Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Hey Kids! More "free stuff" from Uncle Obama

I''m going to try to keep this brief, because whenever I think about it, I flip into crazy.

Reporting today at the Fox News White House blog, Row 2 Seat 4: "Obama Alters Student Loan Landscape"

According to the White House, "New borrowers who assume loans after July 1, 2014, will be able to cap their student loan repayments at 10 percent of their discretionary income and, if they keep up with their payments over time, will have the balance forgiven after 20 years."

So here's what that means to me. Even though I've paid into Social Security for 40 years, I'm being told not to expect to receive that money back because Social Security is broke. And Medicare when I'm retired? Forget it. However, college students who have never paid a dime to anyone for anything will now be getting what will amount to "free money" for their education. Free money? Do the math.

Notice the designation "discretionary" income. In my world, that's what is left over to spend once all the necessary bills are paid. So a young person making a modest salary and paying back his or her school loans under this ObamaLoan scheme might pay somewhere around $50-100 a month. 50 x 12 = $600 a year. Say the first 10 years or so they average $500 a year and the second 10 years they average $1,000. That would be about $15,000 over 20 years. That would mean anything over $15,000 in this middle-class person's world would be paid by the taxpayers. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That is some sweet deal. Here's the quote that keeps going through my head when I hear about this stuff, from Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money to spend."

So far, I've heard exactly zero reporting or analysis about this newest ObamaEntitlement that at the last minute was stuck onto the healthcrap bill. So if the federal government is now going to be Uncle Sugar for America's sons and daughters going to college, how soon will we learn that there will be "quotas" for certain degrees or that there will be a small "volunteer" requirement in Obama's Youth Corps to be eligible for the loan? How will they figure eligibility for these loans?

If Obama wanted to take down this country by destroying us with debt, how would he behave any differently than what he's been doing since the day he was sworn into office?

Like I said, the whole thing just flips me into crazy.

P.S. I was just sitting here remembering what it was like when my husband and I were first married and we were paying off our student loans. He was in the military and I was still in school, so I guess I wasn't paying off my loan yet. Every month we were billed $30 on his student loan. That might not sound like much, but our monthly income was only $600 a month, and there was no loan forgiveness or deferment because he was in the military. So again, do the math. We were paying out 5% of our total income--not our discretionary income. And believe me, at that point in our lives, we had no discretionary income. It took us about 15 years, but we finally got those student loans (both of them) paid off in full. That was a proud and happy day, one that evidently any student signing up after 2014 will never know. That's OK, kids, Uncle Sugar will take care of you, because evidently no one expects you to be able to do it for yourselves.

Update. Oh, this is rich. Someone pointed out to me that discretionary income is what you have left over once the bills are paid and you've put some away for a rainy day. There is exactly zero incentive for anyone receiving one of these loans to pay it back--pay as little as possible, kicking the can down the road as long as possible, as long as you pay something--and wha-la, in 20 years it all goes away.

Update #2. Forbes has the details about Obama's new plan. Here's an added "plus": Former students who get jobs in the public sector will have loans forgiven after 10 years, not 20, and the forgiven balance will not be taxable. That would also be known as "selling your soul for a govenrment job." I know someone who did that--an otherwise intelligent person who worked in a government job--and he's the most vacant, uninteresting person I've ever met. He does, however, enjoy two homes that are both paid off.

According to Forbes, under the new plan a single borrower with an adjusted gross income of $30,000 who owes $40,000 in student loans would have the payment dropped from what it would currently be, $460 per month, to $115 per month, which means, in this example, that this particular borrower would pay something under $30,000 and have $10,000 of the loan forgiven. Since anyone who has looked into the cost of a college education these days knows that $40,000 is a hopelessly low figure, taxpayers can expect to be shelling out big bucks for this plan.

Update #3. In related news, from Reason TV: "3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy."

Reason 1: They cost too much.
Reason 2: We can't fire them.
Reason 3: They're a permanent lobby.

h/t HotAir
Lawrence Eagleburger: Obama "Amateurish" in His Foreign Relations

Here's Lawrence Eagleburger, former Sec'y of State, responding in an interview by Neil Cavuot of Fox News. "He's playing with fire here and he's playing with dynamite and he doesn't understand it." Ouch.

h/t Gateway Pundit
Obama to Mat Lauer: "The overall architecture of it was, uh, something that was, uh, right down the middle."


In the same interview, Obama also mentioned the Heritage Foundation:

Obama. When you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. . . . A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool the purchasing power of individuals, in the insurance market--that originated from the Heritage Foundation.

Whoops, not so fast, Champ. I don't think the Heritage Foundation appreciates your bald-faced lies about them. "Heritage President Ed Feulner Responds to President Obama's Claims"

Here's the first paragraph: President Obama this morning cited The Heritage Foundation’s research in an attempt to sell his health care package as a “middle of the road, centrist approach.” We take great exception to this misuse of our work and abuse of our name. This is but the latest act in a campaign to sell this big-government program as a moderate law that incorporates conservative ideas. Americans should not be fooled.

I don't know, the really frightening this is that maybe Barry believes his "right down the middle" BS. Maybe he really does think that OCare is a moderate law; maybe he's actually convinced himself that the yearlong locked door Democrat-only brainstorming sessions didn't include Republicans because they didn't want to be there. Maybe this guy is more delusional than he is dumb. That's a scary thought.

P.S. Apropos of nothing related to this post: Obama with his dark circles looks like shit. And if you consider that those bags must have been covered up by the NBC makeup department--oof. Just sayin'.
An update to a previous post about Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional perp walk through the Tea Party crowd

One of the accusations that has been made is that someone in the Tea Party crowd yelled "nigger" as many as "15 times" when John Lewis, a Georgia Congressman and "civil rights icon" walked up the steps of the Capitol Building.

Here's an article at the American Thinker: A Closer Look at the Capitol Steps Conspiracy. In his article, Jack Cashill calls the Democrats' attempt to discredit the Tea Party movement "one of the most appallingly successful media scams in recent years."

