Political Truth and Fact

Thursday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

ACORN Ceo visited Obama’s White House only days before videos provided the ACORN scandal

According to newly released White House visitor logs, on September 2nd ACORN CEO, Bertha E. Lewis, made an appointment on to visit the White House.

Just 5 days after this visit, James O’Keefe released the first video of his undercover journalism on the systemic corruption within ACORN.  After the firestorm that erupted from O’Keefe’s reporting, President Obama was asked by Fox News for his opinion on the scandal. Despite long-standing ties to ACORN, Obama acted almost as if he’d never heard of the group.

“ACORN? – what ACORN?” Obama’s connection with the group is indisputable and long standing.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/30/white-house-visitors-log-acorn-ceo-bertha-lewis-in-obama-residence-week-before-sting-videos-launched/

Obama Admits 'Catastrophic Breach' Led to Detroit Bomb Plot

President Barack Obama on Tuesday said a "potential catastrophic breach" of security led to the Christmas Day attempted bombing on a Detroit-bound airplane.

Mr. Obama said that earlier in the day he issued guidelines for a review of the intelligence system that led to the failure, and set Thursday as a deadline for a preliminary review.

Mr. Obama said information has emerged that pointed to a serious breach of national security. He said information provided by the suspect's father had been moving through the intelligence community for weeks, and "could have and should have" led to the suspect being banned from flying.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126212276274109385.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

13 GOP Attorneys General threaten health bill suit

Thirteen Republican state attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Senate health care bill.

In a letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said he had “grave concerns” about the deal Senate leaders cut with Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson to secure his crucial vote for the health care package.

Under the terms of the agreement with Nelson, the federal government will pick up the full tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, a deal that’s expected to cost about $100 million over the next 10 years.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31078.html

Opinion:
Karl Rove offers Obama some suggestions for the New Year

Cloistered in Hawaii, along with an ailing Rush Limbaugh, Obama may feel free from the daily pressures of his office.  However, sooner, rather than later, reality will intrude and he will have to face challenges once again.

Few can appreciate what it’s like to actually be in the White House and having to contemplate a new year – one that will be increasingly focused on the mid term elections – elections Obama may find unpleasant.

Karl Rove has been there and done that.  I propose letting him advise Obama.

Buddy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628161441708216.html
 
New Year's Resolutions for Washington
Ambitious Republicans should resolve to run for office next year.
KARL ROVE

President Obama not only left Washington, D.C., for the holidays, but the lower 48 as well. So I thought I'd offer a few New Year's resolutions for him and others to come back to in the coming year.

First, to Mr. Obama's staff: The Norwegian Nobel Committee didn't want to wake the president to tell him about his prize earlier this year, but there shouldn't be any reluctance to reassure the nation after a terrorist attack. Also, why not resolve to have a few less "historic" moments? How many can one president really have, anyway? A little more grace toward his predecessor would help him, as would less TV time. He is wearing out his welcome and his speechwriters—judging by the quality of their work lately.

In 2010, Mr. Obama should work on his habit of leaving a room of people with deeply divided opinions thinking he agrees with all of them. That leads to disagreements over essential issues, like the meaning of his pledge to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 and the nature of the new military mission there.       

Finally, Mr. Obama should work on meaning what he says. He didn't last year with all those health-care deadlines and tough talk supporting the public option. Now Mr. Obama will pivot to jobs and deficit reduction. As he tries to do that, voters will wonder if it's just a ruse to save Democrats.

Vice President Joe Biden should resolve to speak publicly less. Every time he opens his mouth, the West Wing staff uses him to make the president look good by comparison.

White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers should take a lead from Santa Clause and make her list and check it twice . . . at the White House gates.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should resolve to take a systems analysis course before she again declares that a system "worked."

The Democratic congressional leadership should resolve to come up with Plan B. After rejecting bipartisanship in 2009, they won't be able to pass bills in 2010 with only Democrats. Too many vulnerable Democrats will flake on big votes.          

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—who has reportedly let it be known that she is comfortable with losing scores of House seats to pass ObamaCare—might resolve to treat her pet Blue Dogs a little better. As for the Blue Dogs, why not resolve to become Republicans?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should resolve to strive for a little less unity in his caucus and in the meantime enjoy this term in office. It's likely to be his last unless Nevada Republicans tear themselves apart next year for the privilege of running against him.

Republican congressional leaders should resolve not to sit on their laurels. They're winning the battle for public opinion on health care, cap and trade, and spending, but by next fall, it won't be enough to surf voter dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and Democrats. Voters will want to know what Republican candidates would do.

A second Contract with America won't suffice. The GOP really won in 1994 by arming candidates with a basket of issues to pick from. Next year, candidates must be fluent in kitchen-table issues from jobs to health care to deficits to spending.

Ambitious Republicans should resolve to run next year. There will be a wave of voter support for GOP positions, but authenticity, passion and conviction matter. Voters can smell them, so bone up on the issues and say what you believe, not what someone tells you to say.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine should resolve not to blame himself for the coming political tsunami that'll hit his party next November. He should press Mr. Obama to raise lots of money to spend on close races in states where Democrats are in charge of redistricting. If not, he'll face a very ugly 2012 congressional election, too.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele had a great year in generating enthusiasm among small donors, but ends 2009 with less cash on hand than he had when he started the year. He should resolve to stop giving paid speeches and instead use his time repairing frayed relationships with major donors, whose support is critical to winning legislatures that will redraw congressional districts in 2011.

Tea Party members should resolve to resist being turned into another partisan political group. The movement's power stems from its ideas, not from any party it supports, and it has been very successful in educating Americans and arousing the country. It should let its members set their own personal course in primaries and fall elections.

As for me, I resolve to speak well of Mr. Obama more frequently, curry favor with liberals by being more critical of my fellow conservatives, and be guided by the words of Mark Twain, who said that the start of a New Year "is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual."

Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).
The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624503147162222.html

 
Obama's Security 'Breach'
Returning Gitmo's detainees to Yemen defies common sense.

President Obama has belatedly declared that the near miss above Detroit constituted "a catastrophic breach of security" and ordered a review of America's intelligence efforts. We're glad to hear it, but let's hope the Commander in Chief also rethinks his own approach to counterterrorism.

Recent events have exposed the shortcomings of treating terror as a law enforcement problem and rushing to close Guantanamo Bay. A new wave of jihadists is coming of age, inspiring last month's deadly attack at Ft. Hood and nearly bringing down Northwest Flight 253, and next time we may not be so lucky.  

Their latest sanctuary lies in unruly Yemen, headquarters for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, which last year pulled off a series of local bombings, including at the U.S. embassy in the capital Sana, killing 13. The al Qaeda chapter in Yemen has re-emerged under the leadership of a former secretary to Osama bin Laden.

Along with a dozen other al Qaeda members, he was allowed to escape from a Yemeni jail in 2006. His deputy, Said Ali al-Shihri, was a Saudi inmate at Gitmo who after his release "graduated" from that country's terrorist "rehabilitation" program before moving to Yemen last year. About a fifth of the so-called graduates have ended back on the Saudi terror most-wanted list, according to a GAO study this year.

U.S. investigators are looking into whether Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian would-be bomber, was in contact with al-Shihri and another Guantanamo alum who turned up at the AQAP, Muhammad al-Awfi. The week before Christmas, Yemen agreed, presumably under U.S. prodding, to take back six more Guantanamo detainees. Ninety-seven of the 210 left at Gitmo are from Yemen, and if this transfer goes smoothly, the Administration wants to repatriate many more. Most are such hard terror cases that this year even Saudi Arabia rejected U.S. entreaties to accept them.

A Pentagon analysis, released in May, showed that one in seven freed Gitmo detainees—61 in all—returned to terrorism. Al-Shihri and Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, the Taliban's operations leader in southern Afghanistan, are merely the best known. The Pentagon has since updated its findings, and we're told the numbers are even worse.

Yet the White House has resisted calls by Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to declassify this revised report—no doubt because that would make closing Gitmo harder. Congress should insist on its release.

This second generation of al Qaeda also makes good use of modern technology for recruitment.

A student from a wealthy family, Abdulmutallab was exposed to radical Islam through the Internet, and according to some reports was a "big fan" of the imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, who ran a popular jihadi Web site and Facebook page. This 38-year-old cleric, who was born in the U.S., is the spiritual leader of AQAP.

Al-Awlaki was also in email contact with Major Nidal Hasan in the months before the Army doctor shot and killed 13 U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood. U.S. intelligence intercepted emails between the imam and the Major, but the FBI decided that they didn't constitute a threat. We don't know if Abdulmuttab also communicated with al-Awlaki, but this too is something Congress should strive to find out.

One encouraging development is that the U.S. and Yemen governments are finally working together against jihadists. A series of recent raids supported by the U.S. have killed more than 50 suspected al Qaeda fighters, including suicide bombers. Al-Awlaki and the top two AQAP leaders were possibly killed in one of the strikes, though their fate is unclear.

Sending Gitmo's jihadists back to this maelstrom makes no security sense.

Yemen has a weak government with mixed loyalties and its prisons are porous. Al-Awlaki himself was released in 2007, having been held at American request. Mr. Obama says we need to close Gitmo because it offends our values, but he's happy to send its detainees back to Yemen where we can target them with smart bombs when they rejoin the fight. Mr. Obama's desire to fulfill his campaign pledge to close Gitmo is an ideological fixation that risks letting killers loose to target Americans again.

More broadly, the Administration's law enforcement mentality is also part of the problem.

Its instinct is to attribute every terror incident to a misguided individual—"an isolated extremist," as the President initially said of Abdulmuttalab—as if al Qaeda sympathies require a membership card and monthly meetings. Hasan and Abdulmuttalab are charged with being jihadists bent on murder who were encouraged or facilitated by other jihadists. This is the way the terror threat is evolving, with virtual recruitment over the Web of radicalized individuals from sanctuaries that change as opportunities arise.

Stopping future attacks is going to require interrogation—and before criminal charges are filed. We need to learn who gave Abdulmuttalab the PETN explosive and whether there is some al Qaeda terrormaster coordinating similar attacks the way KSM coordinated the 9/11 hijackings. Yet the White House impulse is to indict any terrorist we capture under criminal charges and let him lawyer-up. We may be lucky this time if Abdulmuttalab is singing, but that won't always be the case.

Whatever their mistakes, the Bush-Cheney policies properly identified the enemy and kept the U.S. homeland safe after 9/11.

The Obama Administration needs to shed some of its campaign illusions to meet this evolving threat, and not returning Gitmo's detainees to Yemen is an essential first step.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal

2.

Family Security Matters » Publications » The Case of the Missing Muslims: Why Is Islamberg Now a Ghost Town? 
 
The Case of the Missing Muslims: Why Is Islamberg Now a Ghost Town?
Paul Williams, PhD

The Wall Street Journal reports this week that U.S. investigators are discovering that more and more young Muslims are vanishing from mosques, madrassas, and Islamic centers.
 
The disappearances, the Journal notes, are raising grave concerns among FBI and Homeland Security officials who fear that an onset of jihadist activity will take place on American soil in the near future.
 
Hundreds of Muslim men are also missing from Islamberg and this is not a propitious omen.
 
The sentry post is gone and no guards are in sight at the entrance to the 70 acre Islamic settlement located in the dense forest between Deposit and Hancock in upper New York State.
 
Young men in Islamic garb no longer congregate before the makeshift mosque, and no students are in attendance at the one room shack that serves as Sheikh Gilani's “International Quranic Open University.”
 
Gunfire no longer can be heard from the firing ranges along the eastern parameter of the property – and no grunts come from new recruits at the obstacle course.
 
A new sign at the entranceway reads, “Welcome to Holy Islamberg: The International Quranic Open University.” Next to this sign, which features the image of a mosque emerging from the mountains, is a pot of plastic carnations. Another sign proclaims that the community is home to the “United Muslim – Christian Forum.”
 
Such statements of welcome are offset by the “No Trespassing” signs that have been nailed to trees throughout the compound.
 
On the opposite side of the road leading into the community is a rack of metal mailboxes bearing such names as Abdul-Haqq, Abdul Jalil, Mumim Roberts, Abdullah Simonds, and Salam Insan.
 
What has happened to this once bustling complex of radical Islamists – a place where the cries of muezzins were accompanied by the incessant rat-tat-tat of machine gunfire? Where are the Arab dignitaries that used to visit this remote community in chauffeur-driven limousines? Where are the armed sentries who warded away all intruders?
 
A handful of children play in the mud and muck before rows of rusty old trailers, and a few women in full burkas walk along the rutty dirt road that leads to the heart of the squalid Muslim compound.
 
The few residents who remain in the settlement are not environmentalists. Sewage seeps from septic tanks and outhouses into the creek that flows at the base of the settlement. Bags of rotting garbage remain stacked between the trailers. And the once pristine countryside is now littered with junk cars, moldy mattresses, empty tanks of propane, and old appliances.
 
Where are the men?
 
What has happened to this bustling center of jihadi training?
 
Why has Islamberg become a ghost town?
 
The same phenomenon of vanishing Muslim men is taking place at mosques, madrassas, and other Islamic communities throughout the country and at other Jamaat ul-Fuqra paramilitary compounds, including one in Red House, Virginia.
 
U.S. investigators have now discovered that many of the missing Muslims are showing up in the killing fields of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia.
 
Five American Muslims recently were arrested in Pakistan following a raid at the home of a member of the Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistani movement designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001.
 
The five American Muslims – identified as Ahmed Abdullah, Waqar Hassan Khan, Eman Hassan, Yasir and Rami Zamzam – were planning to join forces with the Taliban to fight the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan.
 
Zamzam is a graduate dental student at Howard University, where he served as president of the Muslim Student Association.
 
David Coleman Headley, another Muslim who disappeared, is a native of Chicago who attended Lashkar-e-Toiba-operated terrorism training camps in Pakistan and helped Lashker-e-Toiba members and others plan and execute the attacks in Denmark against the newspaper which published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, which Muslims found offensive, as well as the violent attack in Mumbai, in about 170 people died.
 
At the same time Headley was taken into custody, U.S. investigators discovered that 20 Somali immigrants, who were reported missing from a mosque in Minnesota, had joined the Islamist insurgent group, al Shabaab, and were engaged in fighting Somalia's U.S.-backed government.
 
And there is the case of Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old resident of Denver, who made a trip to Peshawar, Pakistan, in 2008 for the stated purpose of visiting his wife only to show up at an al Qaeda training camp where he received instruction in making and detonating explosives. In September, Zazi was collared by federal officials as he made his way to New York City to carry out attacks with the same back-pack bombs that were used to blow up a train station in Madrid and several subway stations in London.
 
Where are the Muslim men from Islamberg?
 
The answer comes from a heavy-set woman in a long black burka who stops to check her mail box. “The men – all gone,” she says in halting English. “All – in Pakistan.”
 
