Tweets?

Or are they just twits?

(hat tip: IBD)

#

Krugman accuses those who oppse Cap 'n Trade nonsense of 'treason'

Of all the God forsaken stupidity to come from the hand of Paul Krugman this incredibly vapid and childish column ranks as the very worst example of agenda-driven nonsense, from a "Nobel winner", and supposed authority, assuming you believe the babble, dribble, drool, and spew that comes out of the Blue Bozo Brigade.

Read the Klown himself:

"Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is."

Treason?

Because we oppose a huge tax to solve a non-problem? That we refuse to kow tow to the political correctness of an already discredited corruption pf science? That we refuse to further poison our economy and our way of life to support a lie?

This jerk is an academic and intellectual fraud who needs to grow up to realize that his looney toon worldview agenda items are based on propaganda and dishonesty do NOT equate to scientific proof.

#

Why is the Obamanation in such a hurry to ram Cap 'n Trade down our throats?

It's simple.

The unproven science, the hysterical propaganda, and the academic and intellectual fraud committed in the name of "anthropogenic global warming climate change" that provides the basis for this new massive tax that hits the middle class the hardest Cap 'n Trade legislation is being exposed piece by piece on a regular basis.

The number of scientists calling the Alarmists on their nonsense continues to increase , and the constant emergence of real world scientific facts continue to demolish the "evil man-made CO2" dogma.

Key point:

"Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications.

Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone."

#

Here are some of the Obamacare details that the Obamanation doesn't want you to know about

Deroy Murdock has details, from Betsy McCaughey's first assessment of the monstrosity.

Here is a list of the major points:

1. Uncle Sugar gets to control health insurers' profit margins.

2. The bureaucrats decide on physicians' reimbursement levels on an individual basis.

3. Those who do not participate in some form of Obamacare will face a tax penalty.

4. As usual, current and former members of Congress don't have to suffer through what the peons have to suffer under Obamacare. They're entitled to their current perks.

5. Illegal immigrants are not specifically excluded from Obamacare. And of course, the "tax penalty" mentioned above will likely not be enforced, thereby allowing illegals to absolutely no cost benefits.

6. Several off budget projects are created, thereby avoiding accountability, and allowing Obamacarebots to spend as much as they want, without oversight.

7. Some 29 new commissions, councils, and other committee type organizations are created under Obamacare, thereby ensuring a HUGE additional bloat in the already immensely bloated Federal bureaucracy.

That's only a first reading. Heaven alone knows what other "progressive" agenda nonsense and arrogance will be discovered under more detailed scrutiny.

What a disaster this is going to be for the nation if we're stupid enough to let this thing be enacted!

#

SCOTUS rules in favor of common sense and equal protection rights

Justice is served, and as expected, Sotomayor gets yet another of her agenda-driven decisions reversed.

I haven't yet read the babble, dribble, drool, and spew over this from the Blue Bozo Brigade near and far, but I'm sure it's the total knee jerk-ness we always expect when one of their cherished agenda items like Identity Politics/Victimization gets dealt a major and well deserved setback.

From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:

" 'Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,' Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

Ginsburg's predictable and poorly reasoned minority opinion:

"In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters 'understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.' "

The fireighters who were denied justice initially clearly had vested interest under the Constitution. They were clearly denied promotions based upon racial considerations. The fact that four justices in the minority refuse to acknowledge that doesn't change those firefighters' rights.

#

Definitive evidence that Bill Ayers wrote substantial parts of Obama's "Dreams from My Father"

Jack Cashill provides the details that prove two things: Ayers was a pivotable influence on Obama, and Obama is an academic and intellectual fraud.

But we knew both of those things already, didn't we?

Excerpt:

"Bill Ayers was no one's ghostwriter. The now overwhelming evidence strongly suggests that he used the frame of Obama's life and finished it off with his own ideas, his own biases, his own experiences, his own passions, his own friends, even his own romances, all of this toned down just enough to keep Obama viable as a potential candidate.

I would argue that Ayers played Cyrano to Obama's Christian. His personal history was too ugly for him to woo Roxane/America himself. But Obama -- 'articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,' as Joe Biden reminded us -- could and did make America's heart melt."

#

The House passes Cap 'n Trade bill that DOESN'T EXIST

David Freddoso:

"By all appearances, the House is about to vote on a very long bill of which it has no completed official copy.

Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Louie Gohmert have just asked the chair whether there exists a complete, updated copy of the Waxman-Markey carbon-cap bill.

'If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body,' Barton asked, 'could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration'"

Through a series of parliamentary inquiries, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers' amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk's desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document.

But they cannot be simply combined, because the amendment contains 300 pages of items like this: 'Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)...' How many members of Congress do you suppose have gone through it all to see how it changes the bill?

Global Warming is apparently so urgent that we can't even wait until members of Congress know what they're voting on."

This is the ultimate in Obama/Pelosi/"Progressive"/Democrat/Demagogue arrogance, as well as another major affront to the citizens of this country, and the Constitution.

And these cretins don't even care. Their concern is to ram through all the "progressive" agenda nonsense they can, with no oversight, with little to no accountability, so that their power is consolidated to the point where we can do nothing about it.

"Outrageous" doesn't even begin to describe this.

Is anybody else paying attention?

Does anyone else even care?

#

Coming soon, for health care consumers like YOU!

From Doug Ross/Mr. R.:

"Obama is pushing the 'competition', like the battle for market share will be on an even playing field.

However, Obama is trying to stack the field to be so tilted that the private insurers will start their inning with two outs and no men on base, while Obama starts with no outs and the bases loaded.

ABC's infomercial never addressed the core issues of this supposed "competition":

1. How much do doctors and providers get reimbursed?

2. Does it differ by region? In other words, do you pay a doctor the same in New York City than one in Great Bend, Kansas?

3. How is fraud detected in the system?

4. Will doctors and providers be forced to participate?

5, Who manages the network?

