"Pulling the trigger on Obamacare"

The "trigger" is just another Trojan Horse for government run health care, and is just the latest smoke and mirrors routine "regressives" have used all along to deceive Americans about their true objectives for "health care reform".

"Health care reform" as currently constituted needs to die NOW. It's time to start all over on a brand new proposal with no smoke and mirrors, with no open-ended mandates, with complete transparency throughout the entire process.

From Robert Romano, at Get Liberty Dot Org:

As bipartisan negotiations in the Senate have failed to trick Republicans into supporting a vigorous government-run takeover of the entire health care system, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are making a last ditch effort to sway at least one Republican member: Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Reports CNN Politics, “For the past months, Snowe has been pushing the idea of a safety net plan, or ‘trigger,’ for a public health care option as part of a key compromise. A source familiar with her negotiations with Obama said that's one of the things they're talking about…The idea would give insurance companies a defined period to make changes in order to help cover more people and drive down long-term costs. But if those changes failed to occur within the defined period, a trigger would provide for creating a public option to force change on the insurance companies.”

Concern over a government-run medical system has galvanized citizens nationwide in opposition to let their voices be heard in town halls. And they’ve left the members of Congress ducking for cover. The political damage has been so extensive that Barack Obama is preparing an address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday to in yet another attempt to sell his latest scheme for ObamaCare.

According to FOX News, White House aides have said that Obama “will deliver the message that Democrats are willing to go it alone if it cannot get Republicans behind it.” The joke is that he does not actually need a single Republican vote to pass what he wants if his own party would just rally behind him.

The true trouble that ObamaCare faces is that Democrats believe that they are on a political Titanic—and vulnerable members in both chambers are stampeding to get to the lifeboats.

The reason Democrats want Snowe—or somebody like her—is so they can parade her around as the token Republican brokering a grand compromise, thus providing what they believe is political cover. And so, now they are ready to give Snowe what she has been asking for: a delayed implementation of the government takeover of the health care system in exchange for selling out her own party.

And if Olympia falls for the Snowe-job, she will do so knowing full well that her sell-out is a charade. After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already played the socialist hand.

“If they want no public option, but a trigger, you can be sure that the trigger will bring on a very robust public option,” said Pelosi, knowing full well that she gets to define and control the mechanism, tied to the escalating costs of providing life-saving treatments.

And of course, government controls that, too. It currently mandates minimal levels of coverage to be provided at the state level. It prohibits insurance to be purchased across state lines. It thus allows regional, corporatist monopolies to operate with impunity that in turn pay handsomely via political protection money to elected officials keep the status quo.

In the legislation now before Congress, even if the so-called public “option” were put on a trigger tied to costs, the bill would still force employers to provide coverage and individuals to buy coverage or else pay a tax. It would establish a whole new body of regulations that would force insurance companies that would eventually, inevitably bankrupt private insurance.

As reported by the Heritage Foundation, the legislation establishes “a single minimum coverage standard that will eventually apply to nearly all health plans and establishes a new ‘Health Benefits Advisory Committee’ within HHS to make detailed recommendations, which the secretary of HHS would then impose through regulation.”

Thus, by simply upping what must be minimally covered under private health plans, costs would skyrocket, and the deadly trigger on ObamaCare would be pulled.

They can call it whatever they want. A delayed public “option.” A compromise. A trigger. But, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are determined to get what they want. And whether now, sooner, or later, they are determined to force through a bill that inevitably results in socialized medicine.

Olympia Snowe can go along with it, too, if she wants. But she must realize that, really, she’ll only be pulling the trigger on the American people. On freedom of choice. And on quality health care that provides for the young and protects the old.

#

Obama's got a plan for your future wheels...

......and you will LIKE it, whether you like it or not!

"You WILL drive the functional equivalents of four wheel enclosed Vespas, because I SAY so! Automotive safety and comfort forthwith will have no function (except for the privileged Elite, like Al Gore and myself)."