Islamberg was established in 1980 by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, a Pakistani cleric who served as the imam of the Yasin Masjid in Brooklyn. A quack practitioner of something called “Koranic psychiatry,” Sheikh Gilani presented himself to the Brooklyn congregation as "the sixth Sultan ul Faqr,” with a lineage that dates back to the prophet Mohammed. He claimed to have supernatural powers that came from his regular reception of visits by jinn and “non-human beings.”
 
Sporting ammunition belts, Gilani called upon members of a Black Muslim street gang known as Dar al-Islam (DAR) to take part in the holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Hundreds answered the call and headed off to training camps in Pakistan, which had been established by Osama bin Laden, and other members of the mujahadeen.
 
Under Gilani’s direction, the DAR transformed into Jamaat ul-Fuqra (“the community of the impoverished”) and continued its prison ministry under Muslims of the Americas, a new, non-profit corporation. The sheikh soon came to realize that it would be financially advantageous to train new recruits for the holy war on American soil rather than shelling out the freight of sending them to Lahore and Peshawar. He purchased a 70-acre parcel of land near Green Haven, set up a firing range and an obstacle course, purchased a slew of old single-wide trailers and created a paramilitary compound called Islamberg.
 
When released from the federal prison, former convicts now received not only the customary $10 and a suit of clothes but also a one-way ticket to Gilani’s compound.
 
What took place at Islamberg and the International Quranic Open University?
 
 The answers came from Sheikh Gilani in his recruitment videos: “We give [students] specialized training in guerilla warfare. We are at present establishing training camps. You can easily reach us at Open Quranic offices in upstate New York or in Canada or in South Carolina or in Pakistan.”
 
Similarly, in a handbook, published by the university, Gilani wrote that the foremost duty of all students is to wage war against “the oppressors of Muslims.” The students are expected to sign an oath that reads: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.”
 
Now that the recruits at Islamberg have been trained in the basics of guerilla warfare, they have been deployed to Pakistan for advanced courses in explosives and weapons of mass destruction.
 
They will be returning home soon.
 
3.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/poor_obama.html
 
Poor Obama
J.C. Arenas
 
Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Barack Obama admitted he was tired during his trip to Oslo earlier this month to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, but this isn't the first time we've heard about how tired the president is.
 
In February, barely two weeks following his inauguration, Obama was already tired of being cooped up in the White House. Perhaps that was part of his motivation for shortly afterwards embarking on the nationwide "You're All Suckers Tour" he used to curry support for a phony stimulus bill. Just a month later, he was too tired to act appropriately for Gordon Brown's visit the White House.
 
So what do we know thus far?
 
The president was tired at the beginning of his term shortly after taking office, and now he's tired as he reaches the end of his first year in office. What happened in between? Well, we never heard how tired Obama was of the parties at the White House, his introduction to the D.C. social scene, the date nights with Michelle, the long weekends with the family, the fundraisers, the trips taken to give "historic" speeches, the late night talk show appearances, the golf outings, or the pickup basketball games.
 
But of course we didn't, because for him that all encapsulates the fun of being the President of the United States. What Obama finds tiring is the actual work of governing, work that he has tried to delegate as much as possible to others because he never really wanted or expected to have to buckle down and do it himself. But he's found out he can't always just give the fun speeches; you know, the ones he calls "historic". Sometimes he has to give the somber speeches, as in the cases of the terrorist attacks on Ft. Hood and Northwest Flight 253. Those aren't fun because that's just the president doing his job. Nor can it be fun for him that he's trying to reform an entire nation in his image, but the people of that nation are standing up to him and saying "No!"  So what we have here is a president who's not having only the fun he had hoped for and he's tired as a result.
 
Obama is tired because he thought we were going to let him socialize this country as quickly as possible and then he and Reggie Love could get back to their riveting games of H-O-R-S-E.  Perhaps he can try to take solace in the old proverb, "no one is tired on the day on the victory", but for him victory is a long way away. I understand his frustration. Mr. President, in case you didn't know, the American people are a resilient bunch, but we are tired too. Let's work together to put Hope and Change to bed.
 
J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com
 

Wednesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accuses President Barack Obama of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Cheney joins a chorus of Republicans who have criticized Obama following the Christmas Day attack, in which a Nigerian suspect is accused of trying to blow up a loaded airliner with a bomb stitched into his underwear.

A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.” Foreshadowing the party’s strategy for next year’s midterm congressional elections, GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident and baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security. A time for honest, plain speaking, is clearly here – no matter how much Democrats may hate hearing the truth.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31054.html

Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank: David Reilly

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, sponsored a House bill that is meant to address everything from too-big-to-fail banks to asleep-at-the-switch credit-ratings companies to the protection of consumers from greedy lenders.

Members of Congress rarely read legislation like this because at 1,279 pages, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” is a real challenge. The top Republican on Financial Services, has bitterly opposed the bill and call for a halt to all bailouts.

The reading is especially painful since this reform is stuffed with more gristle than meat. At least, that is, if you are a taxpayer hoping the bailout train is coming to a halt. If you’re a banker, the bill is tastier. While banks opposed the legislation, they should cheer for its passage by the full Congress in the New Year: There are huge giveaways insuring the government will again rescue banks and Wall Street if the need arises.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ

GMAC to get $3.5 billion more in government aid

GMAC Financial Services is expected to get about $3.5 billion in additional U.S. government aid to help the troubled lender absorb mortgage losses, a financial industry source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The announcement is expected within days, the source said, speaking anonymously because the talks have been private.  GMAC has already received $12.5 billion in aid from the U.S. government since December 2008.

News of the potential capital infusion lowered the cost of protecting GMAC's debt against default in the credit derivatives market.  The additional capital will support GMAC's mortgage assets, which many analysts see as the finance company's main obstacle to reaching profitability.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BT06O20091230

Opinion:
Looking back on the political reality that was the Year of Our Lord 2009

As Barack Obama began his campaign to become president of the United States, opponents noted his total lack of training and experience in such areas as management and administration.  We questioned whether someone who could display no other asset in serving in the highest position in the land, could be successful without any knowledge of the job.

With very slick marketing, and a perfect storm of political opportunity, Obama was elected.  He has proceeded in his first year in office to perform as anyone without experience or training might be expected to perform.

“Badly” is too mild a term.  But don’t expect honest evaluation from our mainstream media, or, in all honesty, from people such as myself.  My expectations in matter political are much higher.

I was initially offended by Obama’s obvious efforts to sneer at all patriotic gestures and practices.  He made into an issue, his failure to wear a flag lapel pin.  It should have been of zero importance, but Obama – stupidly in my view – chose to defend the absence of the pin as if it were an act of legitimate protest.  He followed up that stupid act with his refusal to salute the National Anthem – a refusal captured in a now famous photo in which all other Democrat candidates dutifully stand with their hands over their hearts.

Obama defended his refusal to salute by saying that where he comes from “we sing rather than just salute” or some such.  Dumb in any case, blatantly stupid for a candidate for president.

American voters should have recognized what they were selecting – and some no doubt did.  In environs such as Frisco and Berkeley, we have seen clear evidence there are some among us who really don’t like this country or what it is seen to be.

This week, there emerged an email that does an excellent job of capturing the Obama year.  I pass it along.

Buddy

"This belongs in the "Email Hall of Fame"
 
This was written by a pastor's wife in biblical prose as a commentary of current events. It is brilliant."
------------------------

         And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land                                 called America , having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One." He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said " We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!"

           And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"
 
            Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the                                 people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!" And then he said, "redistribution of wealth is good for everybody."      
                     
             And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to                                 steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized.

             One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was                                 banished from the kingdom! 

              Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and                                 having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?"

 And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
 
             Then "The One" said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one,                                 lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!"  And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!"

             Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell                                 your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said. "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"

             Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas."                                 And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
 
              Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and                                 electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out.

              Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!"   

             Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" and they made him king!
 
    And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.
                                
 Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more... And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"
                                
             And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea                                 verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that                                 consumed all that they had built.
 
             And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish,                                 "give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too                                late, and their homeland was no more.
                                
             You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not.

              It's happening RIGHT NOW 
                                 
              THIS really tells it like it is.  After reading it -- and before you go into the bathroom to throw-up -- forward it to your friends and those you know who care about our country and what is happening to it under the rule of Commissar Obamanation.

The day’s top blogs:

1.

Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus Challenges the Constitutionality of the Democrat health care deals

Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6) says the "brazen vote-buying bazaar" being used to pass Senator Harry Reid's health care legislation raises serious legal and constitutional issues that should be investigated by Alabama State Attorney General Troy King and other state attorneys general.

Bachus sent a letter to King urging him to consider either single or collective legal action against discriminatory provisions that carve out special exemptions for states like Nebraska, Vermont, and Florida should the bill become law.

Bachus voted against Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health care bill in the House of Representatives on November 7. The majority Democrats in the Senate and House are expected to hold a conference committee to reconcile differences in their legislation.

http://bachus.house.gov/images/stories/bachus_lettertoagonsenatehealthbill_dec09.pdf

2.

HTTP://WWW.THETIMESHERALD.COM/ARTICLE/20091229/NEWS05/91229006/KEY-SECURITY-AGENCIES-LACK-PERMANENT-LEADERS

Key security agencies lack permanent leaders

EILEEN SULLIVAN • ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

 WASHINGTON — Two federal agencies charged with keeping potential terrorists off airplanes and out of the country have been without their top leaders for nearly a year.

It took the Obama administration more than eight months to nominate anyone to lead the Transportation Security Administration and the Customs and Border Protection agency.

President Barack Obama has ordered a review of U.S. security policies following the failed Christmas Day attack on a Detroit-bound flight from Amsterdam. He vowed Monday to “do everything that we can to keep America safe.”

The acting heads of the TSA and CBP — both created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — will be at the forefront of these efforts.

Bogged down with health care reform, the Senate has yet to set a date to hold hearings for the Customs position. And Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has placed a hold on the president’s choice to head the TSA over the senator’s concern that the new leader would let TSA screeners join a labor union. This has some Democrats blaming politics for the vacancy.

Former U.S. attorney Alan Bersin is nominated to run CBP, and former FBI agent and police detective Erroll Southers is the president’s pick for TSA.

On Christmas Day, alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian who spent time in Yemen, was able to sneak an explosive device aboard his flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, only to be thwarted by the device’s apparent failure to work as designed, and aggressive action by other passengers.

Abdulmutallab was not on the government’s terrorist watch list — though he was on a less sensitive and broader database. He was able to maintain a valid U.S. visa despite warnings about him to U.S. embassy officials in Nigeria from his father. Those facts are prompting a broad review of the government’s terrorist detection efforts.

“The United States will more than simply strengthen our defenses,” Obama said Monday. “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”

“The president is looking for answers on this,” Denis McDonough, chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, told reporters Monday in Hawaii, where President Barack Obama is vacationing. McDonough said officials have begun to assemble information related to watch list procedures. As yet, no one has been named to oversee the watch list review, he said.

McDonough downplayed the significance of not having the new TSA administrator confirmed, although he said “the president is eager to have his TSA head on the job.”

Acting TSA Administrator Gale Rossides is “very able” and “we have a very able team of career professionals at TSA,” McDonough insisted.

Some Republicans were more critical.

“Running a security agency with a revolving door is a recipe for failure,” said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla.

Abdulmutallab, charged with trying to destroy an aircraft, is being held at the federal prison in Milan, Mich. A court hearing that had been scheduled for Monday to determine whether the government can get DNA from him was postponed until Jan. 8. No reason was given.

U.S. officials had warning signs that Abdulmutallab might be a threat.

The embassy visit in which Abdulmatallab’s father said he was concerned about his son’s radicalization triggered a Nov. 20 State Department cable from Nigeria to all U.S. diplomatic missions and department headquarters in Washington. It was also shared with the interagency National Counter Terrorism Center, said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly.

These concerns landed Abdulmutallab among the about 550,000 names in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, known as TIDE, which is maintained by the NCTC. Other, smaller lists trigger additional airport screening or other restrictions, but intelligence officials said there wasn’t enough information to move Abdulmutallab into those categories.

The NCTC, which has responsibility if any visas are to be pulled over terrorism concerns, then reviewed the information and found it was “insufficient to determine whether his visa should be revoked,” Kelly said.

Yemen’s information minister said Tuesday that Abdulmutallab had spent a year in the country from 2004-2005. The student also was in Yemen from August until early December of this year.

Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden’s family, has been an al-Qaida haven partly because of a weak central government and rugged terrain, affording al-Qaida fighters numerous places to hide. A Yemen-based group, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, has claimed responsibility for Abdulmutallab’s actions.
 
Put this thing to work finding and reading Barry's real birth certificate, and you'll be doing the country the biggest favor ever!  Then boot him out of office with proof of his non-eligibility.  DH

3.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18377

WHAT TERRORISTS KNOW AND YOU DON'T
Gordon Duff/STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

I have worked in electronics, both communications and security systems for decades.  The industry is full of magic, satellites that can read license plates, not just from space but inside parking garages and tell you the sex of the baby you may not know you are carrying yet.  Industry people, us and terrorists, all know what exists and where it is.  You only have to track the contracts and installations. 

It is all public information, public information the public knows nothing of.  Terrorists know, believe that.

What can we do?  One of the companies I work with is RoamZone. 

www.roamzonesecuritysystems.com  Their equipment networks hyper-spatial cameras to allow biometric tagging and worldwide shared databases.  What does this mean?  It means that if you still have the same body, face, smell, anything either with a common facial pattern, body type or  molecular signature, you can be tracked across the planet for life.  This technology is cheap and common.  You can be tracked by the odor of your belt or shoes alone, an odor seen as molecules, not smelled, seen at great distance.

The process of "tagging" puts an identity tied to, not only your face, but your smell, much as with a blood hound.  You can be tagged, not getting on a plane, but anywhere in between, the train, entering an airport or even driving into a country with "pass and wave" customs like inside the EU.

Security folks can tell if someone who has been seen from a kilometer away in a village in Afghanistan shows up at an airport in Kansas City. 

He can have plastic surgery but he will have to get an entirely different body.  His molecular signature will be, not only on file, but shared thru the system worldwide in seconds.

If you don't have a system like this for your home or school and want one, let me know.  These same sensors see IEDs underground, identify terror suspects from Predator UAVs or watch people getting off trains in Singapore.

Sensors can tell if you have a fever, if you have fired a gun, if you have handled explosives or are carrying biohazard material.  All is detectable, not thru a sniffer or such, but from a football field away or more.

They know who you were when you drove into the airport.  They could have greeted you by name when you came in the door.  If you were in Britain, they would have told you to pay your back child support and when your car insurance is due.

When you hear that people got thru this and got away from that or fooled this device or that, this is total bull.  In most airports, your wireless devices are tagged, their esns's read, sim cards hacked and text messages audited.  The equipment to do this costs $100,000, peanuts.

Security can turn just your phone on and off or turn it on and use it to listen to any conversation within earshot.  They can intercept your text messages, alter them and send them on.