6. Who ultimately decides the level of care?

7. Who adjudicates the claims?

8. Is the public option supported by taxes, premiums or both?

9. How is it that private insurers cannot do business across state lines but the federal government can (private insurers must file with each state and abide by that states rules and regs. Businesses that have several locations in the country must participate in a plan in the state in which the business is domiciled)?

10. Will the public option abide by each states mandates?

This is just for starters. I see Obama is considering taxing health care benefits and everyone who makes over $100,000 to fund the plan.

That is pretty ironic: the left pushes health care as a right, but if you have a private insurance plan, the government wants to tax your 'right'. Nothing surprises me anymore."

The only question left is, in addition to "Cap 'n Tax", how much more is Obamacare going to end up costing you?

Are these people really THAT STUPID to think that none of this really matters?

Or are they banking on the voting public to remain as stupid as they turned out to be last November, when they unwittingly voted this monstrosity into office?

#

The impact of the 'Cap 'n Trade' nonsense passed in Congress today

Via Power Line:



Via IBD:




Noteworthy:

"As we've said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the '95% of working families' Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.

And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius."

Of note, it's apparent that when all the indirect costs of this outrage are counted, the average family's tab will exceed $4000 annually. This is MUCH MORE than "draconian"....it's confiscatory, and it's nothing more than a TAX!

#

'Government Health Plans ALWAYS Ration Care'

No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".

ALWAYS

Noteworthy:

"In short, other countries where government plays a large role in health care aren't shy about rationing. Mr. Obama's budget director has acknowledged that rationing reduces costs. Peter Orszag told Congress last year when he headed the Congressional Budget Office that spending can be 'moderated' if 'diffusion of existing costly services were slowed.'

And the Obamacare rationing will not be reserved exclusively for seniors:

" 'Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care,' Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways 'we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves,' he continued that in general 'at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.' "

In other words, an Obamanation bureaucrat gets to play God when it comes to Obamacare.

But Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" want to make sure that illegal aliens, union members, and other specific favorite victim groups get favorable terms under the plan, don't they? And Congresspeople current and former as well as other favored politicos will be exempt from the rules the peons will be required to abide, won't they?

This whole premise is ripe for abuse, in addition to being flat out frightening in its implications.

#

Lying about health care statistics is normal for Dems/Lefties/'Progressives'

It's no secret that the Obamanation and those who enable the "progressive" nonsense use exaggeration, manipulation, and outright lies when talking about statistics, particularly as they applied to cherished worldview agenda item legislation.

David Harsanyi discusses these tactics as they are applied to "the nation's large numbers of uninsured."

Noteworthy:

"In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research called 'Is Health Insurance Affordable for the Uninsured?,' Stanford economists say, 'Based on a plausible range of definitions and assumptions health insurance is affordable for between one quarter and three quarters of adults who are not insured.'

Turns out that 8.4 million uninsured Americans are making $50,000 to $74,999, and 9.1 million more are making more than $75,000. Health insurance is just incompatible with their lifestyles, I guess.

There are obviously inconveniences -- children and mortgages, for instance -- that quickly can make $50,000 seem like a pittance. Then again, 27 percent of all adults in their 20s (many, I presume, without offspring) choose not to have health insurance. Many of them surely have the means to purchase insurance but after meticulously considering the trade-offs (imbibing or insuring?) say no thanks."

#

Alternately clued behavior from both highbrows and lowbrows

The proof of such is almost everywhere we look and it's enabled some really stupid policies and ideas, with little to no actual regard for the results.

Noteworthy:

"But legions of idiots voted for a man who was plainly unqualified, even by his own estimation, and surrounded by a bunch of malignant sociopaths like Wright and Ayers and all the rest. How could he possibly win? Well, Obama cynically appealed to the idiots -- the young, the stupid, the naive, the silly, the rock idol worshippers, and probably the drug-addled masses, all the lowbrows in the land.

That includes the idiot savants of academia. Academics have a very narrow band of intelligence, something that satirists since Aristophanes have noticed and poked fun at. The first philosopher in Western history was Thales of Elea; Thales featured in Greek folklore as a man who walked around at night gazing at the stars only to fall into a ditch. That's probably a folksy giggle at the absent-minded professor who is constantly bumping into walls. But there's a big element of truth in it. Academics can be incredibly ignorant and dumb outside of their small areas of expertise. Professors and media scribblers generally lack human smarts. They are sure suckers for all the con artists of the day.

Obama is a smooth-talking hustler who has specialized in charming academic liberals, like a smart graduate student who needs to impress his teachers with every word. They just dote on him, like a proud parent smiling on a favorite child. He's their dream, a black man who sounds so smart."

In his press conferences he hypnotizes all the ink-stained wretches of the media. It's a sight to behold. The man swats a fly and the suck-ups of the media go ga-ga with applause, and go back and write articles about it. That's not just a reflection on their (lack of) character and judgment. It's not just their childish immaturity. It's a reflection on their brains, or rather, on all that empty space between their ears.

Our media stars are just not very bright. They're idiots. That single fact explains a lot. (And yes, they are also corrupt, easily seduced, haunted by deadlines, decadent in their values, and very prone to mob thinking. But if they had any brains it might be harder to manipulate them like this. The White House just pulls their strings and they dance.)"

No one can say they haven't been warned.

Ultimately, they're too dumb,too obstinate, or too arrogant to understand the consequences.

#

We knew THIS was coming sooner or later, didn't we?

I predicted this last month: The Obamanation to reward Illegals, giving them their foot in the door to be the next officially sanctioned Victim Group, along with all that entitles them to receive from the High Priest of "Hope 'n Change".

John Boehner:

“Whether it’s the stimulus bill, the omnibus appropriation bill, whether it was the trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye could see in the budget, (or) whether it’s the proposal taking over our health-care system, a national energy tax--and now somebody’s going to suggest that we’re going to try to do immigration reform in the midst of all this? How much is enough?”

It's NEVER enough, Congressman.