From Cashill's article: Here is what happened. Rather than use the tunnel from the Cannon Office Building to the Capitol, a contingent from the Black Caucus [as did Nancy Pelosi and her chums] chose to walk through a crowd of protesters. In none of the videos shot that day, including those by the members of the Caucus themselves, has anyone identified a single audible racial slur.

Andrew Breitbart from Big Government, etc., has asked that Lewis put up or shut up.

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Another "What's in the Bill?" Post

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, suprise, suprise." It turns out that, yet again, Barack Obama doesn't know what was in his own health care bill. This was reported Sunday in the NYT.

Here's what Obama's been saying about children, preexisting conditions, and the insurance companies as the issue relates to his own health care reform law: Mr. Obama, speaking at a health care rally in northern Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

Sorry, but like a whole lot of this bill, that statement turns out to be pure BS and also just plain wrong.

Here's what the NYT is reporting: Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

It's evidently a matter of reading the "fine print," according to William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies. "The fine print differs from the larger political message." How many times are we going to hear that one in the coming weeks and months?

The article goes on to say that Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

Then maybe they should have taken the time to make sure the bill correctly said what they thought it did. Oh no, no, no--this was a crisis of the gravest proportions that had to be SHOVED down our throats. So good luck with that campaign soundbite in 2010, all you "furious" Democrats who voted for this crap bill.

Allahpundit at HotAir has a post about this screw-up and the shoddy drafting of the bill. Allah makes a pretty good argument that maybe this wasn't a screw-up but instead was intentional, baiting the "evil" insurance companies and heartless Republicans into a showdown over the issue of taking care of the children. Campaign against this and you instantly become a heartless hater of sick kids. Sweet.

Howevere, I disagree with Allah. I go back and forth with this all the time: is the Obama administration evil or stupid? Most of the time, as in this case, I come down on the side of stupid. I think this is a case of sheer incompetence. They were in a mad rush to pass the damned bill, any way, any how; there's no telling how many of these "drafting errors" are going to come to light in the weeks and months ahead.

Update. This is from today's Beacon Street Journal: "The fraudulent promises of Obamacare." Here's the first paragraph: Stripped bare of all its misleading minutiae, the promise of Obamacare in a nutshell is this: we’re going to insure an additional 30 million people who don’t have health insurance, yet provide everybody including those who already have health insurance with better coverage, at lower cost and to paraphrase the president, “not add one dime to the deficit.” Barack Obama spent the entire first year of his presidency communicating this childish fantasy to an unreceptive and disbelieving electorate. In the end, since nobody was buying what he was selling, Obama was forced to justify the bill’s passage by claiming it’s the “right thing to do.”

The article goes on to discuss how the Democrats had to game the system in order to create the illusion of O-Care's deficit reduction features.

What's in our future to pay for this monstrosity? A European-style value added tax, of course, known simply as "the VAT." How do the Democrats escape the quandary and fiscal recklessness of adding another massive new entitlement program on top of Social Security and Medicare’s insolvency? Look for the implementation of a Value Added Tax on the horizon.

So much for Obama's promises not to add "one dime" of taxes to people making under $250,000. How many times did we hear that during the 2008 campaign? I'm thinking he must have said that at least 10,000 times. This promise, like so many of his other promises to the American people, clearly comes with an expiration date.
"Iran will back down," says Obama aide Valerie Jarrett

Put aside for a minute that Valerie Jarrett is a Chicago slumlord. Jarrett is also a senior advisor in the Obama administration. Here's Michelle Malkin's description of her in the book, Culture of Corruption:

"The Obamas don't make a move without Jarrett. She has been dubbed 'the other side of Barack's brain' and 'Barack's Rock.' In an October 2008 interview with the Chicago Tribune, President Obama said of his relationship with Jarrett: 'I trust her completely.'" She has been named in the Obama administration "Senior Advisor for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison," which is undoubtedly meant to mean anything Obama wants it to mean.

Jarrett was born to American parents; her father was a renowned hematologist/pathologist and her mother a child development expert. Her maternal grandfather was the first black man to head the Chicago Housing Authority, and his father was the first black graduate of M.I.T. Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran where her father ran a hospital for children as part of a program where American doctors and agricultural experts sought to help jump-start developing countries' health and farming efforts. When she was five, the family moved to London for one year, returning to Chicago in 1963.

So that's Jarrett's Iran connection.

Jarrett appeared yesterday on the Sunday talking head show, ABC's This Week with Jake Tapper. The money line from Jarrett was this: "Iran will back down." Whew, that's a relief, now I can quit worrying about Iran blowing up half the Western world with the nuclear weapons they're busy developing.

Tapper: Still no major international cooperation of putting pressure on Iran [despite Obama's "deadline" of
December 2009]. You know a little bit about Iranian culture. Don't you think that this in some way conveys weakness, or the inability to rally international support?

Jarrett: Quite the contrary. In fact, over the last year what we've seen when the president came into office was a unified Iran. Now we're seeing a lot of divisions within the country, and we're seeing steady progress in terms of a world coalition that will put that pressure on Iran. So no, I think we have a strong force in the making, and Iran will back down.

The video of the interview is here at Real Clear Politics.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

For those "dozens" of people who still watch CNN. . .

CNN reported on the size of Saturday's Tea Party rally at Searchlight, Nevada, home town of Harry Reid. Said CNN, "At least dozens of people" showed up for  the event. Childish Obama stooges.

h/t to Gateway Pundit who had the best coverage of this event.
Teaching Our Rookie President about Bipartisanship

Although after a year and some in office, is he still a rookie or is he just plain damn dumb? If he's gonna have only four years, I don't think "rookie" is how he can be described more than a quarter of the way through his tenure. But I digress.

Evidently members of the House of Representatives are less than impressed with Barry's fumbling diplomacy with Israel, historically one of our closest allies. More than three-quarters of the House membership (that's 327, to be exact), signed a letter to Obama expressing their dismay over the "highly publicized tensions" in US-Israeli relations. The letter's lead signatories were Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Hey, Barry, that's real bipartisanship!

As Allahpundit at HotAir writes: It provides a measure of just how far out of the mainstream the Obama administration has gotten on relations with Israel.