"AUNT MILLIE JUST DIED" can be changed to "UNCLE FRED KILLED A RED"

Integrated systems using hyper-spatial analysis, enhanced optical and synthetic aperture radar can do things decades beyond anything science fiction knows.  All of this is not only available but can be seen at any of the defense shows that terrorists are always visiting in droves.

This is the passive side.  The active side is draconian.  If this is what current "off the shelf" technology can do, can you imagine what the things we don't know about can do TO you? 
 

Monday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

House backers of public insurance option may yield

Two House Democrats who favor a government insurance plan, a central element of health care legislation passed in their chamber, acknowledged Sunday it might have to be sacrificed as negotiators work out a final agreement with the Senate.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., underscored the divisions Democrats will need to bridge when negotiators from the House and Senate meet next month to reconcile the two bills. He said there will need to be more give on the House side than the Senate, which took weeks to find the 60 votes needed for passage.

The Senate's Christmas Eve “achievement” brought the nation closer than it's been for generations to a new order in health insurance, one that would eventually require nearly all Americans to get coverage, help many pay for it and restrict onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing sickness.
 
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091227/D9CRSDM81.html

Senate Democrats to White House: “Drop cap-and-trade”

Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.

The creation of an economy-wide market for greenhouse gas emissions is as the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative — especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.

Moderate House Democrats who voted in favor of the cap-and-trade bill just before the July 4th recess came under fire back home, and Republicans have vowed to make the issue a key line of attack during next year’s elections. Some Democrats would prefer to deny them that target.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30984.html

No Churchgoing Christmas for the First Family

But there's was one common Christmas practice not on the First Family's schedule: a visit to Christmas Eve church services.

Church, in fact, has been a surprisingly tough issue for the Obamas. They resigned their membership with Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in 2008 after Obama renounced the church's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. And while the First Family intended to find a local church to attend when they moved to Washington, concerns about crowds and displacing regular worshippers has prevented them from finding a new religious home during their first year here.

However, the Obama White House DID host a celebration of the Muslim holiday, Ramadan.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1949879,00.html

Opinion:
Victory next November, begins right now – in GOP primaries

Fair warning to all who are honestly concerned about our nation’s future.  A new election year is dawning.  Victory is not just desired, it’s crucial.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/november_2010_too_little_too_l.html

If conservatives wait until November 2010 we will be: Too little, too late
John Hunt

This is why: The nominations and primary races are shaping up right now. We must nominate conservatives for the November 2010 vote, right now. Deadlines approach soon. GOP county and state organizations are working right now to get their ducks in a row for the 2010 election - and beyond.

When conservatives sit back and "wait" - we're saddled with candidates like Dede Scozzafava of the recent RINO insider fiasco in New York, not to mention certain lack-luster candidates for the presidency.

Let's look at GOP county committees first - simply because the GOP is a more likely home for the conservative movement, and local or county is practical for many of us. I'll address the Democratic Party later.

One example of many possibilities is to become a precinct chair in your county GOP organization. Precinct Chair positions often go unfilled. Precinct chairs get to vote on candidate selection and other leadership. Populous counties will have a website with a page that explains what you need to do. Less well funded GOP organizations will have contact information in the phone book, or, as part of a list on a state GOP website.

You may be under a deadline of early January 2010 - if you have any inkling to do such a work, jump on it, and move forward. Similar deadlines apply to candidate filings - if they haven't passed already.

As a conservative, you'll face prejudice. Stay calm, stay cool. You'll have to be sharper and better than anyone else. To prevent your efforts from hijacking by cunning RINO operatives, check your local Tea Party website. They can provide guidance on how you may conduct yourself as a calm, effective voice for conservatism. Get a copy of Robert's Rules of Order. Know your local organization procedures. Read American Thinker. Read biographies of George Washington, John Adams, and other great patriots.

Carry a copy of The United States Constitution in your hip pocket. Read it, know it. That is the best civic guidance.

Attention Democrats: let's take this a step further - why should collectivists control the Democratic Party? Aren't the words "Democratic" and "collectivist" mutually exclusive? (No Clintonian double-speak allowed.) Why not liberate your party? Conservative Democrats deserve leadership in your own party. You fought communism overseas in decades past - why not fight collectivism on our own shores now?

(NOTE: Any remaining conservatives among Democrats are badly outnumbered.  What’s more, a major element of Democrat Party primary voters will be on the far left, and have more voting power than what would be necessary to deny a conservative the nomination.  Bottom line, Democrats will be unable to nominate a conservative for the foreseeable future.)

Many more details go with this general idea. You can figure out those details. Time is wasting away. This is too important to let it go until November. Now is the time for all conservatives to come to the aid of their country.

Be strong, act swiftly. America needs you.

John Hunt is his children's dad. His public service is to help find and produce crude oil and natural gas from privately owned lands in the USA.
 
 
 The primary season, as it is shaping up, has an encouraging air to it.  No better indication can be cited than the race for the GOP nomination for the Senate in Florida.  Just a few months back, incumbent GOP governor Charles Crist seemed unbeatable.  A conservative challenger – former House Speaker Marco Rubio --  was not being taken seriously by many pundits.  But the sentiment reflected in the tea party protests made itself known, and at last report – two weeks ago – Crist is deadlocked with Rubio in campaign polling.  If those figures are accurate, Crist probably has crested and will decline, while Rubio will probably gain strength.

Using the Florida Senate primary to date, pruning the GOP tree of “RINO”s – will result from normal attrition.  That’s not only good news for Republicans, but for all America as well.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjE0ZjI1NGRmMGVlODdjY2Q1YmU5Yzg2ZWZjYjcyMjA=
 
This Guy's Been on Every Channel, Every Day for a Year. Now He's Shy?

Over at The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder explains...

In his Farenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush's first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree. Today, as the nation's law enforcement agencies respond to an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. soil, as the cable news channels and news websites pull in reinforcements to cover the incident from all angles, President Obama has been silent.

In fact, he's been golfing. He received a counterterrorism briefing early this morning, Hawaii time, and moments later, left for the gym.  The president's vacation activities might have become the subject of a fierce partisan fight — but really, the only carping is coming from the usual suspects on the right.

There is a reason why Obama hasn't given a public statement. It's strategy.

So we're now all in agreement, correct? Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a cavalcade of cheap shots, and Bush's speaking from a golf course in no way indicated a casualness or lack of appropriate focus on the threat of terrorism, correct? Because it might have been nice to hear non-conservatives saying this, oh, five years ago or so.

The fact that President Obama hasn't spoken to the citizenry in the 48 hours or so since the incident is... unexpected. Strange. If the bombing attempt had not occurred on Christmas Day, his silence would be unthinkable, correct? Somebody tries to blow up a plane, and while this guy's effort fell thankfully well short, it sounds like this could have turned out terribly and tragically differently with a little less luck and a bit more chemical reaction.

The president's silence is not necessary a serious problem or crisis, and yes, we are getting lots of statements from administration officials about what TSA, FAA, and the rest are doing.

Maybe this guy was a lone wolf, and no follow-on attacks are in the works, and we'll forget about this in a couple of months, and life will go on without further incident. Or maybe it won't. In retrospect, it's rather amazing that President Clinton never visited the Twin Towers after the 1993 bombing or visited the CIA for almost a year after a January 25, 1993 shooting attack at its entrance; it looks like the new president's mind was elsewhere and on other matters.

At some point, a strategy insisting that unsuccessful attacks are not worth presidential comment starts looking like whistling past the graveyard, or pretending that the incidents aren't a big deal when they are.

2.

 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KL24Ag01.html

Life and premature death of Pax Obamicana
By Spengler

History speaks of a Pax Romana, a Pax Britannica, and a Pax Americana - but no other namable eras of sustained peace, for the simple reason cited by Henry Kissinger: nothing maintains peace except hegemony and the balance of power. The balancing act always fails, though, as it did in Europe in 1914, and as it will in Central and South Asia precisely a century later. The result will be suppurating instability in the region during the next two years and a slow but deadly drift toward great-power animosity. Those who wanted an end to US hegemony will get what they wished for. But they won't like it.

"No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation," US President Barack Obama told the United Nations on September 23. "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold." Having renounced hegemony as well as the balance of power, Obama by year-end chose to prop up the power balance in the region with additional American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan. Obama chose the least popular as well as the least effective alternative. The US president's apparent fecklessness reflects the gravity of the strategic problems in the region.

There is one great parallel, but also one great difference, between the Balkans on the eve of World War I and the witch's cauldron comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and contiguous territory. The failure of the region's most populous state - in that case the Ottoman Empire, in this case Pakistan - makes shambles out of the power balance, leaving the initiative in the hands of irredentist radicals who threaten to tug their sponsors among the great powers along behind them. But in 1914, both France and Germany thought it more advantageous to fight sooner rather than later. No matter how great the provocation, both India and China want to postpone any major conflict. The problem is that they may promote minor ones.

Western analysts are unanimous that Pakistan must not be allowed to become a failed state, for example, through a seizure of power on the part of Islamist elements in the military allied to the Taliban. Enlisting Pakistan in counter-insurgency against Pashtun rebels in Afghanistan, though, ensures this outcome. US policy, wrote Syed Saleem Shahzad on this site on October 23 (Where Pakistan’s militants go to ground ), "draws Pakistan, already mired in political and economic crises, into an ever-deepening quagmire. The country has become a playing field for operators of all shades.

These include Iranian Balochi insurgents, over a dozen Pakistani militant groups linked with the Taliban or al-Qaeda, the US Central Intelligence Agency's network, security contractors associated with the American establishment, and last but not least, agents provocateurs. Pakistan, one of the booming economies of Asia just two years ago, seriously risks becoming a failed state."

The US-sponsored frontier war amounts to Punjabis - traditionally the core of the country's military - killing Pashtuns. The default view of area defense analysts has been that army operations against the Taliban may turn into a Punjabi-Pashtun ethnic conflict. But the cracks in the Pakistani state run in several directions. Punjabi Islamists allied to the Taliban, meanwhile, are in open revolt; Punjabi terrorists took part in the October siege of Pakistan's army headquarters in Rawalpindi.

Pakistan is being ground between two millstones: the Afghan war and the global economic crisis. Half the country is illiterate, and half of Pakistanis live on less than US$1 a day. The country's respectable economic growth rate of 5% per annum during the late 2000s was fed by foreign credit, which allowed it to run a current-account deficit of 8.3% as of 2008. The country's finances collapsed in late 2008, forcing Islamabad to adopt an austerity program under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund. "Pakistan is not yet a failed economy," wrote Santosh Kumar in The Hindu on November 24. "But it can happen. This is not a prospect the world, especially India, can view with equanimity, since the spillover will impact us badly."

The credibility of secular government - with its promise of economic improvement - is threadbare. The alternative is an Islamist regime committed to confronting India over Kashmir and suppressing the Shi'ite minority that comprises 30% of Pakistan's population. The Islamist alternative has such appeal that Punjabi terrorists, as noted, are conducting suicide attacks against the Punjabi-dominated army.

India might be compelled to respond to the victory of Islamist radicals in its nuclear-armed neighbor.

 Iran, for that matter, cannot maintain its credibility with its Shi'ite allies around the region if it sits on its hands while Pakistan crushes its co-confessionalists. Iran's interest in obtaining nuclear weapons has several motivations. One is to establish a screen of deterrence behind which it can grab its neighbors' oil, as it proposed to do by sending a division of the Iranian army to surround an Iraqi oilfield last week. Another is to prepare for prospective conflict with Pakistan; if Pakistan fails, Iran will have a strong interest in interfering in Pakistan on behalf of the Shi'ite minority.

The Obama administration's response to the threat of Islamist takeover has been "to pick a new fight with India on Kashmir", as Indian analyst C Raja Mohan complained in the online edition of Forbes magazine on November 8:

Obama has also sensed, rightly, that the US cannot stabilize Afghanistan unless it fixes Pakistan's profound insecurities and gets its army to level with the US and stop supporting America's enemies in Afghanistan. Few Indians disagree with Obama's reasoning that the threats to Pakistan's security are internal and do not come from India. But many are beginning to get anxious about the third step in Obama's logic: to get Pakistan to cooperate with the US in Afghanistan, Washington must actively seek to resolve Islamabad's problem with New Delhi over Kashmir. Put simply, the Indian fear is that they are being asked to pick up the political tab for America's failed policy in Afghanistan, and for the Pakistan Army's deliberate betrayal of US interests there.

The Obama administration has antagonized India in the hope of mollifying Pakistani irredentism, just as it has antagonized Israel with the dubious argument that if Israel makes concessions to the divided, ineffectual Palestine Authority, it will be able to mollify Iran. Nothing will assuage the Palestinians, who are failed before coming a state, nor the Pakistanis, whose failure is ineluctable.

As I argued in Asia Times Online on October 20 (When the cat's away, the mice kill each other), the net effect of America's fecklessness is to give the Russian Empire an opportunity to stretch a hand out of the geopolitical grave and grasp a last, great opportunity. Russia faces a slow demographic death, but it remains a great power in terms of military technology: its surface-to-air missile systems are as good as anything American can field, and its newest system, the as yet undeployed S-500, may be better, according to a senior American aviation executive.

Compared with the airframe and avionics technology now in development phase in the Unites States, Russia remains a second-best producer of warplanes. But Obama's budget cuts have hit military aviation hard, leaving its closest allies - including Israel and Australia - without a clear alternative to the aging F-16 force. Russia and India, meanwhile, are developing a "fifth generation" fighter, with some inputs from France and Israel. There is widespread speculation that Russia's decision to cancel deliveries of its S-300 anti-missile system to Iran carried a price tag for the Israelis: order the latest Russian systems for their own use, and make available the entire package of Israeli avionics.

In short, Washington appears to have driven its two closest allies in Asia - Israel and India - into a technology alliance with Russia that may have enormous long-term consequences. It is not only that the US has renounced its intention to act as a hegemon; a few years from now, it no longer may have the technological ability to act as a hegemon. This threatens to close off what may become the best chance to maintain peace in the region.   
 
Rather than chanting in unison "Pakistan must not be allowed to fail!", Western strategists should plan for the consequences of a failed state in Pakistan. One alternative - with its own attendant difficulties - was raised by M K Bhadrakumar on this site on October 10 (Pakistan warns India to 'back off'):

India, of course, can do a lot to help the US and NATO in such a scenario by training the militia operating under the ‘warlords’ and also providing them with weapons. In sum, without military deployment in Afghanistan, Delhi has the capacity to play a decisive role in crushing the Taliban insurgency, which is what makes the Pakistani military establishment extremely anxious in the developing political scenario on the Afghan chessboard.

In this scenario, India would encircle and contain a Pakistani failed state, cutting off the Afghanistan operations of the Islamist wing of Pakistan's military. Pakistan would be aghast, but the vise-grip around its borders would be so tight as to discourage future misbehavior.