Don't you know that by now?

Viva la Raza!

#

'Anthropogenic global warming' is a FALSIFIED theory

Here's why:

"In the case of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it suffers total, unrecoverable, undeniable and irrefutable falsification if the amount of heat energy stored in all of the Earth's planetary heat sinks does not rise and fall along with the total radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Guess what? It hasn't been doing any such thing. Worse, total heat (energy, not temperature) has been falling, not rising, even though carbon dioxide levels (and the radiative forcing that results) has been rising during the same period."

It won't make any difference, though.

The enablers of bad science and the purveyors of babble, dribble, drool and spew of the "global warming"worldview/ religion will find some way to obfuscate, deflect, deny, and lie about this.

Just like always.

#

'He thinks you're stupid'

John Hinderaker discusses the Obamanation Lie of the Day, "Cap 'n Trade" file.

Zero:

"At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe."

As if......

Hinderaker:

"Obama isn't dumb enough to believe that the many billions of dollars in costs that his proposal will impose on energy companies, etc., will somehow disappear thereafter. But he thinks you are."

Scott Johnson:

"And enacting Obamacare is mandatory in order to save money.

As I stated here, the Obama administration's operative political theory is that the American people are incredibly dumb."

#

Following the money that's propping up Obamacare

Michelle Malkin provides details about the "progressive" Daddy Warbucks financiers, and their warchests, who want to grow their political, social, and economic clout under the Obamanation.

Key points:

"On Thursday, a national 'grassroots' coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) will march on Capitol Hill to demand universal health care. The ground troops won't have to march very far. HCAN, you see, is no heartland network. It is headquartered at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C. -- smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.

In fact, 1825 K Street is Ground Zero for a plethora of 'progressive' groups subsidized by anti-war, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests. Around Washington, the office complex is known as 'The Other K Street.'

The Washington Post noted in 2007 that 'its most prominent tenants form an abbreviated who's who of well-funded allies of the Democratic Party. . Big money from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn, has provided groups like those at 1825 K Street the wherewithal to mount huge campaigns.'.......

....The objective, in other words, is to piggyback and exploit Obamacare to improve and protect their political health. The 'grassroots' movement is not about representing Main Street. It's about peddling influence and power at 1825 K Street."

As well we know, this whole thing is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN about "health care", "covering the uninsured", "keeping costs down", and other such propaganda talking points.

It's about "progressive" power and control, and it's just the current chapter of MANY more chapters to go in the Agenda Manual.

Always has been, always will be. Of that, you can depend upon like the sunrise.

#

The man behind the Iranian "reform" movement is no reformer

With the news coming out of Iran, it's important to keep the proper perspective on the situation. That proper perspective is clear: Mousavi's cabal is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Noteworthy:

"But there is very little evidence that the label of 'democratic reform,' attached to Mousavi and many of his followers, is anything but a masquerade.

Mousavi is not some democracy-minded reformer. All candidates for elective office in Iran are handpicked and only allowed to run for office by the express permission of the Supreme Council of Guardians and its leader Ayatollah Khamenei. All candidates agree to follow orders. On issues that matter to the West -- Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, threats of genocide aimed at Israel, interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for Islamist terrorism and any reasonable compromises with the West on these issues -- the two candidates were virtually the same.

Mousavi is a longtime proponent of Islamist triumphalism and terrorism, a hardliner on Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program and an anti-Semite who has called for Israel to be destroyed. He was a key aide to Ayatollah Khomeini during the Islamic revolution in 1979 and played a part in the decision to overrun our embassy and take American diplomats hostage. As Iran's prime minister between 1981-89, Mousavi was vociferously anti-Western and anti-American. He had a major hand in the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon. His handpicked interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was Mousavi's liaison when the Iranian government formed and funded that terrorist group. One of Mohtashami's first major operations was the murder of 240 US Marines in Lebanon."

Meet the New Boss.

Same as the Old Boss.

#

Agenda priorities

The honeymoon's long been over....it's time for a divorce

Let's make sure his Dem family gets custody of the failed and abysmal agenda......

#

Putting to rest the mis-truth of 'the vast majority of the public WANTS government run health care!'

Typical of Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" propaganda techniques, they never get around to telling you the rest of the story that the statistics actually tell us.

Key point:

"Even among those who favor the government covering the uninsured, only 47% would still support a public option if it meant their own health costs would rise -- as they inevitably will, until the government is compelled to start rationing.

On that score, 77% were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care, while 68% were concerned that a public option will restrict their access to treatment. Some 53% were worried about being forced to switch doctors. Merely 43% were willing to pay even $500 in new health taxes -- the costs will be far higher -- and only 28% believed President's Obama rhetoric that a new entitlement will improve the economy.

Results like these are echoed in poll after poll, including a new NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey, and of course all this is common knowledge on Capitol Hill. All that's new is the political repackaging -- which is making an appearance now because liberals know that their health dreams could become deeply unpopular once voters realize what they will mean in practice."

Why is it that all things put forth by the Obamanation and its Tag Team Tank Media PR partners about policy and programs are always full of smoke and mirrors, distortions, half-truths, mis-directions, full of on purpose omissions, or just outright lies?

Why is that?

#

'But wait, there's MORE!'

(from Net Right Nation)

#

Enacting Obamacare means less access

Scott Atlas lays out the six major reasons why Obamacare is just wrong for the nation.

Number 1: Less access to timely health care, especially by trained specialists

Number 2: Less access to state-of-the-art drugs that are proven to cure serious diseases, like cancer

Number 3: Less access to modern medical technologies that lead to earlier diagnoses, safer treatments, and better outcomes

Number 4: Less access to choice of doctor and choice of treatments for patients and families

Number 5: Less access to choice of health insurance coverage

Number 6: Less access to the leading innovators and innovations in health care

His opening paragraph says it all:

"President Obama and the Democratic Congress repeat a mantra so often that it has become a truism: America's health care system is a scandalous failure, and it is absolutely urgent that we fix it now. The mainstream media nod their agreement, and yet, the polls tell us something else: Eighty percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the quality of their health care. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans, about three-fourths, are happy with their current health care coverage. (CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, March 2009; Gallup poll, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001; Quinnipiac University poll, October 2007)."