Noteworthy:

"In secret conversations, the Obama administration has lined up support from many state governments and a huge array of domestic and foreign automakers, including GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW and many more."

.....no doubt using the same scorched earth policy his thugs used on the Chrysler bondholders to force them to give up their bond agreements, while protecting the UAW's vested interests.

We're well aware how things like that work in the Obamanation.

#

Who's the bigger bozo? Barry O, or Pelosi?

Barry O, for releasing the interrogation tapes in response to Dick Cheney's accurate criticism of the Obamanation's foreign policy disasters?

Or La Pelosi, for her dumb and dumber routine lies about what she knew and when she knew it regarding "enhanced interrogation" techniques?

I'll go with Pelosi, who obviously can't even separate fact from fiction, and probably reallybelieves her lies are not lies, despite the evidence that convicts her.

More:



More details:

"House Minority Leader John Boehner told FOX News on Monday that 'the ball is in the speaker's court.' If she is accusing the CIA of lying, she 'needs to come forward, either present evidence or do an apology, and let's get this behind us.'

'Lying to Congress is a crime. Purposely misleading Congress is a crime. And if the speaker is accusing the intelligence community of lying to her or purposefully misleading her, then she ought to present that evidence, turn it over to the Justice Department, have them prosecute it,' Boehner said.

But Boehner did not call for Pelosi's ouster."

But plenty of others have.

That call should be heeded.

Don't hold your breath.

#

The entitlement crisis is coming sooner than you think

Much sooner.

The non-existent positive Social Security cash flow goes belly-up in 2016, and the Medicare "trust" goes bankrupt the following year.

Can you say "I don't have any more money to give" to the Obamanation?

You'll need to.

Not that it would make any difference though.

You''ll just need to "spread the wealth around" again, whether you have any or not, whether you like it or not.

#

'Would you like your new 2010 American-built Obamamobile in Shades of Pink, or would All-Out Red be better?'

"Oh, one more thing: In addition to transportation to the selling point charge, dealer prep, cap 'n trade fees, new technology surcharges, the mandatory universal no fault auto insurance costs, sales and other state and local cash entitlement fees, there will be a slight additional surcharge of 10% for the new UAW Political Action/Slush Fund fee. Plus, you need to pre-pay your expected first year red light and speed camera traffic fines of $5000. And, of course, there will be no refunds or carry overs year to year."

Unfortunately, the Obamanationization of the U.S. auto industry is likely the kiss of death, even with some of the non-level playing field conditions the Obamamobiles are sure to enjoy.

Noteworthy:

"Stacking the deck in favor of GM and Chrysler, and using new taxes to create demand for alternative fuel vehicles which Obama wants built in the US, won't be enough to guarantee success for Chrysler and GM. The Politicized auto industry will still need to compete with the strongest players in this market. GM and Chrysler will need to have excellence in design, and to manufacture cars that are high quality to attract buyers.

As we see in the banking industry, having the government as your investment partner creates huge disincentives to attract and retain top, capable, and motivated management. This is the fatal flaw of Obama's politicization of the American automobile industry, and it will be shown that the money from the US Treasury was a poor investment, and the better outcome would have come from a regular Chapter 11 reorganization without the Obama's heavy handedness."

#

'Hope 'n change' Hate Speech

"I hope his kidneys fail"?

Then Obama smiles, and the Tanksters laugh?

Can you imagine the Lefty outrage if a prominent conservative pundit said something personal regarding Obama and lung cancer?

So where's the outrage on this piece of slime?

Oh wait, I forgot.

The new speech code in the Obamanation is "free speech for me, but not for thee".

More on this execrable episode, from Kathryn Jean Lopez:

"Somehow Dick Cheney, who continues to stand athwart unseriousness yelling 'Stop", is the enemy.