There is one problem with this scenario, and that is China. As Francesco Sisci wrote on this site on December 15 (A radical empire looms), "Afghanistan and Pakistan are not unstable domino tiles that can be moved at will in a careful balance of weights and counterweights, as in old political power games. Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of a more complex balancing act that is both domestic and international and in which we also find China and India."

China cannot sit by and allow India to encircle and eventually crush its ally Pakistan - not because China has fundamental strategic interests in Pakistan, but because it cannot tolerate such a blemish to its credibility. The problem does not lie in Pakistan, but in the mutual capacity of India and China to destabilize each other. Maoist rebels are active in about a third of Indian territory, and the Indian government claims that they receive their weapons from China - without yet accusing the Chinese government of direct involvement. India has a probe stuck prominently into China's most sensitive spot, namely Tibet. On November 10, the Chinese government denounced India for permitting the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, to visit Tawang on the Tibetan border. China still claims as part of Tibet the whole border state of Arunachal Pradesh, including Tawang.

Unlike World War I, in which the warring parties in the Balkans drew Russia and Austria into war and the rest of Europe with them, India and China will not go to war over trifling border issues. But in the absence of a solution to Pakistan's state failure, they will continue to support low-intensity operations and add to the region's instability. China in this respect most resembles Austria in 1914. It is the power that wants stability at all costs, and has the most to lose - through the provincial rebellion of ethnic minorities - from instability. But it cannot impose stability through any means within its own reach. More than any other power in the world, it regards the prospective failure of the Pakistani state with horror. Beijing does not seem to have thought through the configuration of a post-Pakistani world.

The balance of power fails along with Pakistan. The alternative to the balance of power, as Kissinger said, is hegemony, and no one but the United States can exercise it. A hegemonic US would do the following:

•  Invite New Delhi to increase its role in Afghanistan - which the Russians emphatically support - and make clear to Islamabad that the consequences of a shift toward radical Islam will be to leave Pakistan at the mercy of India.
•  Dictate to India a conciliatory policy toward China, including an empty dance card for the Dalai Lama and consideration for Chinese interests in Nepal and Myanmar.
•  Persuade China to throw its Pakistani ally under the bus, in return for assurances of Indian good behavior, as well as other incentives (access to US technology, for example).
•  Assure China that the United States will not take advantage of its troubles with the Uighurs in Xinjiang or any other Chinese ethnic minority - and that it will police such allies as Turkey with respect to such problems.
•  Crush Iran's imperial ambitions in the region, both to protect US allies such as Saudi Arabia and to eliminate a potential existential threat to Pakistan and remove a claim to legitimacy for radical Sunni Islamists.
•  Give Russia assurances that matters pertaining to its "near abroad" from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan will be considered with a view toward Russian interests.

The implications of such an exercise in great-power politics are in some respects ugly. They include a perpetual civil war in Afghanistan and the continuation of at least low-level civil war in Pakistan. The object would not be to prevent Pakistan from turning into a failed state, but to prevent a failed state in Pakistan from poisoning the rest of the region. It also implies a self-interested recognition that the United States has nothing but sentimental interests in Ukraine, Georgia and Tibet - and that sentiment is cheap. It is not the best alternative, to be sure, but as General George Patton said, the best is the enemy of the good.

At the close of 2009, Washington still has the capacity to act as a hegemon. The most dangerous undertaking of the Obama administration is not the petty failures of policy, such as the hapless effort to appease the Palestinians over West Bank settlements, or Pakistan over Kashmir. If America's technological leadership in fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and related technologies continues to erode, the United States - like Britain in 1914 - no longer will have the power and credibility to enforce an agreement among prospectively hostile players.

America's self-sabotage in this regard is a unique act of abnegation in the history of world strategy. It lost Vietnam because to win would have required more boots on the ground and more body bags on homebound aircraft. But the problems of South and Central Asia do not require a substantial US troop commitment. On the contrary, the escalation of US force in Afghanistan makes matters worse. India can put sufficient boots on Afghan soil to prevent a Taliban victory. No one else wants or needs US troops. But America's capacity to sail an aircraft carrier to any coast in the world and be master of the situation is essential.

Russia and India may field a fifth-generation fighter, perhaps a very good one if it contains the full Israeli avionics package. But a sixth-generation fighter is already in the research-and-development phase in the United States. If Washington puts resources behind cutting-edge defense technology, no other country or combination of countries can mount a challenge for a generation or more.
 
America's failure to sustain its own power will be as tragic as it is unnecessary.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, senior editor at First Things (www.firstthings.com).

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

3.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/seniors_are_americas_new_jews.html

Seniors are America's new Jews
Stuart Schwartz

http://www.americanthinker.com/stuart_schwartz/

They are objects of derision.  Influential government officials refer to them as unproductive, of less value than others in society. The political party running the government aggressively denies them access to health services while putting in place bureaucracies devoted, in effect, to ending their lives.

The Jews in Nazi Germany?  In the Soviet Union of Stalin? In a socialist paradise set up by the rabidly anti-Semitic United Nations? No, seniors in a United States governed by the party of President Barack Obama and his allies on the Democratic left.

The Democratic Party senate healthcare bill makes it official: Seniors are America's new Jews.

An exaggeration? Yes and no.  In no way do I wish to trivialize the horrific slaughter of Europe's Jewish population by the Nazis, nor the systematic oppression of Jews in history. However, Obama and the Democratic Party have embraced a worldview <http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/antisemitism-jews-un-oped-cx_cr_0122rosett.html> that allows them to go after seniors in much the same manner that tyrants (and the United Nations) have used Jew-bashing as a tool to accumulate power and steal wealth.

Seniors are the new go-to group for this radical president and Democratic congress as they pursue power, wealth, and the cultural transformation of the United States. Every version of the Democrat healthcare bill-with all senate Republicans opposing <http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/19/health.care/index.html> this war against seniors-relies on drastically reduced access to the services <http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/kristol_ten_words_to_remember.asp> for which seniors have paid through taxes over a lifetime, or upon which they may choose to spend personal resources.

The party and government of Barack Obama is astonishingly brutal about the value of that lifetime. A ‘senior moment' should be just that, they say: a brief period rarely extending beyond the 60s. For us, of course, not them.

This is government by those who consider themselves intellectually elite, thinkers who insist that a free-market economy that has enabled the elderly to live longer violates <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n3/age.html> the rights of the younger by disproportionate consumption of healthcare resources.

The president's healthcare czar views <http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/hello_obamacare_goodbye_grandm_1.html> the optimal age for societal worth as somewhere south of 60 years. The Democrat approach is philosophically founded upon the work <http://www.thehastingscenter.org/About/Staff/Detail.aspx?id=1282> of Ivy League academic Dr. Daniel Callahan, who mentored Obama health policymaker Ezekiel Emanuel and who advocates medical resource rationing as a simple and powerful solution to the "dilemma"-lack of community usefulness-posed by market-enabled longer lives.

Simply put: The utility of a citizen's life to an Obama government is defined by the amount of one's work that can be taxed vs. the resources consumed, and the government-defined value of the group to which the individual belongs. Seniors are just not useful, says <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs> Tom Daschle, the prominent Obama Democrat who continues to play a key role in shaping Obamacare, and it is time for them to accept the "pain" of less access to healthcare.

Too many Jews...uh, seniors? Okay-let'em die.

What Sarah Palin termed <http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/sarah_palin_vs_dr_death.html> "dealth panels" are only a small part of a new bureaucracy <http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=662c76aa-d8a8-4b07-a4d0-ad4197f08856&headline=Charles+M.+Arlinghaus%3A+The+new+health+care+bureaucracy> that will stand between seniors and life. Small wonder The Wall Street Journal characterized <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903498159292.html> Obamacare as an "assault" on seniors, while a British newspaper, surveying events across the pond, starkly <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100004794/obamacare-the-elderly-might-as-well-have-a-bulls-eye-painted-on-their-backs/> stated "the elderly might as well have a bull's eye painted on their backs." It continued, "Creepy, right? It's totalitarian, it's ugly, and it's not the American way."

But it is the American way in a nation governed by Obama, who has a vision that requires some to have less so that others may be given more. And the vast middle class of seniors, almost 40-million strong, a lifetime of working and paying taxes behind them, are the ideal scapegoats to fund a radical Democrat vision.

James Lewis describes <http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/obama_alinsky_and_scapegoats.html> the Obama team approach with devastating clarity: they have perfected scapegoating, an "emotional high explosive that you can direct at will." And not just Will-we're talking Bernice, Fred, and Gladys, the fifteen percent of the population who have the audacity-an Obama word-to age.

Seniors now find themselves as the official go-to group for a president intent on taking both life and property and giving to those who are younger, more diverse, to illegal immigrants, and Democratic Party allies. Consequently, the Obama-led Democrats, with the help of intellectual and media elites, have declared open season on grandma and grandpa, with Newsweek Evan going so far as to feature a cover <http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291> detailing "The Case for Killing Granny." 

In Obama's America, wrinkles are about as trendy as white belts and polyester slacks, and gray is the new Jew.

Democrat healthcare is one of many "audacious visions," a Georgetown University professor wrote <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/claudia-ricci/obama-has-a-chance-to-tra_b_130015.html> , to replace a Judeo-Christian culture with a statist worldview. The founders were wrong, Obama says, when they unashamedly founded a nation based, as Thomas Jefferson put <http://www.ibiblio.org/cr/2009/11/restoring-thomas-jefferson/>; it, upon the belief in the dignity of each individual-regardless of age-who possesses "personal liberty" given "by the Author of nature."

The president Newsweek editor Evan Thomas called <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god> "sort of God" takes issue with the view of seniors dictated by the  "Author of nature," that rock of Judeo-Christian culture who demands in his Word, in Deuteronomy, that humanity "Honor your father and your mother as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long..."

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob views long life and respect for seniors as a blessing.  But the Democratic Party healthcare bill is no Deuteronomy, long life is viewed as a market-driven curse, and for Barack Obama-the god of Harry, Nancy, and Evan-seniors are expendable.

It is not hard to imagine President Obama standing at a window of the White House, watching the Tea Parties and streams of protestors. He observes the multitude of seniors in the crowds, smiles a smug smile and quietly whispers in their direction: 

"If the Jew fits, wear it."

Sunday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Obama's union push stymies contractors

Obama's plan to force contractors to hire union workers for large government construction projects is proving easier said than done, confusing and costlier than expected.

The General Services Administration (GSA), for example, first called for "project labor agreement" or PLA to win bids to rehabilitate the Washington office complex, but earlier this month backtracked, saying the solicitation was in error and it would instead ask contractors to submit two bids, one with a PLA and one without - a highly unusual and costly requirement.

Brett McMahon, vice president of business development for Miller & Long Co. Inc., the country's largest concrete subcontractor and the largest employer of construction workers in the Mid-Atlantic region, estimates a general contractor would spend more than $100,000 putting together a single bid for a job of that size and submitting dual bids would increase the cost by about $75,000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/27/obama-union-push-stymies-contractors/

Nevada Publisher: “Hey Harry: Where is Nevada's gift?”

“Just three days ago Uncle Harry said that if a senator didn't get his state "something" in the health-care "reform" package, then that senator wasn't doing his or her job.  Yesterday Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., upped the ante. saying that every state did "get something" in the measure.”

“What's Nevada's gift? Uncle Harry, as everyone knows, is the Big Kahuna of the Senate. He "brings home the bacon," his TV commercials claim. So if Nebraska got dispensation from Medicaid increases forever, one can only imagine the magnitude of Nevada's present.”

Polling indicates Harry Reid will have a rough time gaining re-election.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/hey-harry-where-is-nevadas-gift-80104262.html

Hillary, Return to your Office!

Hillary Clinton might be well advised to get off the dinner circuit and return to her office, because it appears that the Department of State is in need of supervision.

Reports from Jerusalem today suggest our embassy officials there are deliberately trying to force an international incident by attempting to run over a border guard, transporting in diplomatic vehicles  a passenger without proper papers,  insulting female Israeli border guards and failing to stop and present the proper travel documents at border crossings.

[A] US diplomatic car allegedly tried running over a Defense Ministry security guard recently at an IDF checkpoint in the West Bank. The car had been stopped after the occupants refused to present identification papers. [snip][O]ne of the consulate cars was found to have transported a Palestinian without permits between Jerusalem and the West Bank. [snip]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/dear_hillary_return_to_your_of.html

Opinion:
The real Obama – without the masks, handlers, and teleprompters

Never before has a politician risen to the highest office in the land, with so little experience, training, or background.  We were asked to take him at his word and just let him run things.

That’s not working out all that well for the American people.

Obama is a politician in a hurry – a demand for unrelenting speed for no particular reason and without any apparent understanding.  His truly dumb demand for closing Gitmo prison within a year, is an example.  The demand was 100% political and made in total ignorance of reality.

Obamas’ failure in closing Gitmo on his announced schedule, is surpassed by the irresponsible and dangerous handling of the terrorists in custody there.  Obama’s own Attorney General, Eric Holder, has outrageously caved to demands and presented 9/11 conspirators with exactly what they wanted in terms of a platform from which to preach their hatred of America and send forth a call for recruitment.

Hmmm does that sound a bit like the sermons of Obama’s pastor?  Ben Stein has some answers:

Buddy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373124/posts
 
WE FIGURED HIM OUT! 
By Ben Stein

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.
 
They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
 
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.
 
They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.
 
They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country,way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East , way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.. The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles like agency telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
 
These are perilous times.. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State,has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care.
 
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America .

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu . He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamacare-to-cost-middle-class-families-15000-a-year.html

Obamacare To Cost Middle Class Families $15,000 A Year

Crippling new bill will lead to a “rebellion”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com

Families struggling in the midst of a deep recession who earn a combined total greater than $88,200 and don’t have their health care covered by their employer will be hit with a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate Obamacare bill.

As we highlighted yesterday, the health care bill would introduce a raft of new taxes that would inevitably lead to higher costs that would be passed on to the public. A Boston Globe analysis revealed that there were at least 19 new taxes contained in the legislation which is set to be passed on Christmas Eve.

On top of this, a CBO analysis identifies five facts about the bill that will financially devastate families with an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be forced to buy government-approved health insurance and anyone earning a middle class wage will have to pay for it out of their own pocket. Federal subsidies will only be provided for people who are not offered coverage by their employer and earn below the 400 percent poverty level.

Employers will not be required to offer their workers coverage, being subject to a $750 annual penalty if they fail to do so, a figure most analysts say is not high enough to prevent employers from dropping their plans, meaning that more people will be forced to buy government health care.

“The Senate health care bill gives employers two powerful incentives to stop offering health insurance coverage to their workers,” writes Terry Jeffrey. “First, if an employer does offer coverage, its lower-wage workers will lose the federal insurance subsidy they would otherwise get. Secondly, if an employer does not offer coverage, the $750-per-worker fine it faces will be far less than the premiums it would pay if it did offer coverage.”