Read the rest of the details in the link.

Here's the expected Obama pushback.

Noteworthy:

"The problem for President Obama is that he and his allies want to pass an untested, government-heavy program — but without saying so.

Every bill now being drafted in Congress would establish a 'pay or play'-type choice for employers: Employers must either offer government-approved coverage to workers ('play') or pay a tax to the government instead to partially cover the costs of their premiums for insurance secured through a new 'exchange' system.

For years, Democrats have argued that this construct would ensure that reform 'builds upon' the employer-based insurance system. But, in fact, the Democratic approach to reform would have exactly the opposite effect. Employers would get burdened with new costs and insurance requirements, even as the government used price controls to offer a government-run insurance option with artificially low premiums and provided new subsidies for coverage only for workers getting insurance through the 'exchange.'

That’s a recipe for dismantling job-based insurance. The Lewin Group has estimated that, assuming certain plausible specifications, some 119 million people would end up leaving job-based coverage for a government-run plan as employers opted to 'pay' rather than 'play.'

Faced with incontrovertible evidence that he and his allies have no intention or ability to fulfill their commitment to Americans regarding their current coverage, President Obama decided today at his press conference to try to redefine the promise.

What he meant, he now says, is that the government wouldn’t force people out of their health-care plan. If tens of millions of people get pushed out of their current coverage, it would be because firms chose to drop their insurance plans — never mind the fact that they would do so based on the financial incentives the government put in place."

How utterly predictable this disaster of a president is turning out to be!

#

'Take Back Our Country'

Here's an excerpt from Catastrophe, by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:

"It’s time to take back our country.

Now. It’s that simple. It’s that urgent.

It’s time to take it back from President Barack Obama, before he fully implements his radical political agenda—one that threatens our liberty, endangers our livelihood, and jeopardizes our very safety and security.

Obama has canceled the war on terror and declared a war on prosperity.

It’s a catastrophe.

Make no mistake about it: We now have a socialist in the White House.
Barack Obama firmly believes in government control of our major industries, a hallmark of European socialism. Watch him. First it was the banks, then the auto industry. What’s next? He’ll keep going until the federal government owns or dominates every major American business and sets the salaries for all employees.

Using the global economic crisis as an excuse to revolutionize our economy and institutionalize pervasive and perverse changes masquerading as 'reforms,' Obama wants to change our way of living, working, and even thinking.

He’s committed to orchestrating an extraordinary redistribution of wealth, significantly raising taxes on those who make more than $200,000 a year while providing tax credits and other advantages to those who don’t.

He intends to create a dual tax system: on one side there will be those who pay an enormous amount of taxes, and on the other there will be those who pay nothing at all but are regularly and directly subsidized by the increased taxes of those who do. Think France.

Obama plans to expand the role, size, and cost of government vastly and to regulate each and every aspect of corporate and commercial conduct. It’s only a matter of time before political correctness, too, will be legislated, and the policing of acceptable personal conduct will become yet another role of the government. Everything is on the table.

Remember that both his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have warned that we shouldn’t “waste” a good crisis like the one we’re in.

'Waste' a crisis? What do they mean?

Well, apparently the Obama administration sees the current atmosphere of economic turmoil and uncertainty as a great opportunity to make sweeping changes that wouldn’t otherwise be acceptable to the American public. Changes the American left has been dreaming about for years.

So now, under the guise of solving the crisis, Obama can pass and fund just about anything. Just take a look at his nearly trillion-dollar stimulus bill—and all of the outrageous earmarks that were wedged into it by Congress as the price of passage.

And it’s not just the economy: Obama has virtually ended the war on terror. His administration doesn’t even utter the words. In recent testimony before Congress, Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano actually referred to “man-caused” disasters, pointedly avoiding the word 'terrorism.'

Obama’s appointments to the Justice Department have been people who are determined to root out, investigate, and expose not the terrorists themselves but those who protect us from them. Guantánamo has become a resource center for terrorists; a new one is freed every week. And Obama is reversing our long-term commitment to Israel—and instead giving almost a billion dollars to Hamas.

Let’s face it: his policies are a catastrophe, and we need to stop him."

The tide is turning against Obama.

Many of those well-intentioned people who voted for him now see what their ballot has enabled. The only question to be answered is how do we do we stop him, his Obamabots and the Useful Idiots that populate the "progressive" ranks and continue to blindly suport this catastrophe of a president?

#

'The Illusion of Government Competency'

Shannon Love , at Chicago Boyz takes three Instapundit posts, and elaborates on a theme many of us (at least those of us who pay attention) have known for quite some time.

Bureaucrats, executives, and policy makers in government have no inherent talents and intelligence that make them or their decisions and policy automatically superior to those same types of people in the public sector. Indeed, a valid argument can be made that the government functionaries are almost always inferior in almost every way.

Noteworthy:

"Leftists like to argue that, by some magical mechanism, real-world politicians make better decisions, especially better economic decisions, than do private actors in the free market. They usually make this argument after either the free market corrects itself naturally or the government interferes. They then simply assert, without any possibility of empirical verification, that the magic government unicorns could have prevented the problem if only they had been given enough power to do as they wished.

Such arguments are clearly ex post facto. Leftists cannot predict market correction any better than anyone else, so clearly they don’t have a predictive model of the relationship between any particular regulation and any particular market correction. More importantly, when they do have the power, they often do nothing to address the causes of the correction. Last year’s financial collapse demonstrates this clearly. "

#

There's more to the Iranian elections and the resulting violence than meets the eye

So says Stratfor, who thinks the quasi "revolution" will fail, that Ahmadinejad would have won the election without vote fraud, and the media and many pundits (most likely including the hapless Obamanation) don't have a clue about the reality of the political, social, and religious ramifications of the events.

