Hezbollah terror attacks. The Israelis have watched while the Europeans, the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and America (including America under the “leadership” of Barack Obama) have spent years in fruitless negotiations with Iran. Meanwhile, Iran approaches the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.

Yet Hillary Clinton lectures the Israelis to be patient because somehow Barack Obama’s talk therapy approach will disarm Iran. Trusting Barack Obama with their lives would be the height of chutzpah for the Israelis – considering his actions to date have made clear he has zero empathy for what they face: another Holocaust.

Beyond that, how has Obama’s apology and appeasement focus worked so far? Our allies have completely ignored his entreaties to reduce greenhouse commissions, provide troops to Afghanistan, stimulate their economies, and a number of other requests by Obama they have just ignored. If our allies ignore Obama’s wishes, how likely will the Iranians grant him his wishes, considering their quest for the nuclear bomb has become sacrosanct?

Maybe the Israelis should learn from America’s other allies and foes: just ignore the man that so few of them trust anyway..

By Barry Rubin
l

This could be the most important article I write this year. Israel has entered a new era of thinking and policy in which old categories of left or right, hawk or dove are irrelevant under a national unity government bringing together the two main ruling parties.

How did this new paradigm arise?

Between 1948 and 1992, the Israeli consensus was that the PLO and most Arab states want to destroy Israel. When—or if–the day comes that they’re ready to negotiate seriously we’ll see what happens.

Then came the Oslo agreement and a huge shift. The governing view was that maybe the Palestinians and Arab states learned the cost of their intransigence enough to make peace possible. The left thought a deal could bring real peace; the right thought it was a trick leading to another stage of conflict on terms less favorable to Israel. But both expected a deal to materialize.

The year 2000, the Camp David failure, the Syrian and Palestinian rejection of generous offers, and Second Intifada destroyed illusions in Israel.

Since then, Israel has groped for a new paradigm. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered unilateralism; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni constantly offered more in exchange for nothing. But the more they did so, the more international abuse Israel received.

Now a new approach has finally emerged capable of reversing this situation. It goes like this: Israel wants peace but doesn’t hesitate to express not only what it wants and needs but also what’s required to create a stable and better situation. To ensure that violence and instability really ceases requires:

–Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Without this step, the aftermath of any “peace” agreement would be additional decades of Arab effort to destroy Israel in all but—temporarily—name.

–Absolute clarity that a peace agreement ends the conflict and all claims on Israel. Otherwise, the Palestinian leadership and much of the Arab world would regard any “peace” agreement as a license for a new stage of battle using Palestine as a base for renewed attacks and demands.

–Strong security arrangements and serious international guarantees for them. Have no doubt; these will be tested by cross-border attacks from Palestine.

–An unmilitarized Palestinian state (a better description than “demilitarized”), with the large security forces they already have: enough for internal security and legitimate defense but not aggression.

–Palestinian refugees resettled in Palestine. The demand for a “Right of Return” is just a rationale for wiping Israel off the map through internal subversion and civil war.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

This was originally televised back in April, but was repeated again tonight:

Too bad Lesley Stahl couldn’t utilize footage of 20/20′s “Virginia Tech” gun experiment (which looks to have been aired the same weekend as the 60 Minutes ep) to buttress her “more gun control/guns are bad” push:

I think there are some good points and merit in the 20/20 scenario staging; however, their experiment itself, I think, is far from empirical and nonbiased.

For one, the “intruder” is already at a clear advantage given he’s a trained firearms instructor firing with the accuracy of such, while the students have only been given a crash course; other than clearing a holster, I don’t really see them getting trained in combative handgun use. Sure, it’s one possible scenario; but how about one of those students trade places and be the intruder, while the firearms instructor be the one sitting in the classroom? Or, if that’s “unfair” and “missing the point”, why not replace the firearms instructor completely in his role as intruder and use one of the students with short-term training to make it “even”? Why give the students baggy clothes? Why create just one possible environment and hypothetical scenario? How about having someone not taken by “the element of surprise and panic”, and arriving on scene to draw his weapon on the attacker? The situation is heavily weighted to demonstrate failure.

I agree with 20/20 points regarding reaction time, stress, tunnel vision, etc. (reminds me of the classic law enforcement video, Surviving Edged Weapons); but not with the propaganda 20/20 is pushing: That guns in the hands of ordinary citizens doesn’t save lives, and if anything endangers them.