Costs are also set to soar as a result of insurance companies being hit with federal mandates that increase their risk.

“Policies purchased through the exchanges (or directly from insurers) would have to meet several requirements: In particular, insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees’ health,” according to the CBO.

This will inevitably force insurance companies to pass higher costs on to the public.

As a consequence of all these factors, families whose employers drop their plan will be forced to buy it on their own – at a cost of over $15,000 dollars a year.

“Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal,” states the CBO.

Jeffrey predicts that families being hit with a federally mandated $15,000-per-year insurance bill will provoke a “rebellion”.

“When that happens, the liberals will not say: We made a mistake. We never should have forced families out of their employer-based health insurance and required them to purchase a $15,000 policy,” he writes.

“They will say: We told you so. We cannot trust these greedy insurance companies. We need a single-payer system so the government can provide everyone with health care. Just like they did in the Soviet Union.”
 
2.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73493-senior-dem-kill-the-healthcare-bill-and-start-ove

Senior Dem: Kill the Senate health reform bill and start over
Michael O'Brien

The Senate's healthcare bill is fatally flawed, a senior Democrat atop a powerful committee said on Wednesday.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the Senate's bill is so flawed that it's unlikely to be resolved in conference with the bill to have passed the House.

"The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago," Slaughter wrote in an opinion piece for CNN's website.
 
Slaughter argued that while the House bill is far from perfect, the Senate bill's exclusion of a public option, along with abortion funding restrictions and other measures, make the bill undeserving of a vote.

Specifically, Slaughter said, the Senate bill would charge seniors higher premiums, would fail to nix health insurers' antitrust exemption and would not go far enough in extending coverage to people in the U.S.

"Supporters of the weak Senate bill say 'just pass it — any bill is better than no bill,' " Slaughter wrote. "I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills."

The New York Democrat also sounded a note similar to what Republicans have said (though for different reasons): Scrap the current healthcare bill, and start over.    

"It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board," she said. "The American people deserve at least that."

Update, 2:54 p.m.: A Senate Republican aide chimed in on Slaughter: "Unfortunately for moderate Democrats, all the sweetheart deals in the world couldn’t help you win an election when voters from across the political spectrum hate you because of your support for this disastrous bill."

3.
 
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/where-did-these-guys-come-from/

Where Did These Guys Come From?
Victor Davis Hanson
The Origins of Omism

I do not think it will be easy to delay Obamism. It is not just that both houses of Congress are under liberal leadership with ample majorities, with a White House and captive media egging them on. The problem is that now the entire engine of the federal government is harnessed in the most unapologetic way to pushing through a far left agenda. There is no shame, no hesitancy in using the full powers of the state.

How does that work out? Without qualification (remember we are in a new age of transparency and ethical reform) votes are bought with hundred-million-dollar earmarks; the attorney general predicates judicial action on the political ramifications of indicting or not indicting; federal bureaucracies (watch the EPA if cap and trade stalls) are devoted to the new Caesar rather than the letter. of the law.

Such a strange scenario we have found ourselves in—a clear majority of Americans is opposed to almost everything Obama has to offer; congressional representatives know they are acting against the will of the people, but know too that they are offered all sorts of borrowed money for their districts to compensate for their unpopular actions. And a charismatic commander in chief believes that he can charm even the angriest of critics, and that anything he promises (Iran’s deadlines, closing of Guantanamo, new transparency, no more lobbyists, etc) means zilch and can be contextualized by another “let me be perfectly clear” speech spiced with a couple of the usual “it would have been impossible for someone as unlikely as me to have become President just (fill in the blanks) years ago”

No, I would not count Obama out. So what drives his agenda? What are its origins?

Here are the three most prominent catalysts.

Equality of Result

What Barack Obama advocates is as old as Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics, the agenda of the classical dêmos and Roman turba.

It is why the French Revolution emphasized égalité and fraternité, while the Founding Fathers instead championed the freedom of the individual from the despotism of the state. In short, equality of result doctrine ignores the role of markets, of skills, of tragedy itself that renders some of us ill, others in perfect health, some born gifted, others less so, some evil by nature, others good, and instead promises that the state can even us all out through its power of material redistribution. Give us all the same amount of money and perks at the end of the day, and then utopia reigns under the benevolent watch of Ivy-League professors and organizers.

It is a given that what we make is not our own, but predicated on the liberality of society. Thus, for those who were too greedy, too conniving, or even too lucky, the state must step in to ensure that we end up the same.

In its most benign form, we know this as progressivism or communitarianism, a big government, high tax philosophy that co-exists within democracy. Its more pernicious strains are socialist, in which the state ensures, through bureaucratic fiat and a labyrinth of laws that curb free expression, that redistribution is institutionalized. And the virulent form (thankfully with the fall of the Soviet Union and the transformation of China not so global-threatening any more)  is, of course, a murderous communism, in which any means necessary are justified to ensure the desire ends and the rule of anointed apparat. Remember, history’s greatest killers (Stalin and Mao) do it all “for the people.”

Multiculturalism

But there is another element to Barack Obama besides progressive statism. A number of contemporary –isms and –ologies (multiculturalism, moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, post-modernism) also help to explain Obamism, especially in cultural terms. Our universities subscribe to race/class/gender theory of exploitation, in which much of the unhappiness of today’s women, of today’s nonwhite, and of today’s poor originates with the privileges of the white Christian Western male that are predicated on oppression.

It works like this: The ghetto resident, the denizen of the barrio, the abandoned and divorced waitress with three young children, can all chart their poverty and unhappiness not to accident, fate, bad luck, bad decisions, poor judgment, illegality or drug use, or simple tragedy, but rather exclusively to a system that is rigged to ensure oppression on the basis of race, class, and gender—often insidious and unfathomable except to the sensitive and gifted academic or community organizer.

So Obama combines the age-old belief that the state is there to level the playing field (rather than protect the rights of the individual and secure the safety of the people from foreign threats), with the postmodern notion that government must recompensate those by fiat on the basis on their race or class or gender. Remember all that, and everything from the Professor Gates incident, to the dutiful attendance at the foot of Rev. Wright to Van Jones become logical rather than aberrant. Michelle Obama could make $300,000 and she will always be more a victim than the Appalachian coal miner who earns $30,000, by virtue of her race and gender.

The Chicago Way

A third and final ingredient to Obamism is the Chicago way. Here we see an interesting updated version of the old big-city, Daley thuggery. Rahm Emanuel threatens recalcitrant congressmen with reminders of the long Obama memory. The Axelrod/Jarrett clique ensures that the government channels stimuli to blue-states, that key Congress people are bought off with tens of millions of government largess, that every campaign promise—from no lobbyists and airing on C-span health care debates to posting impending legislation on the Internet for set durations and “reaching across the aisle”—is simply cynical fluff that no sane person would take seriously.
So?

In short, we have a traditional statist bent on redistribution (Obama’s words, not mine), updated with the postmodern belief that race/class/gender oppressions require government affirmative reactions (which also abroad explains why we reach out to enemies and shun allies), all energized by an ends justify the means Chicago bare-knuckles apparat.
And?

These true believers, then, don’t really care that the Blue Dogs (if such really exist) bite the dust in 2010, if Harry Reid goes up in smoke, or indeed, if Barack Obama is reelected. Instead, they will institutionalize an agenda that will affect America for generations, move it sharply to the left, and earn a spot in the academic pantheon of American heroes.

have no more than 45% of the public’s support is like asking whether the English Prof who teaches incomprehensible Foucauldian theory worries whether he has only 2 students, or whether the well-off union boss is all that upset that membership has sunk to  30% of the workforce, or multimillion-dollar-earning  Sarah Palin-interviewing Katie Couric is worried about her sinking ratings, or whether the New York Times columnists are upset that their mother paper is broke with subscription and readership down, and laying off thousands of blue-collar employees.

Instead, for the true believer, it is all about the self, and the sense of the self—and damn all other considerations. (We saw that with Jimmy Carter as well; that he destroyed liberal Democrat politics for a generation meant nothing; that he won prizes and jet-setted the world for thirty years meant everything. For these people, it is always about them—all the time. Let us eat cake as they end up liberal icons  for the duration).

What Are We Left With?

The most blatant cynicism in recent American political history—a man who ran as a bipartisan who is the most partisan we’ve seen, a healer whose even flippant comments are designed to offend, a statist who assumes that the sheared sheep cannot stampede somewhere else, a reformer who trusts his honey-laced rhetoric can disguise Daley style-corruption.

On that happy note.

Everything, as my dear late mother lectured me, happens for a reason, or at least presents a sort of logic—irony, paradox, karma, and nemesis being the best ways of interpreting our unfathomable existences. It took messianic narcissistic Barack Obama to expose the full extent of the mess that a once noble tradition of 19th-century liberalism had devolved into. Only he could have rammed it down the throats of the American people, and when he is done, we will suffer, but also sicken of it for quite a while.
 

Saturday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Guantanamo prison may have to stay open until 2011

President Barack Obama's commitment to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by next month may be delayed until 2011 because it will take months for the government to buy an Illinois prison and upgrade it to hold suspected terrorists.

Lawmakers in both parties have been wary of bringing detainees to the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder already has decided that self-declared 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court in New York City.

In the Senate, a spokesman for Republican leader Mitch McConnell promised that the GOP would use delaying tactics to prevent funding the Illinois facility and added that he expected support from Democrats.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091224/D9CPJJK80.html

Furor Erupts Over Atheist Display At State Capitol

A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group.

Comptroller Candidate William J. Kelly announced Tuesday that he planned to take down the sign put up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and on Wednesday, he tried to make good on his plan.

Kelly calls the sign "hate speech," and says he does not believe it is appropriate for a sign that "mocks" religion to be placed next to a Christmas tree and also near a nativity scene.

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/capitol.atheist.display.2.1387754.html

Sen John Kerry Floats Plan to Visit Tehran

Visiting US enemies has been a Kerry policy since he met with Vietnamese Communists during that war as well.  Many see such meetings as treasonous.

The Obama White House says it will not object to Kerry’s going to Iran

Kerry has suggested becoming the first high-level U.S. emissary to make a public visit to Tehran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126161465189603571.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Opinion:
When the Holly and Cedar are cleared away, it will be time for serious political action

It can be expected that Democrats will not be rushing to hold town meetings now they are at home in the wake of passage of their health care scheme.  Why would any group of politicians put themselves at further risk?

When they finally return, toward the waning days of January, the election campaign of 2010 will be cranking up.  From indications signaled by Democrats in Washington, they have no idea of their growing unpopularity at home.

Democrats are falling apart.  A trickle of retirements threatens to become a river, and there are early signs of outright defections.  The first being freshman Democrat Congressman Parker Griffith last week.

Griffith is now an avowed Republican, but the folks he represents are not embracing his conversion.  As Republican blogger Hugh McInnish – a former Republican candidate for the office, himself, intones:

 “According to the local press Griffith has some $800,000 in his war chest. The same report also says what was already widely known: Much of the money comes from Paul Hubbert & Co., Alabama's most infamous liberal lobbyist. And here is the stark, awful meaning of that: If the imposter Griffith is allowed into our primary he will bring with him nearly $1,000,000 of ultra-liberal dollars which he will use to combat proven, legitimate conservatives. Need I remind you that, in addition to all else, this man is the Vice-Chairman of the Alabama Democrat Party?

Just think of it! THE MONEY OF OUR ARCH-ENEMY, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE PARTY WHICH SUPPORTS SO MUCH OF THAT WE ABHOR, BEING USED AGAINST US IN OUR OWN PRIMARY! Surely, surely we are not such wimps as can accept this! “

McInnish is not alone in his response to the party switch.  There was already at least one Republican planning to run in that very primary.  There will be a lot of sorting out of this situation.  Meanwhile, other Democrats are said to be considering a party switch.

Given the current political circumstances, Republicans don’t have to embrace these one  time opponents, and they may be providing serious opposition to them if there are viable candidates who are also real Republicans. 

McInnish adds:

“In a remarkable dash of chutzpah and hypocrisy Griffith says he ''will return'' a contribution to any donor who may ask for it. And how many might that be? One percent? -- oh well, one and one-half percent, then.

"Should Griffith have a sudden attack of sincerity, there is something that he can do. He can return all of his money, every penny of it, to Mr. Hubbert and his liberal gang without being asked."

McInnish concludes: "To my surprise some of my conservative friends have been citing Griffith's hypocritical offer in argument that we should admit him to our primary. Alas! How deep can the political naiveté go even among our educated republicans? Our very own people falling for such a transparent ploy? It's a little embarrassing.”

Republicans will begin this campaign period in a far better environment than the last one.  They need not act timidly as they craft their strategy.  The current atmosphere also suggests “moderate” Republican incumbents must also take care.  As the Senate race in Florida shows – with incumbent governor Charles Crist seemingly beginning to fade as conservative Marco Rubio’s poll figures climb --  moderates must understand they may be at risk as well.

Democrats seem unable to grasp the political meaning of the Tea Party Protest movement.  Republicans need to make sure they read those signs accurately as well.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Dems_not_worried_about_postvote_backlash_at_home.html?showall

Dems not worried about post-vote backlash at home

Democrats today have repeatedly expressed a confidence that they won't face a backlash for their votes when they return home for the holidays, which would stand in marked contrast to the August recess.

"This is a happy day. (Senate Republican Leader) Mitch McConnell said on the floor that we're going to go home and hear our constituents rail against this bill. I don't believe that. I believe that the negativity that Leader McConnell and others have continually displayed on the floor has peaked, and now when people learn what's actually in the bill—and all the good it does—it is going to become more and more popular because it is good for America, good for the American people, and a true symbol of what we can do if we all pull together," said Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer.

On the floor before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "We're going to hear an earful, but it's going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for for a long time."

With Meredith Shiner

Investors.com - 2009: The Year Of Living Fecklessly
Charles Krajuthammer,  FOX

If the US government allows Kalifornia to bankrupt the poop is going to hit the fan. I don't know if our fed has the ability to stop the cascade in the financial markets that will be world wide. We are talking about a million people who will be without income and who soon will be without food. There is an additional 2 million who will have funds but may or may not be able to buy food.

The state will be ruined, wrecked beyond repair in it's present form. There will be about a 72 hour window to stabilize the situation after that it will take military force to restore order. Our gubinator is telling everyone who cares to listen how bad things really are. People need to pay attention. Ca will have a 20 Billion dollar + shortfall this year. It will soon after begin to default on bond payments. Obama was elected because he was black. He will fail because he was and is unqualified for the job.

The free and independent Republic Of Texas might be a good place to be. It looks like Kalifornia is headed for bankruptcy. This could be a very interesting year, the year that the first black president led us to the point of devolving into several smaller independent nations.

Well, they all said they wanted change.... I wonder at what point the socialists in the major cities are going to realize that they can not produce the food, water, fuel, or power necessary to sedate and placate the minority welfare masses in their midst.
 