Whether Obama's diplomacy with Israel (including keeping Benjamin Netanyahu cooling his heels while Obama had dinner "with the girls") was by design, as some think, or whether it was purely "instinctual hostility towards Israel," as Allahpundit suggests, with advisors like Samantha Power surrounding him at the White House, no one should be surprised at the hostility that has surfaced in the Obama administrtion towards Israel.

Grow up, Champ.

I love the commenters at HotAir.

"After Obamacare, he is like a drunk who drives home without getting caught. He thinks he now has free reign to be as reckless as he wants to be."

"Anyone who didn’t know this was coming was extraordinarily naive. What anti-semitic/Marxist church did he attend in Chicago that no “moderate” Republicans wanted to bring up? But according to RINO’s, like Peggy Noonan, he was going to govern as a centrist. What dupes."

"And soon congress you will know how it feels to be ignored . . . just like the people."

"He didn’t explain it well enough. The average person can’t comprehend his brilliance. He is a lightworker..a transcendent being. Very evolved."

"During his meeting with Netanyahu maybe Obama was thinking WWMD; what would Mohammed do?"

"Obama is not just an amateur, he is an idiot on a mission."

"Meanwhile, all my Jewish friends are still blaming Bush and ridiculing that dumb redneck Palin."

A Discussion of OCare with Neil Cavuto and Friends

For those who don't know him, Neil Cavuto is Fox Business. He's smart, fair, and reasonable; he lets his guests make their case, but he also doesn't let them throw around BS. On Saturday on Fox News he anchored a two-hour show about the health care bill: "The Final Diagnosis." Cavuto had people on the show who represent all sides of the health care issue. I took notes, and here are some highlights.

Cavuto is mostly low-key and very disarming with a deprecating sense of humor; he's also on the air six days a week, and my guess is he works 100 hours a week (and he also has MS, by the way): We’ve gone through this, we’re picking through the details like nobody’s business. We’re the business guys, we’re the nerds, we have no life. Flipping around the various networks here, you might think that this thing was the second coming. And it might very well be, there are some good features. What we wanted to do was to really see what’s in this, to get under the hood, so to speak, and understand what you can look forward to in some cases and what you will not look forward to.

One of the best interviews (IMO, naturally) was his interview with Mark Levin, a radio talk show host but also a constitutional lawyer and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation. He has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the Obama administration. He spoke about the thirteen states that are mounting a constitutional challenge against OCare. Cavuto could have done two hours with this guy alone.
Levin. The attorneys general are on the right path, some of them. And what we’re looking at is supporting their efforts.

Let me be very clear about what’s going on here. What they’re mandating for individuals is that the government is saying, “You are compelled to purchase a private health insurance contract from another entity." That has never occurred in American history. If this went through, that means there would be absolutely no limits on the federal government controlling your behavior. . . . They are compelling you to do something with your money which is not a tax. It is the most remarkable power grab in American history . . . but I have some good news for you. If your folks take another good look at the bill, at the guys at Big Government, if you look, there is this penalty. And it’s a huge penalty—2.5% of household income if you don’t purchase your own health insurance. Here’s what they did. They screwed up again. There’s no enforcement mechanism. As a matter of fact, what the bill says is that that penalty [quote] "is not subject to the enforcement provisions of Title F" of the internal revenue code. So the use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for the collection of taxes—and I’m quoting here, “does not apply to the collection of this penalty.” Noncompliance of the personal responsibility requirement to have healthcare coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay.

Cavuto. They do have the 16,000 new IRS agents they’re hiring. What are they going to be doing, twiddling their thumbs?

Levin. They’re gonna harass the hell out of us. And they can still harass the hell out of us. You’ve got 16,500 new IRS agents and not one trained doctor under this massive trillion dollar bill. And you’ve got, by the way—the folks in Medicare? Very soon: Medicare Advantage cuts, cuts to home health care begin, and . . . unbelievable! [Cavuto cut him off--out of time.]

Along similar lines, Cavuto interviewed the attorney general from Michigan, Mike Cox. who said he believes that OCare violates the Constitution. Paraphrasing what he said: You have to buy a product that we approve of, and if we don’t, we’ll fine you. This is unprecedented. President has said, “Bring it.” We accept that challenge. They’ve violated states’ sovereignty. Fifteen states are now suing the government to block the health care law. What are the rules of the game? We are a constitutional democracy. We’re afraid this is a slippery slope to more gov’t grabs.

A website describes Cox as "Republican attorney general and gubernatorial candidate," so it's little surprise that Michigan's Democrat governor, Jennifer Granholm has joined governors of three other states (Washington, Colorado, Pennsylvania) as of Friday in offering to help U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defend health care legislation against a lawsuit filed by a group of state attorneys general.

Cavuto interviewed California Attorney General Jerry Brown who is on the opposite side of the issue. Brown, a Democrat, is a former California governor and is running again for the top California spot. Brown was elected governor of California in 1974, succeeding Ronald Reagan. He's the son of Pat Brown, also a California governor. Not to disparage Brown, I remember that when he was governor in the 1970s, his nickname was Governor Moonbeam. Despite the nickname, Brown always struck me as a smart and serious politician--although his politics were probably somewhere to the left of Atilla the Hun. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Heh. He's worked for every Leftist cause in the book--name one, he's worked it, he was for it. According to Wikipedia, he has a black Labrador named Dharma. My black Lab is named Jack. Just sayin'. That's his then-love-interest Linda Ronstadt with him there a million years ago on the cover of Newsweek. Today he looks like he's the 1,000-year-old man. But it was an interesting interview.

Cavuto. You’re not one of those attorneys general who are suing. Why not.

Brown. When it comes to the law, it’s very clear to me that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution permits this kind of legislation. . . . I make the prediction that this is a slam-dunk case. The count will be 9-0. This is for Congress . . . anybody who doesn’t like this bill, you know who to elect or unelect. Asking the court to do the people’s business of the Congress is asking for an activism that is totally inconsistent with our jurisprudence.

Cavuto. Let me ask you about the companies that are coming out and saying that it’s going to cost them a bundle: AT&T, Deere, etc. What do you make of their beefs?