Noteworthy:

"Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.

Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces — who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators — and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.

This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators — who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents — failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.

Later, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke Friday and called out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they failed to understand that the troops — definitely not drawn from what we might call the 'Twittering classes,' would remain loyal to the regime for ideological and social reasons. The troops had about as much sympathy for the demonstrators as a small-town boy from Alabama might have for a Harvard postdoc. Failing to understand the social tensions in Iran, the reporters deluded themselves into thinking they were witnessing a general uprising. But this was not St. Petersburg in 1917 or Bucharest in 1989 — it was Tiananmen Square."

....and:

"All of this is not to say there are not tremendous tensions within the Iranian political elite. That no revolution broke out does not mean there isn’t a crisis in the political elite, particularly among the clerics. But that crisis does not cut the way Western common sense would have it. Many of Iran’s religious leaders see Ahmadinejad as hostile to their interests, as threatening their financial prerogatives, and as taking international risks they don’t want to take. Ahmadinejad’s political popularity in fact rests on his populist hostility to what he sees as the corruption of the clerics and their families and his strong stand on Iranian national security issues. The clerics are divided among themselves, but many wanted to see Ahmadinejad lose to protect their own interests. Khamenei, the supreme leader, faced a difficult choice last Friday. He could demand a major recount or even new elections, or he could validate what happened. Khamenei speaks for a sizable chunk of the ruling elite supporters — both voters and the security forces — had their candidate been denied. , but also has had to rule by consensus among both clerical and non-clerical forces. Many powerful clerics like Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani wanted Khamenei to reverse the election, and we suspect Khamenei wished he could have found a way to do it. But as the defender of the regime, he was afraid to. Mousavi supporters’ demonstrations would have been nothing compared to the firestorm among AhmadinejadKhameneiwasn’t going to flirt with disaster, so he endorsed the outcome."

www.stratfor.com

The current Iranian situation is not about the people of Iran. It's all about the power struggles and the myriad and complex relationships among the theocracy's ruling elite.

#

Obamacare: Naive? Hypocritical? Dishonest?

Probably all three of those things, says Robert Samuelson.

Excerpt:

"It's hard to know whether President Obama's health-care 'reform' is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three.

The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health-care 'reform' almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.

....The one certain consequence of expanding insurance coverage is that it would raise spending. When people have insurance, they use more health services. That's one reason Obama's campaign proposal was estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a decade (the other reason is that the federal government would pick up some costs now paid by others). Indeed, the higher demand for health care might raise costs across the board, increasing both government spending and private premiums."

Not that facts like those will stop the Blue Bozo Brigade from performing their usual worldview agenda song and dance routine on this subject, as evidenced by the predictable nonsense from Krugman the Klown, who whines about "Bush tax cuts",and Democrat "centrist" senators who are "way out in right field":

"Yet it remains all too possible that health care reform will fail, as it has so many times before.

I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, Democratic leaders know that they have to pass a health care bill for the sake of their own survival. One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line.

The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by 'centrist' Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around 'centrist,' by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field."

Too funny, but entirely predictable, and typical of what we've come to expect from the partisan hacks, stooges, and slobbering slugs of the "progressive" gang when things just don't seem to go their way for the cherished agenda item proposals.

#

Blood in the streets: More than 150 dead in Iran?

If you can't handle seeing what violent death looks like, DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!

So what's the official response of the Obamnation to the Iranian government?

He called on them to "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people".

More from Mighty Mouse Redux:

"I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognizes that the world is watching. How they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and is not."

Wow!

What strength of purpose! What decisive leadership!

This gives me so much confidence in our Fearless Leader's ability to handle another major terrorist attack on our nation!

More, from Rich Lowery:

"As hundreds of thousands of Iranian protesters march for democracy, in defiance of a government that is our committed enemy, Pres. Barack Obama resorts to lawyerly equivocations. He labors to avoid saying anything denoting untoward disapproval of the baton-wielding shock troops of Iran's theocracy.

In a perverse irony, we are witnessing the most serious threat to the Islamic Republic since its establishment, at the same time the first American president explicitly to accept the regime's legitimacy happens to be in office. Whatever credibility the mullahs have lost in the street, they have picked up in the Oval Office, where the president bizarrely seems less enthusiastic about a change in dispensation in Iran than much of Tehran's population."

#

The widowed housefly speaks!

Iowahawk has the story.

Excerpt:

" 'Bob was a wonderful husband and provider,' said the widow, Mrs. Vivian Vvzzvzwwzzz, wiping tears from her compound eyes. 'Even though he was always busy at the Rose Garden turd pile, he always flew home in time to tuck in our maggots.' "

Do you think a Truth and Reconciliation process is called for here?

What should the Trash Bin Forum and the Dead Carcass PAC do?

I mean, how will the entire D.C. fly community ever get past the horrendous impact of the violence to their community?

#

Mighty Mouse redux

Obama makes a great cartoon character, don't you think?

#

Good news: The Cap 'n Trade bill may be down the tubes

Roll Call says the Demogogues are back to the drawing board on this most egregious of tax increases.

Let's make sure this nonsense, plus Obamacare and several other bad pending Obamanation ideas, ends up in the trash heap they so richly deserve.

Jennifer Rubin has more on the continuing follies of All Things Obama.

#

Infinite wisdom about socialized medicine...from 1961

hat tip: Carpe Diem

'The Obamacare horror story you won't hear'

Michelle Malkin:

"The White House, Democrats, and MoveOn liberals are spreading health care sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there’s one health care policy nightmare you won’t hear the Obamas hyping. It’s a tale of poor, minority patient-dumping in Chicago — with First Lady Michelle Obama’s fingerprints all over it."

Read the rest, and then go here.