Somehow Rush Limbaugh, conservative stalwart, the embodiment of capitalist success, a man who has struggled with adversity with an inspiring humility, is someone we’re to disdain so much as to laugh at the prospect of his kidneys’ failing.

Somehow we are supposed to be pining for one of the nastiest men on television to do something that everyone laughing at the joke presumably considers torture to Sean Hannity, who, agree with him or not, is the happiest of warriors compared with Keith Olbermann.

The reviews of the president Saturday night were good, I keep hearing. But what happened Saturday night was not right. The same liberal elite that has brought us hate-crimes laws and speech codes spewed real venom.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is below the president, whoever he is (I thought this when Bush was president and I think it even more today). But that dinner Saturday night —in the jokes the president of the United States of America was willing to make and to laugh at — was beneath America. "

#

Obamacare details: Lots of rhetoric, lttle detail on where the "savings" will come from

Philip Klein, at AmSpec:

"All that we know is that a bunch of special interest groups are supposed to squeeze $2 trillion in savings out of the projected costs of the health care system over 10 years. But we can't actually say precisely what health care costs will be 10 years from now, and they aren't giving us any specifics. They say we'll save $2 trillion, but it may as well be $10 trillion because it's a completely made up figure."

He quotes Cato's Michael Cannon:

"I smell a rat. Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members. Ever. If they did, they would be fired and replaced with new lobbyists. "

Klein continues:

"With that said, it's important not to lose sight of the political value of what just took place at the White House, as Obama called for an 'aggressive' push for health care reform this year, flanked by leaders of groups representing the insurance industry, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and unions. "

Hail hail, the hand-picked gang's all here!

It's more than a rat I smell.

I smell the unmistakable smell of bovine scatology in support of the lie of "trillions saved!", and in the Big Lie that is the "Hope 'n Change" propaganda.

#

Are you ready for the next round on a Big Issue Bad Idea that just won't go away?

Hey kids! Guess what time it is?

It's "Amenesty For Illegal Immigrants Time"....AGAIN!

Noteworthy:

"So has Obama abandoned all hope of an immigration amnesty and embraced the pro-enforcement position?

Don't count on it. One of the few programs on the chopping block in the president's round of paltry budget cuts -- $17 billion in the context of a $3.4 trillion budget -- was the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP reimburses state governments for the cost of incarcerating convicts and criminals awaiting trial who are in the country illegally.

When President Bush tried to scrap SCAAP, Democrats in Congress and from border states protested. Congressman John Spratt (D-S.C.), now chairman of the House Budget Committee, protested that 'the need [for this program] cannot be overstated.' Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who had to beat a Republican immigration hawk to get to Congress, complained that SCAAP 'has been consistently underfunded.' Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, now Obama's secretary of homeland security, penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed demanding that the funds be restored."

Why do I get the feeling that those Dems who opposed amnesty last time will magically have changed their partisan minds this time around?

#

David Frum: 'Something bad and dangerous is happening in Barack Obama's America'

But we knew that already, didn't we?

Quick fix today, crisis tomorrow in Obama's White House

Noteworthy:

"In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.

In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union.

Meanwhile, his administration is planning changes to the regulation of finance that are likely to leave the United States less dynamic and less innovative in the years ahead -- at the same time as taxes rise and educational levels decline. (Already the Educational Testing Service-- the people who run America's SAT exam -- predicts a less skilled U. S. workforce in 2030 than today, with literacy rates declining by an average of 5% as unskilled immigration and rising rates of single parenthood take their toll.)

It's easy to lose sight of these wrong and costly choices in the turmoil of the immediate crisis. But it is these decisions of today that are preparing the crisis of tomorrow."

Don't complain that you hadn't been warned......