Brown. Number one, we have a couple of years before this goes into effect.

Cavuto. This exemption goes into effect next year.

Brown. Look. There’s not enough cost control. In America there’s no hospital stay that’s less than $3,000, and in Europe there’s no hospital stay that’s over $1,000. So we need to curb on the reimbursements that this health care bill is providing. [I thought he was against the bill? Moonbeam?] There’s plenty of modifications to be made. The present health care spending is out of control, it's unsustainable, so something has to be done. I think Obama took a good faith effort here. Are their problems, are their issues? You bet. I would hope that Republicans and Democrats would work together and craft whatever amendments are appropriate. We’ve got to think here as Americans first, Republicans and Democrats second.

Cavuto. But does it trouble you that all these problems are coming to light? I was here last week, and many of them, for example, had assumed that kids with prior medical conditions would be covered immediately. That was a key selling point, and it turns out that’s not the case. This is no longer going to be deficit neutral if you compensate and address all these issues. Some Republicans are saying, “This is a mess.”

Brown. This is quintessentially a political question. People are very divided. The Republicans, all the political memos that they pass around, are aimed at destroying the Obama presidency. It’s highly political. Is this the best bill? Obviously not. You can obviously make it better. I’d like to see the Republicans give some substantive alternatives [HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING FOR THE PAST YEAR?].

I can tell you, the poisonous partisanship is worse than anything I’ve seen in my life, and I’ve been around this political game a long time. It’s just too bad America’s facing a maximum financial challenge. Medical costs are bankrupting not only a lot of companies but a lot of states. We’re going to have to do a lot more than we’ve done. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the way to go. We’ve got to pull together and start making some adjustments. But gee, it’s so partisan. It’s just not American, and it’s not sustainable. [Yes, Jerry, it's "so partisan," like your comment above about every Republican memo being sent around is aimed at destroying the Obama presidency.]

Cavuto. But to be fair, both sides are playing this game, right?

Brown. Yeah. There’s no Republican or Democratic solution to health care. You know, it’s not that easy. Drug companies—they’re charging more here. Hospitals are charging more, the equipment makers. It’s not easy any time you put a limit on it, people scream. As a matter of fact, if you want to criticize the medical bill, there aren’t enough controls or competitive pressures to hold costs down.

Cavuto. You’re running for governor again. Let me ask you this. Would you ask Barack Obama to campaign for you?

Brown. Well, uh, I tell you this, uh, I see campaigning as, uh as, as my responsibility. The voters are going to choose whether they like the person or not. . . . Look, I welcome anybody’s support who wants to come out here, uh, and certainly the President in California is very popular, has a very powerful support base. So yeah, I’d be, uh, proud of his, of his help. But I want to tell you, the people are going to choose the Republican or the Democrat, how they think that individual is going to do, not about some outside president or outside Republican leader who may come in, uh, to come in, uh, and stir the pot up. [That was the longest "No thanks" answer I've ever heard.]

Cavuto had another governor on the show, the Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who has recently said about the Obama administration, "Texas has yet to learn submission from opression."

Perry. It will cost the state of Texas somewhere between 20 and 25 billion dollars over the next 10 years. . . . This is nothing more than expanding socialism on American soil. It doesn’t fix health care. This bill doesn’t discuss tort reform. We’ve done that in Texas and seen health care costs and accessibility improve.

We’re going to do everything in our power to fight this federal excess and to find ways to protect our families, taxpayers, medical providers. This is a gross federal overreach. Our state’s lawsuit is a reasonable approach to protecting people from this. The other side of it is, you can bet there is a lot of activity in the state of Texas, targeting those individuals in congress who voted for this.

The real changes in America don’t come out of Washington D.C. I’d like to see for somebody to stand up and say, “Elect me and we will go to Washington and make Washington as inconsequential in your life as we can.” And I think there’s some traction in that. . . . Letting this one-size-fits-all expansion of socialism stand will not do.

Cavuto interviewed Robert J. Shapiro, former Clinton economic advisor. Cavuto introduced him as a "key architect" in making the this health care bill happen. He was also an economic advisor in the Clinton administration. He shouldn't be confused with other Robert Shapiro's of the same name. This guy must keep a very low profile, because I've never heard of him and I've at least heard of just about everyone.

Cavuto asked Shapiro why they were able to pass health care this time when it was unsuccessful in the Clinton administration.

Shapiro. We had more Democrats in Congress this time. Also, the problem has gotten worse, so there’s a greater sense of urgency. Companies will have to adjust to this. Yes, it is going to cost them. [Which translates into, It is going to cost the American people, big time.]

Cavuto. They will have to cut back on benefits, cut back on workers.

Shapiro. Or raise prices. [He should have said, if he was being honest, and raise prices.] The economy remains fragile. We’re being held up by the stimulus. This has been a unique and terrible crisis. Most of the provisions that really increase burdens in this bill don’t kick in until 2012 and later. What kicks in now is insurance reforms and increased taxes. Health care is the center of the deficit.

Cavuto. But is this worth all the effort?

Shapiro. We’ve taken early steps, but these are modest steps [emphasis mine]. You have to see this as a platform for further steps to bring down the rising health care costs. But we are moving Medicare from volume based reimbursement to value based reimbursement. Over time that could make a real difference. I think the prevention programs can save money over time. I think the insurance exchanges will certainly reduce the marketing costs for insurance companies. Small steps, modest steps. It's a bigger social achievement than economic achievement. It’s now up to Congress, both Republican and Democrat, to take a serious look at the real cost-cutting achievements that each has.

Cavuoto highlighted certain companies that have already said they will be big losers due to the new bill. Companies being hit with big losses just this year: John Deere, $150 million; Caterpiller, $100 million this quarter; AK Steel, $31 million, also this quarter.

Cavuto: By one account, the health care law could initially shave $14 billion from corporate profits.

Here's a video of Cavuto interviewing Donald Trump.

Just one of the companies that Shapiro says will have to "adjust" to OCare is a medical equipment company, Zoll Medico. Cavuto interviewed the company's CEO, Richard Packer, who said that the new tax on medical devices will be a “very significant” new tax. [Zoll Medical makes things like defibrilators for hospitals.]