Excerpt:

"Michelle Obama’s installation as the face and voice of the government volunteerism boondoggle only deepens suspicions about the role she and her staff may have played in Walpin’s sacking. So does her past exploitation of the 'community service' mantle to reward Chicago politicos."

Again, read the rest.

Can we say "politically, ethically, and morally corrupt presidency"? Can we say "Advanced Libthink Thuggery"? Can we say "Totally Tanked Media/ Obama PR Team"?

Yes, we can!

#

Dr. Sanity, on Obama's malignent narcissism

Dr. Pat's illuminating article is the best illustration of our Thug-in-Chief's mindset I've seen so far.

Excerpt:

"Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always, of course, 'for their own good') , constant admiration and adulation and grandiose ambitions. This makes them remarkably adept at the politics of personal destruction--particularly when you are a devoted fan of the teachings of a radical organizer whose philosophy demanded that you: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”'

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else 'wins', the narcissist 'loses'. It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to 'win' based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out -of-bounds or over-the-top

The state of political discourse in this country was bad enough, with the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns; but Barack Obama has taken this to a higher plane of being-- and destroying.

Politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; but it is the people of no integrity and no values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal 'perfection' and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; or even based on the character (we don't need no stinkin' character in our politicians); instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

And, despite all efforts to hide the truth about Obama's weak and unprincipled character, there was still plenty of information available to be able to see that the emperor messiah had no clothes."

ABC to pimp for Obamacare

Patriot Post US:

Obamacare Takes Center Stage

"ABC News is lending itself to the Obama administration for the night of Wednesday, June 24, for a live broadcast of ABC World News Tonight from the Blue Room of the White House. This will be followed by an hour-long primetime special entitled 'Prescription for America,' which will advocate the Obama health care plan. The Republican National Committee noted that with the absence of opposing views, the programming amounts to little more than a campaign commercial -- one that should rightly be paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

ABC predictably took offense and claimed that it will have complete editorial control over the content of the program. Or at least as much control as the White House wants them to have.

As columnist Cal Thomas observes, 'By the way, guess who's the new director of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform. It's former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass, who left journalism last year to join the Obama campaign.' How convenient.

The network claims it will have 'thoughtful' and 'diverse' perspectives on the plan, but one noteworthy absence is '20/20' anchor John Stossel, who will not be participating. A pity, too, for if anyone at ABC has the requisite 'thoughtful' and 'diverse' perspective, it's Stossel. (See his 2007 health care report for more.)

Obama's reason for taking to the airwaves is that his proposal is facing stiffer opposition than anticipated. First, his estimate of $634 billion over 10 years is wildly optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the plan will cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and 'result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of 'about $1 trillion,' despite Obama's reassurance that his reform (read: takeover) 'will not add to our deficit over the next 10 years.'

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) promised to cut $600 billion from the proposal and to pay for it with tax increases, spending cuts and other offsets. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) said the plan includes $600 billion in tax hikes and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Furthermore, the CBO estimates that 23 million Americans will lose the insurance they currently have, contrary to Obama's key promise that no one will lose insurance. '[T]he number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million,' the report says.


The CBO estimate is so ugly for Democrats, The Hill reports, that 'lawmakers are talking about changing the chamber's normal accounting procedures,' substituting estimates from the White House Office of Management and Budget for those of the CBO. So much for 'transparency.'

Considering the whole of Obamacare, one Patriot reader declared, 'I haven't heard health care advice so laughable since Lucille Ball flogged Vitameatavegamin on TV. "It's so tasty too. It's just like candy."

Has our president been hitting the Vitameatavegamin bottle himself? Not to worry, though. Even though socialized medicine has proven an abject failure in every venue trying it, the United States is such a big country that, like Lucy and Ethel selling homemade salad dressing below the cost of their ingredients, no doubt 'We'll make it up in volume. ' "

It's clear that Obama and his Dem cronies are putting the nation in greater peril from our enemies

Pete Hoekstra:

"There was a lot of rationale as to why we had the policies in place that we did over the last 7 1/2 years. We also recognize that there has not been another attack on the homeland, so the policies worked.

The administration and liberal Democrats have a different agenda and a different framework for how to combat these terrorists, these threats to the United States. I personally believe that they will not be as successful as what we've had.

You could then make the rationale conclusion that, yes, I do believe that they're putting the country at greater risk. I think the threats are very very real, and we're now providing our enemies with a little bit more latitude and a bigger opening to attack the United States again."

Even Dems have doubts about Obamacare

As rightly they should.

They need to help make this massive and dangerous potential disaster disappear.

Noteworthy:

"As details have emerged, business groups that had sounded supportive are suddenly openly critical, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce referring to the Senate health committee blueprint as 'a dangerous proposal' in an e-mail to members.

Insurance companies see an existential threat in Obama’s plan to include an option for government coverage, even though the administration says it is not meant to drive the industry

out of business. But health finance experts believe such a plan would inevitably drain dollars from the private-sector market."

The only reason Business considered supporting this proposal was their anticipation of ridding themselves of company paid benefit employee insurance cost on to the public at large. CFOs and lessoe beancounters alike across the nation were rubbing their hands in glee over the prospects of fattening up the old income statements.

At some point, they woke up to figure out that they were cutting their own throats in the long run. They realized that this Blue Bozos' "reform" of health care would result in the further growth and scope of Obamanation thuggery, plus such action would most certainly put an economic recovery in jeopardy, based up the information contained in the CBO report. And as well we know, it would only be a stepping stone for a complete system of socialized medicine, and the complete elimination of private health insurance.

The evidence of the previous steps in this long-planned implementation of this cherished Libthink agenda item are clear.

#

The coming failure of the Obama presidency

Thinks it's an over reach? A growing number of Americans think it is headed that way.

Excerpts:

"A failed presidency for Barack Obama could turn into liberalism's worst nightmare. Barely six months into his term, the 44th president has succeeded in generating the most widespread and serious discussion of secession since the Civil War. Despite what Newsweek's Evan Thomas may claim, Obama is not the 'God' who will bring us together but the autocratic sponsor of an overbearing, oppressive leviathan from which a growing number of Americans are seeking refuge.