#

'The government has committed arson'

"Bad Logic", by Brian Wesbury and Bob Stein:

"Both Robert Kuttner, a long-time critic of free markets, and Richard Posner, a long-time supporter of free markets, recently made the same argument. Kuttner said “markets are not self-correcting. If they were, [then] Wall Street would not be lined up for trillions of dollars in government handouts.” Posner, in a recent WSJ Op-Ed said capitalism is “not inherently stable.” He argued that the seriousness of the downturn (he says it is the worst since the 1930s) is proven, “by the dizzying array of programs the government is deploying and the staggering amounts of money it is spending….”

This 'if the government is spending lots of money, then the economy must really be bad and markets don’t work' argument has been made by many analysts in recent months. But just because it is being used does not mean it is right. In fact, these statements of logic are deeply flawed and mistaken.

If fire trucks came roaring up to your house, and the firemen started spraying water, breaking out windows and chopping holes in the roof, one would think the house was on fire. But, it doesn’t have to be. Activity is not proof.

With all due respect to Richard Posner, this is not the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It reminds us more of the banking crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, when bank loans to farms, oil, and Latin America went bad all at once. On a mark-to-market basis, every money center bank was bankrupt in the early 1980s.

But, these bankrupt banks, and savings and loans, did not destroy the economy. Back in the 1980s the government gave banks time to work out their problem loans.

Meanwhile, the Reagan tax cuts lifted growth and the economy eventually grew its way out of most of the problem. The RTC was finally put into place in the late 1980s to clean up the banks that just could not dig themselves out of their problems.

In other words, the Bush and Obama teams are doing things that the Reagan administration would have never done. Mark-to-market accounting rules have significantly increased the size of financial market problems and overestimated losses. Then, the extent of those losses were used by the government to justify a heavy hand of regulation and control. The stress tests were just another chapter in this saga. Government involvement begets more government involvement.

In response to all of this, we propose a different argument, using different logic. If the government had not involved itself so deeply in this crisis, then the US economy would most likely have avoided a recession altogether.

Capitalism is not broken. In fact, allowing the market system to deal with the problems of the last few years would have been much better than having the government do it.

In our view, the government has committed arson and is now claiming that the building owners are liable for the amount it costs to put out the fire."

#

Obama claims he can 'save trillions' on health care?

Yeah, sure. We know how that works.

It's called "rationing", and letting the seniors deal with their problems without medical help, or better yet in the Obamanation's scheme of things, to just go ahead and die, thereby helping out on social security problems, too.

We know the type of sweeping overhaul we'll end up with.

I love this passage:

"Obama's effort to cast the health care proposal as a money-saving initiative comes as critics label his hefty domestic agenda fiscally irresponsible. But Obama counters that high budget deficits are a legacy of President George W. Bush, a Republican."

Really?

What does THIS tell us?




Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.

#

The state of American politics today

"We live in a world where people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank are actually taken seriously.

We live in a world where a nobody 'community organizer' with no accomplishments and who freely admits he is a blank screen on which others can project their fantasies, can become President and leader of the Free World.

Don't waste your time looking for any sense or consistency in the contradictory demands and rhetoric of these political postmodern demagogues. They will say whatever they need to say in order to obtain and keep power.

In Obama, the political left finally has the opportunity to translate their postmodern therapeutic psychobabble into real political action...."

-- Dr. Sanity, who has much more to say in the post.

#

Pelosi, Rockefeller KNEW about the interrogation methods

Those two need to stop telling lies about what they knew and when they knew it.

In addition to what Porter Goss has said about Pelosi and Company's awareness, there's this:

"Ms. Pelosi's denials are also difficult to square with a chronology of 40 CIA briefings to Congressional Members compiled by the CIA and released this week by Director Leon Panetta. For the September 4, 2002 meeting, the CIA's summary of the discussion reads: 'Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.' We emphasize the verb tense to underscore the contradiction with Ms. Pelosi's categorical denials of last month."

....and:

"On February 4, 2003, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were given a briefing in which 'EITs [were] "described in considerable detail,'including "how the water board was used."' The process by which the techniques were approved by DoJ was also raised.' The document also adds that Mr. Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, was later given an 'individual briefing.'