Packer. For Zoll Medical, the tax due to the new health care law will be about 7.5 million; our profits last year were 9.5 million. This will have a big effect on Zoll. We’ve got to adjust our cost structure or pass it along. Companies can’t run at break even, so we will raise prices, cut back on research and development, and lay people off.  Zoll Medical is located in Massachusetts. Cox said that Scott Brown will be joining them for a meeting about OCare on Tuesday.

During the show, Cavuto kept cutting away to pictures from a Tea Party rally being held at Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid's home town.

Cavuto. There's a Tea Party rally today. People have started showing up at the rally five hours ahead of time. [He showed a photo of the gathering crowd, including an American flag—half mast and upside down. People were bundled up, it’s a sunny day, but obviously windy and cold.] Ten thousand people are expected at the rally today in a place where there are 500 registered voters in a town with a population of 1,000. People started rolling in with their RV’s two days ago. Sarah Palin is the keynote speaker. Actually, two Tea Party events are being held in Nevada today. From here the folks will caravan to Henderson, Nevada to kick off a second rally. Ann Coulter is going to be there. That in turn will kick off a 12-state event that will end in Washington, D.C., on tax day.

From a Fox News person at the event. The crowd is growing by the minute. A lot of folks in this country are very upset, unhappy with the passage of the health care bill. They feel like this is not a time to spend millions and millions of dollars for 30 million uninsured Americans. Folks are upset, it’s a grassroots campaign, they say they want an end to these higher taxes. It’s mostly Republicans here. A lot of people don’t argue whether all people should have access to health care, and they’re saying this isn’t Republican or Democrat, but that we should do what’s best for the country. Harry Reid is in the fight of his life just to remain a senator, trailing in the polls anywhere from 8 to 12 points.

Cavuto interviewed Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons (R). Governor, what is their biggest beef about health care?

Gibbons. Not only is it going to add to our Medicaid costs by increasing the number of individuals who qualify for free state-paid health care, which will run the state of Nevada about 613 million dollars—that’s an enormous taxpayer expense that will have to picked up by Nevadans who are now working. And we have the highest—second only to Michigan—unemployment rate in the nation. This bill is going to affect not just our doctors, not our health care industry; it’s going to affect every taxpayer in Nevada.

Cavuto. Do you worry that Republicans are just looking as the party of no, the party of hell no, as just as opposers, every step of the way?

Gibbons. No, I don’t. First of all, the Republicans have answers, they have proposals to reform health care. Tort reforms will bring down costs. If you want to put Americans into health care, to get them insurance, get them a job. That’s the number one thing that they should be working on in Washington—getting Americans back to work. That’s the best way to create a health care program for 30 more million Americans.

There was a lot more, but that's the gist of what Cavuto was doing today. He says he's going to stay on this, keep reporting what the other networks won't do.

P.S. Since the passage of OCare last week, the Obama lapdog media has been consistently reporting the demise of the Tea Party movement. Based on the crowd that showed up yesterday in Searchlight, Nevada, those reports may be just a bit premature. Just sayin'.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

"No asteroids were falling"
Obama Mocks Over Half the Country

We've seen it before. This jerk thinks he's still campaigning. Someone forgot to tell Barack Obama that he's the president of ALL the country. Whatever happened to being gracious in victory? Don't expect it from this asshat.

President Shirt Sleeves. From Obama's health care stump speech in Iowa on Thursday: Speaking without his suit jacket, Obama suggested that opposition springs from "fear-mongering and plenty of overheated rhetoric.''

He added: "You turn on the news, you'll see the same folks are still shouting about how it's going to be the end of the world because this bill passed. .... Leaders of the Republican Party, they called the passage of this bill 'Armageddon.' Armageddon! End of freedom as we know it! So after I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling. Some cracks opening up in the Earth! Turned out it was a nice day!''

Obama threw down a challenge to those who think the law can be repealed: "Go for it." See the video here.

Update. Someone yesterday asked a good question: What's with the adoring crowds in Iowa? My answer was that Obama's public appearances are always carefully staged, but that was only a partial answer. Where did he give his speech in Iowa City? At the University of Iowa field house. His handlers packed in 3,000 selected supporters, including a large number of students from the University.

"This is your victory," Obama said at the University of Iowa. Health care reform "was about the future of our country. And today ... that future looks stronger and more hopeful and brighter than it has in some time."

The crowd, in turn, repeatedly chanted Obama's [childish and simplistic] campaign theme: "Yes, we can."

What really disturbs me is that this man evidently is never allowed to see people who disagree with him. They put him in front of 3,000 chanting, adoring 20-somethings while the people who disagree with his policies are left outside. For someone who has "issues" with narcissism, that sort of strategy only feeds into his oversized attitude about himself. This man is truly on the path to being the most disasterous president in American history. Historic.
A New Feature at Touched With Fire:
What's in the Bill?

OK, so technically it's a law, but I'm still calling it a bill because I'm a flaming optimist and I hope this crap sandwich will be repealed. I'm going to start posting here things that I find out about the health bill that maybe are (or maybe aren't) going to be reported on by Obama's lapdog media.

Mark Levin has a link to this on his website: Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats' Health Care Package. This information comes from the Committee on Ways & Means Republicans, ranking member, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI).

We've heard two talking points from the Democrats, ad nauseam, about what this bill is going to do for people right away: 1) it will allow dependent "children" to stay on their parents' insurance plan until the age of 26; and 2) people will not be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. But what else is going to go into effect this year or next? Some excerpts below; for the entire list, go to the Timeline link.

Seniors ought to be screaming bloody murder over this thing, because Medicare is taking some major hits. And this is only the beginning. Rush Limbaugh said on his show on Thursday that if you are a couple, retiring this year, you need to plan on spending $250,000 on medical care for the rest of your lifetime. Gee, I forgot to save for that. Do I get a do-over?
  • Medicare Advantage cuts begin (how much? Don't know--we'll have to find it in the bill, I guess. Who is reporting this?).
  • Medicare cuts to home health begin.
  • Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors get diagnostic imaging like MRI's, CT scans, etc. (My 85-year-old mother paid out $1,000 for an MRI last year that wasn't covered by Medicare, so it's not exactly like those things were free to seniors before the bill went into effect.)
  • Medicare cuts to ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment.
  • Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months (evidently the authors of the bill are hoping for DEATH sometime during that time).
  • New Medicare cuts to long-term care hospitals begin.
  • Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin.
  • Medicare cuts to dialysis treatment begins.
I could go on--there are lots more.