So what’s the alternative to 20/20′s hypothetical that they are endorsing? Remove all chances of defending yourself (and others) with an equalizer and just live out the last remaining seconds of your life as a sitting duck.

Here’s an antidote video for the 20/20 piece:

also:

What Does Promoting Tax Payer Funded Abortions Have to Do With Health Care?

Calling abortion an “essential benefit” while the Dem bill would cut back critical care to Seniors unmasks Obama care as a death cult!

GOP House Leader John Boehner is fighting back:

Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Is Not Health-Care Reform
By John Boehner, House Republican Leader
National Review
July 23, 2009

When most Americans talk about the need for health-care reform, they’re usually talking about the need to address rising health-care costs; they aren’t talking about the need for taxpayers to subsidize abortion. In fact, a November 2008 Zogby poll revealed 71 percent of Americans oppose government-funded abortion.

It seems Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill don’t share this perspective, however. With the unequivocal support of President Obama, they’ve written a health-care bill that won’t lower health-care costs for American families, but will require them to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.

~~~

How many Americans currently realize the House bill contains provisions that will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America’s health plans?

Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an “essential benefit” — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

First District Congressman “Blue Dog” Frank Kratovil may just wind up on next season’s Dancing With the Stars. To get re-elected, he needs to keep that left wing, special interest money flowing. To do that, he must do the bidding of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Chris Van Hollen. Yet, by doing their bidding he risks that very same re-election. For these reasons, Kratovil is always engaged in some new dance designed to deceive his constituents while staying in the good graces of his DC masters. Kratovil’s newest dance is the “ObamaCare Shuffle”.

According to “Blue Dog” Frank, we need to be “deliberative”:

“The President opened his press conference by stating, ‘If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit.’ I could not agree with him more. I share the President’s views that for the sake of our nation’s fiscal future, we urgently need to pass comprehensive health care reform that expands coverage and brings costs under control.

“That’s why I was deeply concerned to hear the director of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office testify last week that the legislation now pending before the House would not adequately address the cost crisis, and would actually worsen our long-term fiscal outlook. While I agree with President Obama that skyrocketing costs and a lack of coverage signal a need to reform the health care system in our country, the CBO’s findings cast legitimate doubts as to whether the legislation currently before the House will accomplish these shared goals.

“At the very least, these legitimate questions about this bill’s long-term fiscal implications should highlight the need to be deliberative and thorough in reviewing this health care reform legislation. We should not rush any plan through Congress that has not been properly vetted. Getting this right is more important than getting this done by an artificial deadline.

“I realize that there are some in Congress who will oppose any type of reform, not based on merit but for purely political reasons. But for those of us who reject this obstructionism and are firmly committed to reforming our system the right way, it is imperative we spend the time to get this right. I have urged both the White House and leaders in Congress to make sure we have enough time to thoroughly review any proposal before a vote. I believe that anything worth doing is worth doing right, and I will not support any proposal until its impacts on costs, coverage, and rural access have been thoroughly examined.”

Translation – Just like PORKULUS and “Cap and Tax”, I’m going to vote to saddle Americans with a crushing debt. However, just like “Cap and Tax” I’m working diligently to grab a few pork scraps so I don’t look like a complete slave to my masters in Washington. (more…)

by Regina Sztajer

When prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu visited President Barack Obama in the White House recently his wife Michelle refused to meet the Prime Ministers wife. The people if Israel were very hurt at this slap in the face. According to a friend visiting from Israel the people in that country are frightened because they feel the United States under Obama may forsake them for the Palestinians. The Israelis feel Obama is very hostile to Israel and they are right in their thinking. The presidents speech to a Muslim audience in Cairo, Egypt on June 4, 2009, and his foreign policy appointments have caused Jewish organizations to rethink their support of Obama. His speech was supportive of false Palestinians claims concerning Israel. Why isn’t Obama applying pressure on the Palestinian authority to fulfil its written obligations? As the wife of a Holocaust survivor I was upset by Obama’s comparison of the suffering of Palestinians with the Nazis’ murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

If that wasn’t enough he compared the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by the Israelis equivalent to how black South Africans were treated during apartheid and enslaved before their civil war, implying once again Israel was indeed a horrible oppressor. He can’t even get his historical facts right. Palestinian Arabs weren’t displaced by Israel in 1948, and in fact if the six Arab nations hadn’t invaded Israel to destroy it, there wouldn’t be even a single Palestinian Arab who left. They left the area when the Mufti of Egypt told them to leave because he predicted the Israelis would kill them if they stayed, which was a lie.