Nor was that the only time Mr. Rockefeller, who chaired the Committee from 2007 to 2009, heard from the CIA. The West Virginian was briefed at least 12 times more about interrogation techniques, legal authorities and other aspects of the program. The last, in June 2008, was offered to 10 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and covered "discussion of EITs and the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions. Specific mentions of waterboarding numerous time.' "

....finally:

"....perhaps the CIA should release whatever notes they kept of the briefings. Our guess is that's one pile of memos Speaker Pelosi & Co. aren't especially eager to declassify."

Yes, let's see them.

Don't hold your breath.

So where's the call from "principled" Dems for Pelosi's resignation?

Again, don't hold your breath.

Excerpt:

"The excuses trotted out in her defense so far are pretty pathetic. See this anonymously authored Center for American Progress post as a good example. One talking point--that Pelosi wasn't specifically informed about waterboarding--is particularly laughable. As Goldfarb notes below, Rep. Hoekstra says there are documents showing otherwise, and Allahpundit points out that Pelosi was briefed just a month after Zubaydah was waterboarded repeatedly: 'Consider the context of when the briefing was held — one week before 9/11/02, when fears of an anniversary attack were sky high — and ask yourself why the CIA wouldn’t have told Pelosi they had waterboarded Zubaydah?'

It certainly looks like Pelosi knew about waterboarding, and if she didn't she was certainly briefed about other interrogation techniques. Do her apologists think that waterboarding is the only technique that qualifies as torture?"

On the other hand, most of us think that the phrase "principled Democrats" is an oxymoron of the highest degree.

#

So where will YOU cut your budget (or increase your income) to cover YOUR household's share of 'cap 'n trade' costs?

It's up to $3900.00 per year, and counting.

I suppose one way to cover it would help support yet another of the "Progressive" agenda items: Stop making tithes to your evangelical Christian church, so as to further marginalize the faith.

After all, why should you support God's work, when the New Messiah's Hope 'n Change theology has better plans for you than the out-of-favor Christian one's does?

#

'Every Picture Tells A Story, Don't It?'

It's pretty easy to see just who is in denial about the REAL threat of excess Federal government power, and exactly who buys into the nonsense about the "eeeeeeeeevil big business", isn't it?

From Gallop, via Greg Mankiw.

#

Cap 'n Trade: 'Monstrously stupid'....almost demented'

But we knew that already, didn't we?

On the other hand, ANY type of "carbon regulation" fits into this category. As well we know, there is NO valid evidence that establishes that greenhouse gases, let alone CO2, let alone man's insignificant contribution to CO2, have ANYTHING to do with 'climate change'.

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Yet that doesn't stop the incessant babble, dribble, drool and spew in support of the academic and intellectual fraud that is known as the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming climate change".



By the way, the $2000.00 per household cost mentioned in the video by Gregg is an incredibly low estimate.

I cannot overstate the importance of making sure that any sort of tax under the guise of "carbon regulation" should suffer a complete and utter defeat, and that good, common sense be applied in any application of energy policy change.

Let the resulting infantile foot-stomping temper tantrums and the pious pontificated posturing from the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change" cabal be given the exact amount of attention it deserves: Absolutely none.

#

'Hate Crime' legislation serves no valid purpose

But that doesn't top Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" from their never-ending campaign of grandstanding and pandering for their special interest group supporters on issues like this.

Noteworthy:

"The logic behind the proposed measure is hard to follow. Says sponsoring Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), 'No members of society -- none -- deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation.' Which raises the question: Who exactly does deserve to be the victim of a violent crime?"

...and:

"If federal licensing laws required disclosure of the ingredients in congressional legislation, here's what the label on this one would say: 90 grams of empty symbolism and 10 grams of needless duplication."

The label would also have to say "This product has no known useful purpose besides enabling certain cherished worldview social agenda babble-on talking points."