Other nuggets from the timeline:
  • In 2011, employers are required to report the value of health benefits on W-2. (That's called a tax hike.)
  • Requires plans to cover, at no charge, most preventive care. (Oh, that's not going to increase my insurance premiums, I'm just sure.)
  • Imposes 10% tax on indoor UV tanning. (That's hilarious, unless you own or use a tanning salon. Why the specific heartburn about tanning?)
  • FDA authorized to approve "follow on" biologics.
  • Deny "black liquor" eligibility for cellulosic biofuel producers credit. (Huh? This was evidently just stuck onto the health crap bill and has nothing to do with health care. They do it all the time.) 
  • Increase adoption tax incentives for two years. (Would someone tell me what that has to do with health care?)
  • Provide income exclusion for specified Indian tribe health benefits provided after 3/23/10.
  • Prohibits non-group plans from canceling coverage. (Another reason our health insurance premiums will increase.)
  • Impose new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies. (I'm just sure they won't pass that on to their customers.)
  • New tax on all private health insurance policies to pay for comp. eff. research. (I have no idea what "comp. eff." is, but glory hallelujah, it's another new tax.)
  • Generally increases threshhold (7.5% to 10%) at which medical expenses, as a % of income, can be deductible.
  • Impose a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices. (Is there a theme here?)
  • In 2013 a CO-OP Program begins: Secretary awards loans and grants for establishing nonprofit health insurers.
  • In 2013, individuals with "government approved" (it actually says that) coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income.
I'm done here for now, since blood has started shooting from my eyes and I'm pretty sure my doctor isn't available. For more of this nightmare, go to the link. Seriously, I think most people are in denial about how fundamentally this is going to change our health care. I would have been happy to have my taxes pay for a voucher for every uninsured person in the country rather than have this obscene bill passed. But as they've been telling us for a year: this abomination isn't about health care; rather, it's about government controlling our lives. Think it isn't? Just wait.

With his signature on this bill, Barack Obama has made Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Service, one of the most powerful people in this country. More on her later.

"Oh, my eyes, my eyes!" Sorry for the photo.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Happy, Happy 70th Birthday, Nancy

She says she wants a pool table for her birthday: "I've always wanted a pool table. But it will probably be a kitchen." Really? Aw, that is so sweet. I hope she gets everything she deserves, and then some. What I'd really like to do is throw her a nice retirement party.

For spreading around all that "joy"--happy, happy day, Nancy.
White House Israel Policy: Amateur hour or something worse?

Barack Hussein Obama: He bows to the Saudi king, he shakes hands with his amigo Chavez, but he won't have his picture taken with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu when they met in the White House this week. Obama wouldn't allow it. It's frightening to think that we've put this small and petty man into a position of such power.

If you've been following Obama's latest FUBAR in international relations, you know that Obama chose to be "insulted" about Israel's announced plans to build 1,600 new housing units within its own sovereign territory in East Jerusalem. As Rich Trzupek writes at Breitbart's BigJournalism in "Stupid Is As Stupid Does; Obama and Co. Moves To Alienate Israel," Obama's administration is clearly demonstrating that our commitment to Israel "is now conditional on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 'good behavior'."

HotAir reported yesterday on the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama: "Obama humiliated Netanyahu at the White House." And Adrian Bloomfield posted this piece at the UK Telegraph: "Obama snubbed Netanyahu for dinner with Michelle and the girls, Israelis claim." Below is an exerpt, but read the whole article here.

For a head of state to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of…

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on Jewish settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisors and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman who spoke to the Prime Minister said today.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House phone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”…

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” as he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known of the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built just as Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay on at the White House to consider his proposals, so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the Yediot Ahronot daily quoted Mr Obama saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

So was Obama's behavior towards a guest in our White House (not his White House) just childish petulance, a mere "snub" from a thin-skinned petty man used to getting his way? Or was it something worse? As  Rick Moran points out at American Thinker ("Obama in extraordinary snub to Bibi"), there is a disturbing pattern of behavior in Obama's actions in treating our allies with contempt (Great Britain, the Poles and Czechs, and now Israel) while he speaks "kindly and gently" to Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and other leftist thugs in the world. . . ."

Alternately, there are others who view Obama's behavior as far worse than just an ignorant snub or childish pique. Writing at Big Journalism, Pamela Geller says that Obama is hardly a passive, weak, or naive player in the Muslim/Jewish conflict: "He was wet-nursed on Jew-hatred. He grew up in a Muslim country and studied the Koran. He knows what is prescribed for the Jews in Islam."

Geller continues: The Jewish people, both in Israel and the diaspora, seem to be suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. There can be no logical reason why an American Jew could intellectually excuse Obama’s twenty-year friendship and closeness with the anti-Semitic Farrakhan acolyte Jeremiah Wright. There is no way an American Jew could explain away or rationalize Obama’s connections to Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and know about those connections without knowing what was coming. These Jews (and our history is plagued with them) love ideas, not people. They are so married to their dogma, their ideology, that they cannot, will not, see what is right in front of them. They worship at the church of human secularism. That is their religion. They have no G-d. They are merely wearing a Jewish coat, but do not speak for Jews.

Geller's blog can be found here at Atlas Shrugged.

Within the context of his actions towards Israel and Netanyahu, here is Obama's Nowruz message to Iran in March of 2009.

Friday Update: "Netanyahu's Office: No Change on East Jerusalem Plans" Below are exerpts:

U.S. officials want Israel to freeze a plan to build 1,600 new settler homes in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Mr. Netanyahu reiterated in Washington that Israel views all of Jerusalem as its capital, not a settlement.