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516288

Copenhagen a disappointment to savor and celebrate
George Will

It was serendipitous to have almost simultaneous climaxes in Copenhagen and Congress.

It would have been unprecedented had the president not described the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit as “unprecedented,” that being the most overworked word in his hardworking vocabulary of self-celebration. Actually, the mountain beneath the summit — a mountain of manufactured hysteria, predictable cupidity, antic demagoguery and dubious science — labored mightily and gave birth to a mouselet, a 12-paragraph document committing the signatories to make a list. A list of the goals they have no serious intention of trying to meet.

The document even dropped the words “as soon as possible” from its call for a binding agreement on emissions.

The 1992 Rio climate summit begat Kyoto. It, like Copenhagen, which Kyoto begat, was “saved,” as Copenhagen was, by a last-minute American intervention (Vice President Al Gore’s) that midwifed an agreement that most signatories evaded for 12 years. The Clinton-Gore administration never submitted Kyoto’s accomplishment for ratification, the Senate having denounced its terms 95-0.

Copenhagen will beget Mexico City next November. Before then, Congress will give “the international community” other reasons to pout. Congress will refuse to burden the economy with cap-and-trade requirements, and will spurn calls for sending billions in “climate reparations” to China and other countries. Representatives of those nations, when they did not have their hands out in Copenhagen grasping for America’s wealth, clapped their hands in ovations for Hugo Chavez and other kleptocrats who denounced capitalism while clamoring for its fruits.

At least the president got a health care bill through the Senate. But what problem does it “solve” (Obama’s word)? Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain in 2019. Not that of rising health care spending. This will rise faster over the next decade.

The legislation does solve the Democrats’ “problem” of figuring out how to worsen the dependency culture and the entitlement mentality that grows with it. By 2016, families with annual incomes of $96,000 will get subsidized health insurance premiums.

Nebraska’s Ben Nelson voted for the Senate bill after opposing both the Medicare cuts and taxes on high-value insurance plans — the heart of the bill’s financing. Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln, Indiana’s Evan Bayh and Virginia’s Jim Webb voted against one or the other.

Yet they support the bill. They will need mental health care to cure their intellectual whiplash.

Before equating Harry Reid to Henry Clay, understand that buying 60 Senate votes is a process more protracted than difficult. Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages — the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles.

Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states. Principles have not, however, been entirely absent: Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Dave Heineman and Republican Sen. Mike Johanns have denounced the state’s exemption from expanded Medicaid costs.

The exemption was one payment for Nelson’s vote to impose the legislation on Nebraskans, 67 percent of whom oppose it.

The House voted for Rep. Bart Stupak’s provision preserving the ban on public funding of abortions.

 Nelson, an untalented negotiator, unnecessarily settled for much less. The House also supports a surtax on affluent Americans, and opposes the steep tax on some high-value health insurance. So to get the bill to the president’s desk, the House, in conference with the Senate, may have to shrug and say: Oh, never mind.

Thursday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Senate OKs health care measure, reaching milestone

Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history.

The 60-39 vote on a cold winter morning capped months of arduous negotiations and 24 days of floor debate. It also followed a succession of failures by past congresses to get to this point. Vice President Joe Biden presided as 58 Democrats and two independents voted "yes." Republicans unanimously voted "no."

The tally far exceeded the simple majority required for passage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Republicans win Generic Congressional Ballot

Republican candidates now have an eight-point lead over Democrats, their biggest lead of the year, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for GOP candidates held steady over the past week, but support for Democrats slipped by a point.

Men prefer GOP candidates by 19 points over Democrats, while women are evenly divided between the two. Among voters not affiliated with either party, Republicans lead by a 43% to 19% margin. Republicans have held the lead on the ballot for over four months now. But since early November their lead has steadily increased.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

McCain, GOP secretly courting another Dem to switch

Republicans are stepping up their efforts to persuade more House Democrats to switch parties and are zeroing in on a second-term Pennsylvanian who acknowledged the efforts but said he has "no plans" to do so.

Democratic Rep. Chris Carney received a phone call Wednesday from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asking him to consider becoming a Republican, a top GOP official told POLITICO.

Carney's office at first did not comment other than to acknowledge the call, but Carney released a statement Wednesday night saying, in part, "I appreciate the Republican Party's outreach, but I have no plans to change parties." 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30942.html

Opinion:
Merry Christmas from Democrat-controlled Senate – the start of health care take over

Democrats did it – they did it to us all.

They passed the Reid bill on health care and it now heads for conference committee negotiations with House Democrats to smooth out differences.

While a difficult conference could erupt, it is more likely the Obama staffers will exert extreme pressures to reach a compatible agreement.  Federal funding of abortion will be a sticking point as will the lack of a “public option” in the Senate version. “Public Option” is the disguised pathway to socialized medicine.

Count on a compromise bill to emerge with the New Year.  Given their dominating majorities in both houses, the Democrat scheme is unstoppable.  Passage underscores the crucial importance of next year's election.

Democrats may celebrate their victory, but the act recalls what Communists said after early demonstrations against the government were put down with force.  “A few more victories such as this, and the government will fall”.  Democrats are in much the same position.  Passage of the Senate bill came on a strict party line vote.  No Republicans voted for it.

Democrats say they plan to campaign on their health care passage as they stand for re-election next November.  Polling results so far indicate that is not a good idea.  Most Americans oppose the health care bill.  For the record, it will be shortly past the New Year celebrations before an accurate polling process can accurately gauge public reaction to this morning’s Senate vote and the process that will follow/

Republicans need 40 additional seats to take over control of the House.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/12/22/the-reid-bill-coercive-and-unconstitutional/

The Reid Bill: coercive and unconstitutional
Pajama’s Media

A few years ago, Hilton Kramer and I commissioned a series of essays for The New Criterion on the illiberal underside of liberalism. We later published revised versions of the essays under the title The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control. I mention this now not only to help readers out with their last-minute Christmas shopping but also to highlight the message of our subtitle: “How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control.” It is one of the underappreciated ironies of our age, I believe, that many who call themselves “liberals” habitually support policies that are distinctly illiberal — often, indeed, are downright coercive — in their effect.

A proper anatomy of this phenomenon would take a book. It might start with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose deficient sense of the reality of other people could never compete with the satisfaction he took in contemplating his own virtue. And it might end with the revolutionary health care bill now wending its way through the U.S. Congress. Of course, the people touting the bill say — perhaps they even believe — that it will be good for Americans and that it will save money. Critics (of whom I am one) say that it will be a catastrophically expensive suite of legislation that will limit choice, impede medical innovation, and degrade the quality and timely delivery of medical care.

Like any ambitious piece of legislation, however, the bill to restructure American health care raises issues that go far beyond its primary purpose. The President touched on this obliquely in his “precipice” gaffe: we are, he said, “on the precipice of achievement . . . that will touch the lives of nearly every American.”

“Precipice,” “threshold,” whatever: he is right, anyway, that if the current bill becomes law it “will touch the lives of nearly every American.”

How will it “touch” us? Let me count the ways. Colloquially, first of all, as when we speak of “touching” someone for money. (What easy touches we have all turned out to be!)

But it will touch us in other ways as well. To appreciate one central way in which the bill will touch our lives, consider “Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional,” the somber essay the eminent legal scholar Richard Epstein has written. (It appears on the web site of PointofLaw.com, but like so much important commentary these days, I came across it here, at Instapundit.) If you read nothing else this holiday season, read this. It is not cheering, exactly, but it is, after its fashion, bracing. For it not only makes good on its subtitle, explaining “Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional,” it also lays bare the coercive heart of the bill.

Really, the whole essay is worth reading, but here are a couple of snippets to set your heart beating:

On the one hand, the Reid Bill depends on a combination of huge general tax increases, which is coupled with special levies on industries such as medical-device and pharmaceutical companies. These tax revenues are then used to fund subsidies for large segments of the population in order to allow them to purchase qualified health-care plans that are sold through a set of State Exchanges that the Reid Bill creates. In order to prevent these subsidies from flowing through to the various health-insurance issuers, the Reid Bill imposes extensive obligations on any health-insurance issuer or health-plan provider that wishes to participate within the system in order to keep them from capturing subsidies meant for others. The effect of the subsidies is to increase the level of health care that will be demanded in the United States. The effect of the regulations is likely to be to impose huge costs on various health-insurance companies as they struggle to meet the influx of demand when they are at the outer limit of their capacity.

There are at this point enormous uncertainties about how this entire scheme will play out. My view is that it will prove ruinous on all three fronts. The general public tax increases will be so sharp that it is unlikely that they will generate additional revenues. The subsidies will be so large that the demand for medical services will be left largely unsatisfied, so two consequences are likely. First, an increased queuing for various health care services is to be expected. Second, there will be increased pressure to exclude large groups of people from the system, on the lines of Massachusetts’s recent decision to cut from its system 31,000 legal immigrant aliens (who pay taxes but do not vote).

Pour yourself some eggnog, and don’t stint on the brandy. Then look at this:

Furthermore, on the supply side of the market, all health-insurance companies will find themselves in an impossible dilemma. If they decide to offer their health-insurance plans outside the State Exchanges, they will be unable to compete for the subsidized consumers who are only able to spend their tax dollars within the framework of the State Exchanges. Their position will be worse because they shall continue to be subject to all present mandates and regulations that have an impact on their business. Insurers outside the Exchanges also face the likely prospect that they will still be further taxed and regulated to help finance the intolerable burdens that arise under the subsidized insurance supplied within the State Exchange system.

This level of systemic coercion frames the debate about the constitutionality of the Reid Bill. Those parties that do not wish to suffer the Bill’s regulations in order to gain access to a subsidized consumer base are not free to compete in an unregulated market. Direct federal and state government regulation remains a fixed feature of their life. Government regulators at the state and federal levels have both the power and the motive to hit non-Exchange health insurance issuers with a range of taxes and regulations that could quickly make their economic position intolerable.

The twin burdens of Professor Epstein’s essay are to show 1) the coercive nature of what he calls “the Reid bill” that is on the cusp of being passed by the Senate and 2) to show why, as a point of law, several aspects of the bill raise serious questions about its Constitutionality. I think Professor Epstein makes a powerful case, though I have my doubts about whether a Constitutional challenge would be successful. Still, it is worth understanding the case and it is worth reminding ourselves why the Constitution is important. The Constitution was framed in order to enshrine certain rights and to protect people from capricious interference from the state. The larger question we face, larger even than the fate of this obscene piece of legislation, is to what extent the state still respects the provisions of the Constitution that its servants have sworn to uphold. Richard Epstein has outlined a devastating case. What happens next?

2.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/senator-calls-two-thirds-of-americans-opposing-health-bill-right-wing-militia-racists.html

Senator Calls Two Thirds Of Americans Opposing Health Bill “Right-wing Militia” Racists
Steve Watson
Infowars.net

Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse today called opponents of the Obamacare bill lunatic extremists during a floor speech, failing to account for the fact that in every leading opinion poll almost two thirds of Americans fall into that category.

“They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama.” Whitehouse commented, adding “The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militias and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

Whitehouse cited an editorial by The relatively unknown Manchester Journal Inquirer in which the editor described the Republican party as being “dominated by the lunatic fringe”, adding that it “has poisoned itself with hate.”

Clearly, both the Senator and the bastions of journalistic integrity at the Manchester Journal Inquirer have not bothered to look at the latest opinion polls on the healthcare bill.

Had they done so they would have discovered that despite the progression of the legislation through the Senate, it is still highly unpopular with the American people.

The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly tracking update shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the bill and 55% are opposed. Those figures are essentially unchanged from a week ago. This the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%.

Almost two thirds of Americans oppose the bill in a poll from CNN eleven days ago, while 51% oppose in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll.

An NBC/Wall St Journal poll found that just 32% believe the healthcare overhaul is a good idea, while only 36% pledged support in an AP-GFK poll.

When a journalist from the Washington Times approached Whitehouse, he denied that he was intimating that opponents of the healthcare bill were racist, and also denied that he’d even said the word “aryan”.

According to Senator Whitehouse’s logic, this means that 97% of the Washington Times’ readers are virulent racists.

Senator Whitehouse’s unfounded “racist” slur is yet another example of the establishment left playing the phony race card in an attempt to slant the debate.

Injecting the idea of discrimination in an effort to polarize a group of people is no different to actually engaging in the act of discrimination.

3.

Richard Epstein: The Reid Bill Is Blatantly Unconstitutional  
Andy McCarthy  NROcorner.com

At PointOfLaw.com, the distinguished University of Chicago constitutional scholar Richard Epstein provides a painstaking, withering analysis of the healthcare legislation wending its way through the Senate. He concludes that it is clearly unconstitutional. The essay is lengthy and, in places, complex; but it is brilliantly done, accessible, and compelling. [Thanks to Roger Kimball and Glenn Reynolds.]

Most of the constitutional analyses I've read, such as this superb one by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, have focused on the limitations on Congress's power — to wit, that the Commerce Clause does not vest Congress with the authority to coerce Americans to purchase health insurance as a condition of living in our country.  Prof. Epstein's focus is very different, and a heartening reminder for capitalists in the age of Obama. Drawing on the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law, and on the Supreme Court's rate-regulation jurisprudence, Epstein concludes that the Constitution assures that "any firm in a regulated market be allowed to recover a risk-adjusted competitive rate of return on its accumulated capital investment." (Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch (1988)). Applying these principles, Epstein concludes:

The Reid Bill emphatically fails this test by imposing sharp limitations on the ability of health-insurance companies to raise fees or exclude coverage. Moreover, the Reid Bill forces on these regulated firms onerous new obligations that they will not be able to fund from their various revenue sources. The squeeze between the constricted revenue sources allowable under the Reid Bill and the extensive new legal obligations it imposes is likely to result in massive cash crunch that could drive the firms that serve the individual and small-group health-insurance markets into bankruptcy.
 
While the insurance companies have been utterly demonized by Democrats in this debate, the fact is that there is a competitive market for healthcare insurance. As Epstein explains, "to justify rate regulation" — which is titanic in the Senate bill — "there needs to be some evidence of the existence of monopoly." As there is and can be no such evidence, there is no rationale for the bill's pervasive rate regulation (and for the stifling price-controls that Epstein shows must inevitably result in delayed, reduced, and rationed services).  If this bill were really about controlling costs — rather than controlling lives — Epstein observes that it would be a simple matter to repeal the federal law (the McCarran-Ferguson Act) that "authorizes state barriers to out-of-state competition. That one legislative fix should reduce prices and expand access, but not cost the federal government a dime."
 
For what it's worth, I think it would be worth having a vigorous constitutional argument about capitalism. A free society is only free because its people, rather than its government, are sovereign, and it only needs a Constitution to protect individual liberty from encroachment by the government. As Prof. Epstein demonstrates, that is what our Constitution does. But this is the antithesis of President Obama's vision of a new Constitution (or a new Bill of Rights) that proclaims what government must do for you rather than what it cannot do to you. Alas, as I've discussed before, while that sounds admirable it is monstrous, since government has nothing to give — it can do for one only by taking from another. If that is to be our system, we are no longer free.
 