In fact, some would say that it's nothing more than an attemp by the Obamantion and fellow socialists to impose a speech code through intimidation.

Excerpt:

"So now we have a word for Democrats' eye-popping hypocrisy when they wrap themselves in the mantle of free speech while simultaneously attempting to suppress non-Leftist ideas. We have a word for the Left's double standard in championing 'repressed minorities' only when those minorities share their politics, while savaging principled, accomplished minorities like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Janice Rogers Brown. We have an explanation for why so many college campuses, supposedly the society's heart of open-minded intellectual inquiry, actively, even violently intimidate conservative speakers -- when they let them onto campus at all.

They have been practicing 'partisan tolerance.'

That is, tolerance of the extreme Left and virulent intolerance of anything else."

#

Then and now: The New York Times on potential Supreme Court nominees

THEN:

• "Senate Democrats, who have been willing to block ideologues nominated to the lower courts, will certainly do everything they can to prevent a right-wing ideologue from joining the nation's highest court. Before that fight begins, Mr. Bush should ask himself whether Americans want to live in a country where the handicapped cannot find a champion in the law, where women are stripped of all abortion rights, where universities are barred from offering a hand up to deserving minority students."

--editorial, New York Times, July 2, 2005

• "Far-right activists are pressuring President Bush to choose an extremist. . . . The far right's agenda for the court is a frightening one. Activists want a justice who will radically reinterpret the Commerce Clause and other parts of the Constitution to tie Congress's hands, so it no longer has the power to protect people from discrimination, unsafe working conditions and pollution. They want to obliterate the constitutional right to privacy, which is the basis not only for the right to abortion, but also for such elemental protections as the right to buy contraception."

--editorial, New York Times, July 17, 2005

NOW:
• "Never mind that President Obama has not even tipped his hand about his choice to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It's never too early, it appears, to start the character assassination . . ."
--editorial, New York Times, May 8, 2009

Via Best of the Web.

Being a Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" means you never have to explain for your hypocrisy and double standards.

Ever.

That's particularly true if you're some kind of absurd and increasingly irrelevant political., social, and economic media icon whose death rattle prattle is way too obvious.

#

The danger of the "extreme far right"? Yeah, right....

Don't make me laugh.

That notion is pure fiction, a concoction of Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" to deflect attention away from the socialism that they now clearly want to install in this nation, and is nothing less than another Looney Toon-er scare tactic.

Noteworthy:

Those who would grab huge hunks of power must always invent an enemy. In Orwell's 1984, that enemy was Emmanuel Goldstein. In Stalin's Russia, those enemies were Kulaks, counter-revolutionaries, and saboteurs. In Hitler's Germany, that enemy was World Jewry. The enemy never, really, stands for anything. He is just a vague, unarticulated menace, and his menace itself is illogical.

.....and:

"We conservatives are different. Let Ben and Jerry be socialists (if they give their own money away.) Let the gay community pursue its lifestyle (just let us have our consciences be free.) Let leftist professors say nutty things, (but keep them from running indoctrination camps of leftism.) The essence of what is called today the 'far right' is simply affection for limited government, the radical concept upon which America was born. Those who hate us are simply those who love power above all else and who will call us silly names to terrorize people into fearing us."

#

Coming soon: A Boomer Bailout via Social Security

David Ignatius at WaPo: "Boomers Going Bust".

Noteworthy:

"What's going to happen? Certainly, people will try to save more. But my guess, knowing my generational cohort, is that we'll want a government bailout to supplement our too-meager retirement savings. Unfortunately, the Treasury won't have enough money to fund our Medicare benefits, let alone a top-up in Social Security. "

Hmm......if this SS benefit increase does take place, then the Obamantion could eliminate tax breaks for senior citizens and remove the restrictions on taxing Social Security benefits.

It's a perfect opportunity to grandstand about "fixing a problem" on the front end, while aggravating the problem even more on the back end.

Brilliant!

#