The White House has said the housing plan undermines the negotiations the U.S. has offered to mediate. Mr. Obama asked Mr. Netanyahu to take steps to build confidence for the peace talks.

Separately Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said tensions in the Middle East are hurting U.S. interests in the region.

Jordanian King Abdullah warned Israel on Thursday that it is "playing with fire" by authorizing new construction in East Jerusalem. Iran's foreign ministry responded to the building plans by labeling Israel an aggressive, terrorist state.

Update #2. Here is a 15 Nov 2006 interview between Glenn Beck and Benjamin Netanyahu. Again, within the context of Obama's actions, this is chilling stuff.

Netanyahu: "Iran is gearing up to produce 25 atomic bombs in a year, 250 bombs in a decade. Their missiles already overreach Israel--they reach into every European capital, and they're building missiles and developing missiles that will reach the Eastern seaboard of the United States, i.e. New York City, the studio we're sitting in. So this is . . . like Naziism, they start with the hatred of the Jews and they want to annihilate the Jews, but that's only the first stop. Their goal is Western civilization."

Netanyahu went on to talk about what was learned from the Holocaust: if somebody tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him: "I believe that the president of Iran intends to exterminate Israel; I believe he intends to kill a lot of Westerners and subjugate others--by the way, Muslims who don't conform to his extremist views. And I think he's a danger to the world. Because I believe his intentions, I think he has to be stopped, stopped in time. The most important thing is to make sure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. This is what President Bush has pledged to do, and I think we should support him and see that this pledge is seen through, not merely for the sake of my country, Israel, but for the sake of mankind. This is a great danger to the peace of the world.

"I think if you engage Iran and thereby give it time to build nuclear bombs that will hit your allies and then you, that will be a mistake. I hope that my words here are a sober reminder that we have to keep our eye on the ball. The main this is, prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. What have we been doing about Iran for the past year plus while Obama and his administration have been obsessed with passing a health care bill the nation doesn't want? We have, quite simply, "taken our eye off the ball." As Jonah Goldberg put it, "Obama's Iran Policy Is Dead. Goldberg's article was in June of 2009. Obama apparently has given up on the policy of preventing Iran from acquiring an atom bomb.

God help us all.

Update #3. From HotAir. Sounds like that middle finger from The One at the White House earlier this week didn't have the desired effect. Go figure.

This is quoted at HotAir: Late Friday evening, Israel Radio reported that Netanyahu holds to the view that Israel must not change its policy in Jerusalem, despite the fact that this was the main point of contentions between Israel and the United States.

In closed talks, Netanyahu clarified that he has no intention of breaking up his rightwing coalition to form a more moderate centrist alliance, despite continuing pressure from the United States for a compromise over Israeli building in east Jerusalem.

“I do not need coalition partners to pressure me into continuing to build in Jerusalem,” he said. “I, myself, plan to continue building in Jerusalem as all previous prime ministers did before me.”

I'm just guessing, but our former Chicago community organizer president has never had to look eye-to-eye with a former commander of Israel's elite special forces unit. Obama may think he won a battle at the White House the other day, but for winning this war, my money is on the Israeli. Hell, I doubt nancy-boy Obama has never even been off a sidewalk, except to run gayly down the beach. He is so out of his league.

Sounds like Barry just created for himself a "Jewish problem." Way to go, Champ.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Left Needs to Back Off on the Rhetoric Against the Tea Partiers

They won. Their issue passed. For the love of God, with all the nasty rhetoric from the Left aimed at the Right and tea partiers, you would think they LOST their beloved health crap issue. Seriously, this is how winners behave?

Updates below: And the Obama lapdog media needs to own their part of this as well.

For those of you not paying much attention, it's getting ugly out there. The hypocrisy from the Left on this issue is simply over the top.

"Tea Party Racists Get Caught"
in the Kansas City Star.

"Spitting and Slurs Directed at Lawmakers"
in the New York Times

"Racism simmers below surface on health care"
in the Chicago Sun-Times

"Threats, Violence Against Democrats Who Voted For Healthcare Bill"
in the LA Times

"Lawmakers concerned as health-care overhaul foes resort to violence"
in the Washington Post
(describes violence perpetrated by people on the Right)

"Hurled bricks, threats surround health overhaul"
in the Philadelphia Inquirer
(describes violence perpetrated by people on the Right)

"Health-bill anger escalates to vandalism, death threats"
also in the Philadelphia Inquirer

"Fear strikes out as the House passes historic health care reform bill"
in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

"Tea Party Thugs"
in the Denver Post

This is Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): stop the threats, stop the vandalism, and stop smearing law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights.

The Leftist media has spent an entire week reporting on Congressmen getting "spat on" and called "Nigger" and "faggot" by Tea Partiers. With no proof, the lamestream media went with the story: Tea Partiers "menaced" the Democrats, spitting on them and "heckling" them. Never mind that Pelosi and crew taunted people with her deliberate perp walk through the crowd, she carrying her gigantic mallet and laughing all the way. Does anyone think that she and her minions weren't trying to provoke an incident?

When they couldn't do it, not really, then they described their walk through the crowd using inflamed rhetoric, knowing full well that the leftist media would pick it up and run with it. Rep Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) said he was "spat on" by a protestor; Rep James Clyburn (D-SC) told Obama's lapdog press that he was "shocked" and that he hadn't experienced such treatment since leading protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

Never mind that, with all the video cameras rolling, no one was able to come up with video of the incidents, particularly the "spitting" on Rep. Cleaver. Until now. Although Cleaver has backed off of his "spat on" statement just a bit. He later described the incident as a man "who allowed saliva to hit my face." Are you kidding? So that was the worst thing they could come up with--a boorish, overenthusiastic protestor yelling at Cleaver. HotAir has the video: "This was supposedly also around the time that tea partiers were shouting racial slurs at Cleaver, John Lewis, and other black congressmen. Listen closely and you . . . won't hear any." Wrote Andrew Breitbart: "Is it really possible that in 2010, in a crowd of 30 or 40 thousand people--at the center of a once-in-a-lifetime media circus--not one person's flipphone, Blackberry, video recorder or a network feed caught a single incident?" Breitbart has called for anyone to email him with the evidence if they have the smoking gun.