The Palestinians could have had a state because between 1948 and 1967, because they controlled all of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, but they never even attempted to establish a state. Obama declared that for 60 years the Palestinians have tried to establish a state. Where has he been ? In 2,000, when Clinton, was president they where offered a state with almost all the disputed territories as theirs to have and they turned it down. So all of Obama’s Claims don’t hold water but appear anti-Israel!!! Also, he declared there are 7 million Arabs living in America and he used those phony figures hoping to tilt support for Muslims. Actually there are about 2.5 million Arabs living in the U.S. As long as the Arabs are promoting hatred and violence toward Israel there can be no peace our a Palestinian state!!
Is it any wonder that Jews in America are becoming concerned about Obama? Jewish leaders who were his strongest supporters are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and many are questioning what he really believes. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is just one of these leaders. His political powerhouse represents 50 major Jewish groups that are concerned for American Jews on issues of concern both in the U.S. and globally. Since Obama’s speech in Cairo Egypt in June there has been an erosion of support for Obama by Jews in general. In the 2008, election he had the overwhelming support of American Jews winning 78 percent of their vote. American Jews aren’t upset that Obama made the speech but rather what message did they get? It wasn’t what he said but how his Muslim audience perceived what he said. His troubling references and comparisons are bothersome. Obama didn’t make any reference to the 3,000 years of a Jewish connection to Israel as their homeland and that is troubling. Comparing Hitler’s genocide to the Palestinian struggle was deplorable and his failure to mention the radical regime in Tehran was disturbing. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad considers Israel a gutter society and has demanded it destruction and Obama has little to say on the subject. (more…)

By Dick Morris

Buried amid its astonishing annual growth rate, even in the recession, is the sad story of China’s socialist sector, a huge and perennial drag on its economy. The failure of government control amid the success of private initiative is a story that President Obama would do well to study as he brings government control and management to the automobile and banking industries in the United States.

In China, 80 percent of all investment activity comes from bank loans largely controlled by the government — a harbinger of what Obama will bring to the United States as TARP-funded banks increasingly have to bow to federal regulation and pressure. And, as is to be expected when the state runs the banks, the lending goes disproportionately to state-owned enterprises (read: General Motors). These companies get 70 percent of the nation’s investment capital (and the figure is rising) but only produce between one-quarter and one-third of all output in the country.

An article by John Lee explains that China’s “move towards an unbalanced state-led model did not occur by accident but was the result of deliberate policy” in the wake of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Prior to Tiananmen — when 80 percent of the poverty alleviation China has experienced took place — fixed-asset investment by the private sector grew at 20 percent per year. Since then, it has dropped to almost half that level.

At the same time (again, a prophesy of the result of Obama policies), the number of government officials shot up from fewer than 20 million in the early 1990s to the 46 million that now bloat the government payroll.

We are developing our own equivalent of the Chinese state sector through Obama’s takeover of General Motors and his insistence on keeping banks that took TARP money on a tight leash. By controlling bank lending (and refusing to let most banks repay the TARP loans) Obama is replicating the Chinese experience. Indeed, as he forces banks to convert the preferred stock he made them give the government to common (and therefore voting) stock, he hastens the day of federal control of the banks and, through them, of the economy (see our warnings in Catastrophe). (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

An all time low! American’s didn’t want to elect a grievance monger in chief!

Obama’s unpopularity rating skyrocketed after the White House press conference Wednesday where he played into the idea that police may have “acted stupidly” and cast the specter of racism after the incident between a Cambridge Massachusetts police officer and Obama’s friend, Henry Gates.

Rasmussen has a separate report on the polling over the question:

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters nationwide say President Obama did a good or excellent job answering a press conference question about an incident involving a white Cambridge, Massachusetts policeman and a black Harvard professor. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% rate the president’s response as poor.

And it won’t surprise anyone that “Seventy-one percent (71%) of African-Americans say the president’s response was good or excellent,” or that blacks by a similar number believe they receive unfair treatment from the police. 32% of blacks surveyed think the police are racist.

All of the above fits in with my earlier conclusion that Obama is being unmasked as the President of the Left, not President of the United States. Americans had no desire to elect a grieveance monger in chief!

Obama’s Dr. Mengele Admits Health Care “Reform” Will Kill Old People Sooner

also:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, a physician, appointed to Obama health care job admits killing old people is the only way to cut costs!

DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
New York Post
July 24, 2009

Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They’d decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama’s top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
(more…)

by laryn

Leave it to The NY Times to create a faux historical context to absolve Barack Obama of criticism over Obama’s statement that the Cambridge Police acted “stupidly” with regard to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

What faux historical context, you ask? The Times compares Obama’s comments to comments made by John F. Kennedy on the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., Richard Nixon on the Charles Manson murder trial, Ronald Reagan on Iran-Contra congressional hearings, and Bill Clinton on the Unabomber arrest:

President Obama may have created a media frenzy over his comment on Wednesday that the Cambridge police department acted “stupidly” in the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard scholar, and his retreat from that comment on Friday. But he is certainly not the first president to have weighed in on a celebrated case.

While such comments are rare, some previous presidents have also commented on big cases of their day, even as court trials were under way….

All of those cases had received far more publicity by the time those presidents spoke than the matter involving Mr. Gates had received by the time Mr. Obama made his remarks. Those presidents all weathered the political storms that ensued, and some may even have been politically advantaged by them.

“At the end of the day, these are robust human beings who occupy the Oval Office, and they are skilled with robust language,” said Ted Widmer, a presidential historian at Brown.

What a stretch. None of those presidents blamed the police or rushed to judgment while acknowledging ignorance of the facts.

JFK called Corretta Scott King to comfort her; no comparison. Nixon’s comment on Manson’s guilt was notable only because Manson held up the newspaper in front front of the jury in a failed bid for a mistrial; no comparison. Reagan expressed his belief in Oliver North’s innocence, but didn’t attack law enforcement; no comparison. And Clinton merely expressed his hope that there would be no plea bargain given how many people Ted Kozinski killed; no comparison. (more…)

From Red Maryland

–Richard E. Vatz

I have blogged on the publicly available and relevant issues raised in the Sgt. James Crowley-Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. confrontation and President Barack Obama’s reaction. As that blog indicated, when one examines the indisputable components of the evidence, “this was no example of racist police behavior and certainly not racial profiling.”

A most interesting development has now occurred respecting those matters, and it is this: following a clear diminution of public outrage by Professor Gates and President Obama, the latter has invited the 2 major principals, Crowley and Gates, to the White House. As summarized by The Washington Post, “After a phone call from President Barack Obama urging calm in the aftermath of his arrest last week, the black professor said he would accept Obama’s invitation to the White House for a beer with him and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley. In a statement posted Friday on The Root, a Web site Gates oversees, the scholar said he told Obama he’d be happy to meet with Crowley, whom Gates had accused of racial profiling.”

Should Sgt. Crowley go?

The opinion here is: not unless Sgt. Crowley believes he acted improperly.

The relationship between the officer and the scholar is, Crowley has indicated, one of a policeman who is executing the law and a man whose behavior warranted an arrest.

Further, the arrest was pursuant to gratuitous vile characterizations of the police officer and his mother, made by the professor.

Sgt. Crowley Crowley said on WEEI sports radio network that it was “disappointing that [Obama] waded into what should be a local issue that plays out here” and added that an “apology will never come. It won’t come from me as Jim Crowley. It won’t come from me as a sergeant in the police department.” He has also indicated that race was irrelevant to his (Crowley’s) actions. (more…)

By Dick Morris

Superficially, the United States appears to have a presidential system, but in fact it more and more resembles a parliamentary form of government. When a president loses the approval of the majority of the voters and polls reflect that his ratings have fallen substantially below 50 percent, he loses his power. In this context, polls are like parliamentary votes of no confidence in European systems. While the government does not fall if it loses in the polling, it limps on until either its ratings improve or it is voted out of office at the next election.

Clinton was called “irrelevant” after the congressional defeats of 1994, when his ratings hovered in the high 30s. Bush seemed almost out of power in the last years of his administration, when his approval dropped to the low 30s.

Now Obama faces the loss of power that comes with dropping poll numbers. The two early symptoms of this creeping impotence are his inability to pass the union card-check legislation or to force action on healthcare before the August recess, once highly touted administration goals.

As is usually the case, the apparent cause of these defeats — the buildup of public disapproval of both bills — is not what is really at work. Rather, it is the president’s obvious inability to improve the economy that is exacting the daily toll in his approval ratings evident in all of the surveys. Like the body counts that mounted in Iraq and drove Bush’s numbers ever downward, the rising unemployment numbers are stripping Obama of his popularity and power.
(more…)