......What most liberals fail to understand is that their leisurely dabbling in progressive politics and moral equivalency is made possible by the existence of accumulated conservative moral capital. Remove the conservative anchor and progressive societies become dangerously seasick.

I guess the lesson here is that liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need liberals (although society needs them on occasion). There is much in progressive ideology that simply seeks to undermine -- a strange method of establishing an identity.

...When Obama fails it will be because he's convinced enough Americans to tire, as he has, of what used to be known as 'America.' ".

At the rate this country and its prospects have degenerated in only five months, we'll be LUCKY if Balkanization is the worst thing that happens to us.

#

Bad news for the Obamanation and the Obamabots

Their smoke and mirrors routine isn't working anymore. The American public is starting to wise up to the damage that's being done.

WSJ:

"Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy, including Mr. Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. The negative feeling toward the GM rescue was reflected elsewhere in the survey as well.

A solid majority -- 58% -- said that the president and Congress should focus on keeping the budget deficit down, even if takes longer for the economy to recover."

New York Times:

"A distinct gulf exists between Mr. Obama's overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results. As Mr. Obama finishes his fifth month in office and assumes greater ownership of the problems he inherited, Americans are alarmed by the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been doled out to boost the economy. A majority said the government should instead focus on reducing the federal deficit."

Getting the facts straight about the bogus NOAA temperature data

Joseph D'Aleo has the honors of putting the most recent "global warming" alarmist temperature canard to rest.

And yet we are faced with an imminent act of "cap 'n trade" thievery by the Obamanation.

Read the whole thing for the facts that once again establish the utter chicanery that is the "anthropogenic global warming" scam.

#

Obamacare: 'Look For The Union Label....'

..and look for the alliance with the community organizers.

Noteworthy:

"But survey results aside, television and newspapers are replete with stories and images of America in a healthcare crisis. Where does the media find all those average Joes demanding a government-run system? I think I found the answer at Obama's health care website.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page, past the heart-wrenching tales of health insurance lost, and the frightening predictions of how we're all about to die, or if we're very, very lucky, merely go bankrupt. Check out the video link of HHS Secretary Sebelius at the AFSCME Nurses Association.

To the average nurse, the term "nurses association" brings to mind the American Nurses Association (ANA), or the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN): professional organizations based on a particular nursing specialty, such as the operating room or ER. I'd never heard of the AFSCME Nurses Association. I couldn't think of any nursing acronym that would fit those letters, so I googled them.

It's a union!"

....and:

"Guess who's featured on the Partner Organizations list? That's right -- ACORN!

At the AFSCME Health Care web page is a link to Health Care for America NOW! a 'grassroots' organization. Among their goals:

'We are fighting for a uniquely American solution that gives you a guarantee of coverage and real choice: keep your private insurance plan or join a new public health insurance plan so you are no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.'

That reads like it was downloaded from the President's teleprompter. And once again, prominent on the steering committee is ACORN, along with SEIU, AFSCME, and the AFL-CIO.

So what is the unions' goal for American healthcare? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation on March 19th, 2009:

'The Service Employees International Union and the California Nurses Association on Wednesday announced an agreement under which they will seek to unionize employees at hospitals nationwide and promote expansion of health insurance to all U.S. residents, the New York Times reports. Under the agreement, the unions will focus on efforts to unionize employees of larger hospital systems, where nurses would join CNA and other workers would join SEIU.'

It brings to mind a mental picture of the AXIS powers dividing up the healthcare world, doesn't it? And why not? If the UAW gets to have controlling interest in the American auto industry, why shouldn't AFSCME, SEIU, and ACORN be allowed to run the 14% of GDP currently known as the American healthcare system? Millions and millions and millions of new dues-paying members from countless communities ripe for organizing. All without the hassle of passing card check."

#

'Criminally Useful Idiocy'

The Obaminator:

"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff:

"This was an extremely foolish comment for at least two reasons. First, the debate in Iran was circumscribed. The candidates were screened by the mullahs. Four were permitted to run; hundreds were deemed insufficiently in tune with the "Revolution." And there appars to have little or no debate on the issue of primary concern to the U.S. -- Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's main rival, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, was in full agreement with the regime on this matter.

Second, there was always a strong possibility of election fraud. Robust debate, even had it existed, would be meaningless in the face of a fraudulent election. Thus, Obama should not have lauded the election, much less characterized it as advancing our ability to engage Iran in new ways, until he was satisfied that the election was honest. A fraudulent election in which the existing, intransigent regime claims a landslide victory will not advance our ability to engage in Iran in new ways.

A day later, it seems clear that the election was fraudulent. U.S. officials have said as much off-the-record. They find it "not credible" that Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote.

So Obama has praised an election that appears to have been a travesty. It's difficult to see how either Iran's rulers or its dissidents can view him as other than a fool -- usefully so in the case of the rulers; criminally so in the case of the dissidents."

Regarding the various 'progressive' sanctimonies over 'right wing-inspired violence'

Such obnoxious unction is the ultimate in political and social hypocrisy.

Here's why:

"How -- they ask while glancing furiously at the 'right"'-- did killing become thinkable in America?

Mother Teresa answered their question over a decade ago at a D.C. prayer breakfast that they snored through:

'Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use any violence to get what it wants.…If we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?' "

...and:

" 'Every child a wanted child' is a slogan Hitler himself could have devised. Instead, pro-abortion liberals did, and they have been killing 'unwanted' children ever since. They are in no position to lecture 'the right' on America's violence. "

Here's an excellent example of the babble, dribble, drool, and spew we're talking about:

"The Age of Obama has brought both a terrific upswelling of general positivism and a concomitant grand lightening up/toning down of outrageous verbiage and ranting extremism among the hotheaded-dictator set, and with it the strangest thing of all: an apparent global decline in overt, easily identifiable flameballs of tangible evil.