Andrew Breitbart article is here at BigJournalism: "2010: A Race Odyssey--Disproving a Negative for Cash Prizes or, How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark.

As I have said over and over and over, the left has one trick that it will use again and again when its back is in the corner: shout ‘racist’ in a crowded country.

On Saturday, during the peaceful and patriotic tea party protest at the Capitol, the Democrats staged a series of symbolic acts meant to manipulate the media to do its bidding. The Congressional Black Caucus pulled the Selma card and chose to walk through the crowd in the hopes of creating a YouTube incident. . . . The walk in and of itself — with two of the participants holding their handheld cameras above their heads hoping to document “proof” — was an act of racism meant to create a contrast between the tea party crowd and themselves.

It's Saul Alinsky, baby, a man who perfected the art of teaching people to stomp their feet and turn blue until they get their way.

Update. Per Gateway Pundit, just a little something left on Twitter for Sarah Palin. Lamestream media? Silent.

And as GP says, don't forget: when leftist commedians crack rape jokes about Sarah Palin's teen daughter--well, that's a laugh riot.
From one of my favorite conservative blogs, Missourah.com

You nailed it, Missourah.

Get your "One Term" merchandise here.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Do you want to know what's in the Demcare bill? Don't click on the video unless you have a very strong stomach.

I guess this is what Hag Witch Pelosi meant when she said we would find out what's in the bill once it's passed.

h/t to the blog New Zeal: "Promoting liberty in New Zealand and beyond" 17 March 2010: "Obamacare--the Devil is in the Detail"

Go here to read the Daily Beast article by Tunku Varadarajan, "The Price of Victory."

It will cost them dearly in the midterm elections; and come 2012, the remarkable man who seemed a shoo-in for a second term at the time of his first inauguration, will stand every chance of losing to any half-decent candidate the Republicans can muster. And in truth, this remarkable man, who has collapsed in stature since the day of that first, stirring inauguration, will have wrought his own eclipse.

It's Mourning in America . . . Put on the coffee, we have a lot of work to do!

We will turn this country around ONE CANDIDATE AT A TIME. Don't send money to the Republican party; send it straight to the candidate.

19 March: Bart Stupak announces $726,409 for airports in three Michigan counties. That seems pretty cheap, for selling out his vote to the side of the abortionists; however, we don't know what else he got. Although maybe he's just cheap.

This is Dr. Dan Benishek. He's running for U.S. Congress in Michigan's 1st District, and he would like your support. Oh, and by the way, that's Bart Stupak's district. Benishek doesn't have a website (yet), but he does have a Facebook page, and his members went from 600-something last night to over 12,000 this morning, with people from all over the country pledging him money. You can donate to his campaign via his paypal link.

No one would ever accuse me of being a pollyanna; however, I guess now is not the time to stay in bed with the covers over my head. Here's an article from Powerline about why all is not lost: "Silver Linings."

Over on Michelle Malkin's website, she has a post about state attorneys general that will launch their lawsuit backlash against Demcare. ["Demcare"--sounds good to me.]

On Monday, several AGs will unveil their official efforts: Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida. Texas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, Washington, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Alabama are expected to join the campaign. The states will argue that Demcare is unconstitutional, infringing on each state's sovereignty, with its mandate that requires all Americans to be insured by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation President calls actions taken by Dems leading to the Demcare cram-down, "Intolerable Acts"

The Foundry is the Heritage Foundation's blog. Every morning they have a post called the "Morning Bell." This morning, the word is "Repeal."

Those who supported this bill are our fellow Americans, and we do not question their good will or patriotism. In public policy, however, good intentions alone do not suffice. And let there be no mistake, our philosophical differences with supporters of this bill are profound. The reason government-run health care has been the holy grail of the left for decades is that liberals realize as much as we do that it is a giant step toward the creation of a European-style welfare state. This is an evolution Americans have always resisted because it is alien to our national character.

Read the whole thing here. I just joined the Heritage Foundation as a basic member for $25.

Here's an excellent article by Robert Costa at nationalreviewonline: "Paul Ryan Is Not Ready to Give Up on Health Care." A quote in the article from Ryan, a six-term Republican Congressman from Wisconsin: "Health care is really the issue that speaks to the relationship between the citizen and the government in America," he says. . . . This whole debate has been a proxy fight about what kind of country America will be--whether we'll become a cradle-to-grave welfare state or stay a free-market democracy. The Democrats who are being told that the worse [sic] is over should know that the battle has not even begun."

What's with the clown image of Ryan? Well, if you google "Paul Ryan Congress," that's the third image that appears. But no, Google doesn't have an agenda or anything. Nope, not at all.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Pelosi Heckles Protestors with Giant Gavel

Sporting an even bigger-than-usual rictorous smile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emerged from the last Democrat causus meeting Sunday afternoon wielding a sledgehammer-sized gavel. She promised to use it tonight when the House votes on the obscenity that is being called a "health care" bill.

Seriously, the woman gets my vote for the most nauseating human being, evah.

Update. We've been stupaked. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) sells his vote for an executive order not worth the paper it's printed on. Actually, the word I have for this assclown isn't "chump." With Stupak caving, apparently they now have the votes.

From Politico: At the news conference, Stupak said the language of the order clears up any ambiguity about federal funding of abortion in the reform bill. “We have the assurances from the president that he won’t rip this up tomorrow,” Stupak said.

Sure--how about Tuesday. You soulless jerk.

Update #2. It's 6:35 p.m. Central time on Sunday night and "stupak" is already a verb on the conservative blogs. I've been amusing myself (hey--it's been a long, ugly day) sitting here refreshing the Facebook page of Dr. Dan Benishek, the Republican running for Congress against Stupack. He started out with about 600 "friends" about an hour ago and now he's got 4,500. People are so pissed about this bill. There are Web designers offering to set up a web page for him and people promising donations to his campaign right and left. Wow.

Sen. Mike Pence (R-IN) to Stupak: "You traded 30 years of pro-life law for a promise from the most pro-abortion president in history."