Just look around. The entire reptilian Republican party, our cherished font of evil ideas and evil intentions, is now just a cute, leaderless sideshow of circus freaks, all bluster and tantrum and Sarah Palin's kooky gams. It's quite a spectacle: One of the two major political parties in the United States is now entirely run by a blowhard talk radio cow, an insane Fox News comedian and a crusty bomb-thrower dug up from the vault of 1988 (Hi, Newt!)

And the evil tyrants? Struggling for relevance, mostly. Saddam's long gone, Kim Jong-Il is a batty coot, Iran's Ahmenijhad's bark is far worse than his bite, and even harmless thugs like Castro and Hugo Chavez are stunned to humble reverence by an American president who abides no such childish bulls--t and exudes actual integrity and preternatural calm.
...

So there you have it. All told, I'm not that worried. This is America, after all. I know we can do it. We have the ingenuity, the imagination. Our megacorporatons and our neoconservative politicians and our gun-wielding sociopaths are famous the world over for innovating new and exciting ways to reek of pure evil.

Hell, we still have Monsanto, ConAgra, Halliburton, Exxon, Archer Daniels Midland, Yum! Brands, Wal-Mart, most of the coal industry, Tyson meats, Fox News and the everpresent Catholic church, plus a few dozen others who will happily stop at nothing to maintain their long-standing evil empires, no matter what that damnable do-gooder president says. Isn't that reassuring?"

Why am I never surprised anymore to read slime like this from yet another bottom feeding, scum sucking dirtball like this clown?

Yet, WE'RE the ones who hate......

(Hat tip: Tom Elia, at The New Editor)

#

So what would Obamacare actually look like when implemented?

Geoffrey P. Hunt thinks it might look like our failed bureaucratic public education system.

Noteworthy:

"The government school monopoly, compulsory with mediocre results, unaffordable and ungovernable with beleaguered local taxpayers hopelessly unable to force accountability from teachers' unions co-dependent with democrat party legislators, is a perfect model for Obama to finance and ration health care for the masses....

In a seductive overture to private health plan stalwarts, Obama says the government health care system will not be a mandatory substitute for private health care preferences, only an option.

Of course those who remain in a private system will face double jeopardy -- covering their own private medical costs while suffering higher federal taxes to pay for somebody else's -- in the same manner that private school parents, opting out of horrible local public schools for far better independent alternatives, must pay private school tuition while still shouldering ever escalating property and state income taxes to educate those poor wretches who cannot escape the government's incompetence.

Those who cannot afford private health care, whose employers would rather pay higher taxes instead of underwriting actual medical claims, will also be victimized just as parents with no choice have to send their children to lousy government schools. Want to see what demotivated clock watchers -- doctors and nurses alike -In a government run clinic would look like? Just spend a few hours in a typical public high school faculty lounge.

Want to see what government hospital administrators consumed by micro-management of trivialities would look like? Just spend a few hours at a typical Public School Board or School Committee meeting.

And who would thwart the temptations for the government health care bureaucrats to regulate medical care provided by private institutions who accept federal grants for medical research? Check out the hostility towards home schoolers these days from State Boards of Education .

And given the enthusiasm shown by Congressman Barney Frank and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner alike for government control over compensation of executives running government financed private companies, why wouldn't they have an equally big appetite to regulate pay and benefits for doctors wherever they practice? Tenure for marginal practitioners and those twelve step compensation tables embedded in nearly all teachers' contracts wouldn't be far behind."

Obama: 'Oh, by the way. we're going to cut ANOTHER $313 BILLION from the amount we pay to providers, so that we can have Obamacare'

"And we're going to FURTHER reduce Medicare reimbursements while we're at it. And you will like it, whether you like it, or not"

Key points:

"Mr. Obama prefers to talk about how his plan will cut the cost of health care, but most of those changes he emphasizes are long-term goals aimed at altering the way medicine is practiced. In the short run, he and his congressional allies need to find immediate savings to pay for the subsidies they want to offer the uninsured to buy coverage.

These cuts to government spending aren't expected to reduce the cost of care for people with private health insurance. In fact, some would argue that health-care providers will simply increase rates they charge others to make up for cuts from the government.

In February, the White House outlined cuts to federal health-care spending that wound up totaling $309 billion over 10 years. The administration also proposed $327 billion in tax increases, for a total of $636 billion—what officials called a "down payment" toward the full cost of the health-care package.

Those proposed health care spending reductions included a big hit to health insurance companies, reducing payments made to the Medicare Advantage program."

In addition to all the other horrific implications of the full Obamacare agenda, it's clear that the Obamanation wants to kill off Medicare Advantage. If you're not familiar with that program, it's the privately administered alternative to original Medicare popular with many savings because it offers better coverage, lower premiums (sometimes at no cost to seniors), in many cases including prescription drug coverage.

Medicare Advantage poses a threat to any form of government health care because it is an indication that free market solutions to health care coverage are significantly better than government "solutions", which are less effective and more costly, despite what "progressive" economists and other agenda drumbeaters want you to believe.

Many fixed income seniors find Medicare Advantage to be a blessing, because original Medicare has outrageously high deductibles (Part A, the hospitalization portion's deductible is over $1000 per admission), and the cost of a Medicare Supplement policy, which helps cover these expenses, generally has a much higher premium than the Medicare Advantage programs, and prescription drug plans are an additional cost.

The savings to the beneficiaries who choose Medicare Advantage can be dramatic, but with the stealth plan to eliminate it, these seniors will pay a cruel hidden tax, one that many can't afford.In its place, we get diversion and the "Hope 'n Change" song and dance from the Obamanation and the Obaminator.

Meanwhile, we get more expensive, lower quality health care for all, and a significant portion of our citizens (joining with the other postions of the population) will end up suffering dramatically, all to fulfill a cherished "progressive" worldview social and economic agenda item.

#