Healthcare is not and has never been a "right." Why are we so afraid to say that? When the other side says, "Healthcare is a right," I want to say, "What healthcare? Abortion? Botox? 'Preventive' care?" What other "rights" do you have that I am required to pay for? A house? A job? A day at the beach? Since when? Only in Washington will those questions get you expelled from polite company. The American people are ready to have them asked and to have a real debate about them — not a 2000-page power-grab in the dark of the night before Christmas.
 
What you have a right to is no unreasonable government interference with your ability to purchase healthcare in a competitive market — i.e., a fair market in which government polices against fraud and does skew the playing field by interfering unreasonably with providers and insurers. That's a valuable right, and it has delivered the greatest healthcare system in human history. We are crazy to damage it more than we already have — and even crazier to allow it to be done on the pretexts the Obama Democrats are offering.
 

Wednesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

S.C. Atty Gen. Henry McMaster, 7 others to probe health care bill

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and top lawyers from seven other states said Tuesday they are looking into whether the federal health care reform bill is unconstitutional.

The move comes a day after U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, both South Carolina Republicans, asked McMaster, to look into whether a no-cost Medicaid deal given to Nebraska is legal.

U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, got a concession that will give his state a 100 percent federal reimbursement for Nebraska's Medicaid spending. The federal government will reimburse other states at 91 percent under the proposed bill. Graham, DeMint and other Republicans argue South Carolina and other states should not be on the hook to pay for Nebraska's Medicaid patients.

http://www.thestate.com/politics/story/1081583.html?RSS=general_news

White House Pressuring Stupak to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) reveals the White House and Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives are strong arming him to not speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.
 
The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, prohibits the federal government from using taxpayer money to pay for any part of health insurance that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

In a major demonstration of hypocrisy, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised her far left supporters, that she will strip the anti abortion provision from the final version of the bill.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/58921

Climate change alliance crumbling

Cracks are emerging in the “alliance” on Al Gore’s mythical climate change that was formed at the Copenhagen conference last week, with leading developing countries criticizing the resulting accord.

The so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by almost all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.  But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labeled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.

South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica,The environment minister of South Africa, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She says her government considered leaving the meeting.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9453654-ef2d-11de-86c4-00144feab49a.html

Opinion:
Problems with Reid’s health care conspiracy -- as seen from the side of politicians even farther to the left.

It’s always interesting, and usually quite instructive, to see an issue from the vantage point of the enemy.  Moveon.org -- among the more extreme political cabals, and one underwritten by the infamous George Soros – is not happy with Reid’s health care bill any more than normal Americans – but from entirely different positions.. 

The extreme left voiced it’s displeasure in emails to Moveon.Org’s  radical membership just yesterday:

“Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill

The Senate bill would:

#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.

#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.

#3—Impse dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.

#4—Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.

#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.

Of course, these aren't the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured, a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal. “

Make no mistake about it – the dominating Democrat majorities in both Houses will succeed in passing this legislation. They will do so almost immediately.  Health care for Americans will never be the same again.

Of course, the trial lawyers who are major contributors to candidates and extremis causes on the left, remain untouched by any reform.  The lawyers will continue to rape the system and the American public – providing a major dynamic in rising costs of health care.

Look for more and more physicians to leave the profession, creating a growing short fall in health care providers.  Also look for Pelosi and her co-conspirators to strip the barrier to federal funding of abortion from the final bill.  Abortion on demand – and at federal expense, is just a matter of time.

As long as Democrats can maintain their dominating numbers on Capitol Hill.

Incredibly, Democrats say they will run on this health care bill and predict it will be a winning issue for them.  More sagacious analysts believe Democrats are whistling past the grave yard.  Democrats fail to understand or accurately read the dynamics of the tea party movement as well.

A new campaign season begins as soon as the bowl games are over and count on massive swarms of TV commercials attacking all who vote for Health care in either house.  Look for many Democrats to follow the lead of Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith and try running for the hills by switching parties.

Of course, whether they admit it or not, the tea party movement is huge and threatens Democrat incumbents nationwide.  That movement may also prune the GOP tree of incumbents who are not viewed as conservative, and primary candidates who cant stand muster on issues.

This will not be a year for “moderates”.  But, after all, moderates cannot provide dynamic leadership – these are days in this country that demands such. 

Politics serves a god that can be quite shifty, of course, and the days between now and the general election next November are many.  However, the atmosphere these days continues running against Obama and his people.  Beginning today, we will start seeing how the general public views Reid’s scheme and those who support it – especially those who smile at the public, speak of lofty ideals, then sell out to the highest bidder.  Too bad Ben Nelson is not up this year.

Count on an atmosphere in which having supported the health care bill will not be seen as an act of statesmanship – but one leading voters to wonder and even question supporters about what they “got” in order to sell their votes.  The burden of proof will be squarely on Democrat health care supporters to convince voters they are not crooked.

First, we get beyond the bowl season.  Let the games begin.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610660008372886.html
 
The Real Rules of War

Sometimes the good guys do commit 'war crimes.'
WARREN KOZAK

Five years ago, a particularly gruesome image made its way to our television screens from the war in Iraq. Four U.S. civilian contractors working in Fallujah were ambushed and killed by al Qaeda. Their bodies were burned, then dragged through the streets. Two of the charred bodies were hung from the Euphrates Bridge and left dangling.

This barbaric act left an impression that our military did not forget: In a special operation earlier this year, Navy SEALs captured the mastermind of that attack, Ahmed Hashim Abed. But after he was taken into custody in September, Abed claimed he was punched by his captors. He showed a fat lip to prove it. Three of the SEALS are now awaiting a courts-martial on charges ranging from assault to dereliction of duty and making false statements.

This incident and its twisted irony takes me back to an oddly serene setting many years ago. When I was in college, I joined my parents on a trip to retrace my father's wartime experience in Europe. We drove from France, through Holland and Belgium and on to Germany—the same route he had taken with the U.S. Army in 1944-45. At a field outside the Belgian town of Malmedy, we got out of our rented car where my father described something I had never heard before.

During the Battle of the Bulge, in the bleak December of 1944, the Germans had quickly overrun the American lines. They took thousands of prisoners as they pushed through in a last chance gamble to turn the war around. One unit, part of the First SS Panzer Division, had captured over a hundred GIs. They were moving fast, and they didn't care to be burdened by prisoners. So the SS troops put the American soldiers in that field and mowed them down with machine guns.

Around 90 Americans were killed in that barrage. The Germans then walked through the tangle of bodies, shooting those who were still alive in the back of the head. The few that survived were brought to where my father was located in the nearby town of Liege where word of the massacre quickly spread.

My father was never a talker. And in spite of the fact that we were on a trip to look at his past, he didn't open up much, or couldn't. When I asked him what the reaction was among the U.S. troops, he answered without emotion: "We didn't take prisoners for two weeks." I immediately understood what he meant, and had the sense not to press the issue any further. I just looked out at the field, now green and peaceful on a beautiful summer day, and realized he was looking at the same field and seeing something quite different.

In the weeks following the Malmedy massacre, U.S. troops clearly broke the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Justified or not, they were technically guilty of war crimes.

My guess is that the American correspondents imbedded with those troops knew all about this and chose not to report it. So did their officers. They understood the gravity of the war, as well as the absolute importance of its outcome. And they understood that disclosing this information might ultimately help the enemy. In other words, they used common sense. Was the U.S. a lesser country because these GIs weren't arrested? Was the Constitution jeopardized? Somehow it survived.

You don't have to dig too deep to understand that war brings out behavior in people that they would never demonstrate in normal life. In Paul Fussell's moving memoir, "The Boys' Crusade," the former infantryman relates a story about the liberation of Dachau. There were about 120 SS guards who had been captured by the Americans. Even though the Germans were being held at gunpoint, they still had the arrogance—or epic stupidity—to continue to heap verbal abuse and threats on the inmates. Their American guards, thoroughly disgusted by what they had already witnessed in the camp, had seen enough and opened fire on the SS. Some of the remaining SS guards were handed over to the inmates who tore them limb from limb. Another war crime? No doubt. Justified? It depends on your point of view. But before you weigh in, realize that you didn't walk through the camp. You didn't smell it. You didn't witness the obscene horror of the Nazis.

Rules of war are important. They are something to strive for as they separate us from our distant ancestors. But when only one side follows these rules, they no longer elevate us. They create a very unlevel field and more than a little frustration. It is equally bizarre for any of us to judge someone's behavior in war by the rules we follow in our very peaceful universe. We sit in homes that are air-conditioned in the summer and warmed in the winter. We have more than enough food in our bellies and we get enough sleep. The stress in our lives won't ever match the stress of battle. Can we honestly begin to decide if a soldier acted in compliance with rules that work perfectly well on Main Street but not, say, in Malmedy or Fallujah?

In his book, Mr. Fussell probably sums up the feelings of many soldiers when he quotes a British captain, John Tonkin, who experienced a great deal of the war. "I have always felt," Capt. Tonkin said, "that the Geneva Convention is a dangerous piece of stupidity, because it leads people to believe that war can be civilized. It can't."

Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).

2.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_year_of_bankrupt_gov_ts_vv1vR5wWL7yNqe7FPTtXFL

2010: The year of bankrupt governments
RALPH PETERS    

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But he only comes for kids -- not for governments that have bragged, borrowed and spent their way into bankruptcy. Two Thousand Ten is going to belong to the Grinch.

For spendthrift governments around the world, the new year's going to bring massive defaults. The new globalization may be the globalization of a second wave of financial crises.

The world economy is not convalescing. It's just been pumped full of unaffordable medicines. Borrowing madly, countries as diverse as Greece and Dubai have been buying time, not fiscal health.

Built on financial quicksand, Dubai (an Arab Las-Vegas-without-the-fun) is in collapse (predicted by this column years ago). Quasi-governmental corporations backed by the ruling family are at least $80 billion in the hole. The recent transfusion of 10 billion bucks from Abu Dhabi merely applied a Band-Aid to a hemorrhage. Dubai can't pay.

Eighty billion in bad debts may not sound high in President Obama's Washington, but Dubai's just a city pretending to be a country. It produces nothing. There's no inherent wealth. It Madoff-ed the world with extravagant brochures and nutty projects.

Speculators went nuts, proclaiming Dubai the city of the future, where wealth could only beget more wealth. The frenzy produced the craziest real-estate bubble in the world, as gullible investors mistook a couple of shopping malls for a civilization.

Dubai's approach to development mirrored that of much of the Arab world, expecting money to do all of the work. But Dubai's ambitions weren't backed by oil wealth, only vast development schemes that never should have fooled a single investor. But investors wanted to be fooled.

Speculation hasn't been the only villain generating financial ruin around the world. Another villain has been exploding entitlements. Several European states (plus my favorite foreign country, California) have been downed by a self-inflicted one-two punch.

In Ireland and Spain, housing bubbles created the illusion of roaring economies -- and pandering governments inflated already generous social programs. In Italy and Greece, state giveaways, bubble economies and rabid corruption created national debts in excess of GDP.

Even in this age of globalization and complex financial instruments, one law of the financial jungle remains brutally true: The bills come due eventually.

Dubai's bankrupt, but frightened investors pretend otherwise. Greece is bankrupt, and the other Euro-currency states don't know what to do: The strict fiscal-policy rules for the Euro-zone are crumbling.

Will EU governments -- each with its own problems -- cobble together a rescue package? Greece's socialist government certainly isn't going to embrace painful austerity measures -- and the population, conditioned to an entitlement mentality, would tear Athens apart.

And after Greece, what about Spain? With 20 percent unemployment and an economy strangled by disincentives to job creation, Spain counts on being considered too big to fail.

The Baltic states' economies are tubercular. Central Europe's headed for the post-modern equivalent of debtors' prison. And even Britain (and the global bankers' fortress, the City of London) is still in deep treacle.

Then there's California (and New York).

Taken in isolation, any of these problems could be managed. But these "local" crises refuse to be isolated. Toss in suspect statistics from other troubled states and hollow economies from Argentina to Russia, and 2010 looks unpredictable, to put it gently.

Perhaps the world's financial wizards will head off this looming debacle, too -- but don't count on it. Chain reactions could devastate European banks and budgets .

The good news? Venezuela's also in serious economic trouble. The bad news? Venezuela's also in serious economic trouble.

Then there are the great unknowns, a Russian economy that may be far more fragile than anyone wants to admit, as well as China, opaque and insatiable.

One of the reasons China's desperate to keep expanding its trade is that its banking sector is flimsier than chopsticks -- plagued by uncollectible sweetheart loans made to favored firms and institutions. Perhaps Beijing will dominate the 21st century. But it's also possible that China's economy will turn out to be the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.

The best scenario we could see in the global economy in 2010? Rescue-package fire brigades rushing to deal with these crises individually. What's the worst? A chain reaction that leads to a rash of national defaults, followed by a world banking and liquidity crisis, Part II.

What of our own country, with its soaring debt, congressional irresponsibility and an administration whose No. 1 priority is expanding unaffordable entitlement programs? Draw your own conclusions.

3.

The list of payoffs that got Reid his cloture vote
Ed Morrissey

Recall the moments in 2008 when Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama campaigned on the platform of — must … control … gag … reflex — “Honest Leadership, Open Government”?  This picture should jog your memories, and your own gag reflexes, especially that sanctimonious pose by Reid.  The trio have managed to make themselves either satirists of the highest order or influence peddlers of the lowest while struggling to pass the second item on their legislative agenda.  Politico’s Josh Gerstein reviews the ObamaCare compromise bill that Reid struggled to get past a wee-hours cloture vote in the middle of a blizzard in the Beltway.  It’s an amazing list of pork and bribes, even for an old pro like Reid:

The multimillion-dollar deals cut with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and others to win the 60 votes needed for the historic health care reform bill gave President Barack Obama the margin he needed to fulfill a central campaign promise — but may also have upped the ante for future presidential horse trading.

With the bill hanging in the balance, Nelson won a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients. The deal critics have dubbed the Cornhusker Kickback is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over 10 years.

Before a close vote last month, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) won an even larger break for her state — an estimated $300 million in extra federal spending, in a move opponents derided as the Louisiana Purchase.

Some critics branded the special deals as functionally equivalent to the kind of earmarks Obama crusaded against as a senator — and a quantum leap from eleventh-hour deals Obama’s predecessors have cut.

Let’s take a look at the list itself, which goes far beyond Nelson and Landrieu, the pair that IBD Editorials calls “the Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes”:

Ø      The bill contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. These states will receive Federal Matching Assistance Percentages (FMAP) bonuses such that:

1. Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely, making it the only state where the federal government will pay for all new enrollees. CBO estimated the cost to the federal government (additional funds to Nebraska) would be $100 million, which may look small compared to the other deals negotiated, yet over the long-term will cost far more, since funding continues indefinitely.

2. Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program, thus receiving an additional $600 million over ten years.

3. Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program, thus receiving an additional $500 million over ten years.

• Despite $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts, the Manager’s Amendment found a way for Florida residents, as well as some individuals in Pennsylvania and New York, and potentially Oregon, to be grandfathered out of receiving the cuts.
• Dorgan and Conrad’s “protections for frontier states” provision would, starting in 2011, establish a 1.0 hospital wage index and geographic practice expense floors for hospitals and physicians located in states where at least 50% of the counties in the state are “frontier”. Not surprisingly, states that qualify and benefit from the provision are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Of the many problems with these “sweetheart” deals, is the door it leaves wide open for more federal involvement and financing of state-based entitlement programs. Sen. Harkin said it best when he stated “In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100%, and going down to 98%, they are going to say, ’Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’…When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100%. So he [Nelson] might have done all of us a favor.”

Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

• Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:
o An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”
o An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers.  Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.
o Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).

Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan)
• According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska).
• Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.

Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana):
• Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.

Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont):
• In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.

Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ø      As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.

Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.

Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.

Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.

Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana):

Ø      Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.

It seems to me that if ObamaCare really reformed the process, we wouldn’t need all of these exceptions to its rules.  After all, it’s supposed to “bend the cost curve downward” for everyone.  If it does that, then why does Hawaii need a DSH extension?  Why does Connecticut need exemptions for its hospitals and a $100 million grant, if we’re leveling the playing field?

This list shows why Congress wants to pass this overhaul.  They want the ability to demand these favors not just now, but forever.  When government controls the system, then the politicians control the spoils.  This list is just the appetizers.  They’ll be chowing down on pork banquets for decades if this passes into law, and doing it just as dishonestly as this process has been handled all along.

Tuesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Rasmussen sees Obama sees increasing loss of support for Obama

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Forty-three percent (46%) of the nation’s voters strongly disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President, while 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve. This gives   Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of - 21 (see trends).

Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove as do 52% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats Strongly Approve.

Rasmussen Reports

Rep. Parker Griffith switches to GOP

Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, is announcing today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

Griffith becomes the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

House Democrats Still Have “Some Selling to Do”

House Democrats entered 2009 with sky-high expectations but ended a roller-coaster year facing steady erosion in the polls with the bulk of their agenda piled up in the Senate.

Democrats are scoring poorly with voters regarding key issues.

Far left approach of Obama’s administration is powering a major revolt by activists who are still joining in Tea Party movement protests and activities.  The Tea Party movement has already moved Republicans toward a more conservative slant.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_73/news/41730-1.html

Opinion:
Democrats reveal desperation as their health care debate turns ugly

Recent actions on Capitol Hill have not been good news for normal Americans.  They prayed for better news for their most important holiday of the year. 

Harry Reid conspired to rob them of that opportunity, ignoring the Christmas season entirely.  He also robbed America of its health care system – condemning it to government control which will lessen the quality of care, and deny access to many – especially the elderly.  Key Democrats at the White House declare the elderly have an obligation to “die and get out of the way”.  Obama himself has voiced such thoughts.

All who have studied the Reid bill know it’s a bad one – a really bad one.  It is not “reform”, it is “takeover”.  In the end, it provides federal funding of abortion, and will begin serious moves toward Canadian-styled socialized medicine. 

What’s almost as bad as Reid’s plot, is the process caused by the desperation motivating Democrats to engage in acts so obvious little room for denying corruption remains.  Democrat politics on parade in the cause of health care take over, proves to be every bit as bad as its sharpest critics have claimed and street-level rumor suggested.  It’s rotten to the very core.

The most flagrant example of a raw sell comes from Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska who managed wringing the mother of all sweet deals from the hapless Reid – making Nebraska free from paying its share of government medical programs forever. 

Liberals – especially those staffing the Washington Post who long ago signed on as liberal Democrat activists – went ballistic when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) rose on the Senate floor to say: "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight," he said. "That's what they ought to pray."  Coburn was stating the true nature of the debate.  Only divine intervention preventing a Senator from being able to vote on Reid’s bill, could prevent its passage.  After all, the fix was in.

The Post chose to jump to another conclusion – “It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) who has been in and out of hospitals and lay at home ailing.”  The Post thus failed to grasp the desperation of a majority of Americans regarding the health legislation and  who had given up on the voting. 

Recognizing a crass political opportunity, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the number-two Democrat, grabbed a Senate microphone to intone: "When it reaches a point where we're praying, asking people to pray, that senators wouldn't be able to answer the roll call, I think it has crossed the line."

A few days earlier, Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Sam Brownback (Kansas) joined a public prayer for the bill's defeat.  Does prayer cross the line in Durbin’s view?

It was Reid’s bill and the Democrat conspiracy that assured its passage that crossed the line. 

Meanwhile, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) proved himself a fool by comparing Republicans and all who oppose the Democrat health scam with Nazis, lynch mobs of the South, and bloodthirsty crowds of the French Revolution.

Whitehouse flunks American history.  After all, those lynch mobs of the South consisted to a man, of Democrats.  Democrats only.  Segregation, Jim Crow laws and denial of black voting rights were all Democrat programs and reflected official party policy.  That racism was as void of Republican participation as Reid’s odious bill is.

The Post article sees Coburn’s prayer being aimed at Byrd.  Had it been the case, there would be great irony at work. Byrd was an active member of the old KKK – and even famously used the “N” word in a TV attack rather recently.

But the Post remains quite prejudiced in how it sees the news.  The Post reports, “When his name was called, Byrd shot his right index finger into the air as he shouted "aye," then pumped his left fist in defiance. 

I wonder if Byrd was addled and confused, intending to extend an entirely different finger, meaning his arrogant display for normal America.

In any case, such a vulgar assault on those who oppose the health care bill sums up Democrat behavior as it regards opponents.  Democrats have made it quite clear they could not care less what real Americans think, want, or demand.  They have the numbers giving them a dominating power to do as they wish, despite the interests of our nation, its people, and its future.

(Fortunately, it seems Reid will not be returning after next year’s election.  The people of Nevada are preparing to speak – for ALL America.)

“Nuff said” covers matters quite well, I think.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

Congressman Mike Pence Calls Senate Health Care Bill “Washington At Its Worst”

Urges Senators to reconsider partisan approach to health care reform

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement today after the U.S. Senate voted to advance debate over a government takeover of health care:

“The American people should be appalled. In the dead of the night, when families are immersed in travel and events around the Christmas holiday, Senate Democrats advanced their latest plan for a government takeover of health care. Government-run insurance and tax increases passed by cutting backroom deals for certain states and special interests is a disappointment to millions of Americans and betrayal of their trust.

“This is not the change the American people were promised, this is Washington at its worst. Horse trading in Congress is always distasteful but it is especially repugnant when legislators trade away our values. Reports suggest that one backroom deal was enough to win support for federal funding of abortion. It is incomprehensible to think that so-called pro-life Democrats in the Senate would abandon longstanding protections for pro-life taxpayers when pro-life Democrats in the House fought successfully to prevent federal funding of abortion in their bill.

“A 2,700 page, $2.5 trillion bill that will increase taxes, raise health care costs, mandate insurance and fund abortion coverage is not what American families want to wake up to on Christmas morning. This bill and this process are Washington at its worst and, on behalf of the American people, House Republicans will continue to oppose it.

“I urge every Senator to reconsider this misguided and partisan approach to legislation that will impact the lives of every American. And I especially urge those Senators with the privilege of representing the great state of Indiana, to give special consideration to Hoosier families and their values and reject this bill.  The American people and the people of Indiana will remember which Senator stood for freedom and our values by opposing this legislation and which Senator followed the party line in support of a government takeover of health care."

2.

The Case of the Missing Muslims: Why Is Islamberg Now a Ghost Town?
Paul Williams, PhD

The Wall Street Journal reports this week that U.S. investigators are discovering that more and more young Muslims are vanishing from mosques, madrassas, and Islamic centers.
 
The disappearances, the Journal notes, are raising grave concerns among FBI and Homeland Security officials who fear that an onset of jihadist activity will take place on American soil in the near future.
 
Hundreds of Muslim men are also missing from Islamberg and this is not a propitious omen.
 
The sentry post is gone and no guards are in sight at the entrance to the 70 acre Islamic settlement located in the dense forest between Deposit and Hancock in upper New York State.
 
Young men in Islamic garb no longer congregate before the makeshift mosque, and no students are in attendance at the one room shack that serves as Sheikh Gilani's “International Quranic Open University.”
 
Gunfire no longer can be heard from the firing ranges along the eastern parameter of the property – and no grunts come from new recruits at the obstacle course.
 
A new sign at the entranceway reads, “Welcome to Holy Islamberg: The International Quranic Open University.” Next to this sign, which features the image of a mosque emerging from the mountains, is a pot of plastic carnations. Another sign proclaims that the community is home to the “United Muslim – Christian Forum.”
 
Such statements of welcome are offset by the “No Trespassing” signs that have been nailed to trees throughout the compound.
 
On the opposite side of the road leading into the community is a rack of metal mailboxes bearing such names as Abdul-Haqq, Abdul Jalil, Mumim Roberts, Abdullah Simonds, and Salam Insan.
 
What has happened to this once bustling complex of radical Islamists – a place where the cries of muezzins were accompanied by the incessant rat-tat-tat of machine gunfire? Where are the Arab dignitaries that used to visit this remote community in chauffeur-driven limousines? Where are the armed sentries who warded away all intruders?
 
A handful of children play in the mud and muck before rows of rusty old trailers, and a few women in full burkas walk along the rutty dirt road that leads to the heart of the squalid Muslim compound.
 
The few residents who remain in the settlement are not environmentalists. Sewage seeps from septic tanks and outhouses into the creek that flows at the base of the settlement. Bags of rotting garbage remain stacked between the trailers. And the once pristine countryside is now littered with junk cars, moldy mattresses, empty tanks of propane, and old appliances.
 
Where are the men?
 
What has happened to this bustling center of jihadi training?
 
Why has Islamberg become a ghost town?
 
The same phenomenon of vanishing Muslim men is taking place at mosques, madrassas, and other Islamic communities throughout the country and at other Jamaat ul-Fuqra paramilitary compounds, including one in Red House, Virginia.
 
U.S. investigators have now discovered that many of the missing Muslims are showing up in the killing fields of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia.
 
Five American Muslims recently were arrested in Pakistan following a raid at the home of a member of the Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistani movement designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001.
 
The five American Muslims – identified as Ahmed Abdullah, Waqar Hassan Khan, Eman Hassan, Yasir and Rami Zamzam – were planning to join forces with the Taliban to fight the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan.
 
Zamzam is a graduate dental student at Howard University, where he served as president of the Muslim Student Association.
 
David Coleman Headley, another Muslim who disappeared, is a native of Chicago who attended Lashkar-e-Toiba-operated terrorism training camps in Pakistan and helped Lashker-e-Toiba members and others plan and execute the attacks in Denmark against the newspaper which published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, which Muslims found offensive, as well as the violent attack in Mumbai, in about 170 people died.
 
At the same time Headley was taken into custody, U.S. investigators discovered that 20 Somali immigrants, who were reported missing from a mosque in Minnesota, had joined the Islamist insurgent group, al Shabaab, and were engaged in fighting Somalia's U.S.-backed government.
 
And there is the case of Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old resident of Denver, who made a trip to Peshawar, Pakistan, in 2008 for the stated purpose of visiting his wife only to show up at an al Qaeda training camp where he received instruction in making and detonating explosives. In September, Zazi was collared by federal officials as he made his way to New York City to carry out attacks with the same back-pack bombs that were used to blow up a train station in Madrid and several subway stations in London.
 
Where are the Muslim men from Islamberg?
 
The answer comes from a heavy-set woman in a long black burka who stops to check her mail box. “The men – all gone,” she says in halting English. “All – in Pakistan.”
 
Islamberg was established in 1980 by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, a Pakistani cleric who served as the imam of the Yasin Masjid in Brooklyn. A quack practitioner of something called “Koranic psychiatry,” Sheikh Gilani presented himself to the Brooklyn congregation as "the sixth Sultan ul Faqr,” with a lineage that dates back to the prophet Mohammed. He claimed to have supernatural powers that came from his regular reception of visits by jinn and “non-human beings.”
 
Sporting ammunition belts, Gilani called upon members of a Black Muslim street gang known as Dar al-Islam (DAR) to take part in the holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Hundreds answered the call and headed off to training camps in Pakistan, which had been established by Osama bin Laden, and other members of the mujahadeen.
 
Under Gilani’s direction, the DAR transformed into Jamaat ul-Fuqra (“the community of the impoverished”) and continued its prison ministry under Muslims of the Americas, a new, non-profit corporation. The sheikh soon came to realize that it would be financially advantageous to train new recruits for the holy war on American soil rather than shelling out the freight of sending them to Lahore and Peshawar. He purchased a 70-acre parcel of land near Green Haven, set up a firing range and an obstacle course, purchased a slew of old single-wide trailers and created a paramilitary compound called Islamberg.
 
When released from the federal prison, former convicts now received not only the customary $10 and a suit of clothes but also a one-way ticket to Gilani’s compound.
 
What took place at Islamberg and the International Quranic Open University?
 
 The answers came from Sheikh Gilani in his recruitment videos: “We give [students] specialized training in guerilla warfare. We are at present establishing training camps. You can easily reach us at Open Quranic offices in upstate New York or in Canada or in South Carolina or in Pakistan.”
 
Similarly, in a handbook, published by the university, Gilani wrote that the foremost duty of all students is to wage war against “the oppressors of Muslims.” The students are expected to sign an oath that reads: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.”
 
Now that the recruits at Islamberg have been trained in the basics of guerilla warfare, they have been deployed to Pakistan for advanced courses in explosives and weapons of mass destruction.
 
They will be returning home soon.
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul L. Williams is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org.

3.

 Socialism Creeps In As America Sleeps

Health Care: Democrats on the take and in the dead of night pass an execrable piece of legislation that they haven't read, the public doesn't want and only socialists could love. What has happened to this country?

If we hadn't stayed up past midnight Sunday, we wouldn't have known what was going on. Here we thought a vote on the proposed health care overhaul wasn't going to take place until Thursday night — Christmas Eve.

But there they were, the United States Senate, at 1 a.m. Monday, rushing to vote in the middle of a snowstorm to close debate on the most important piece of legislation of our time — the nationalization of the U.S. health care system. And we've been scrambling ever since to make sense of it.

Let's see if we have this right:

• This was a vote on a Democrat-concocted scheme that Americans have rejected every time it's been proposed for 100 years and that is opposed again, by 54% to 41% by the public at large, by 2-to-1 by practicing physicians and by every last member on the Republican side of the aisle.

• The vote was taken without any members having read the main 2,074-page bill, let alone the 383 pages of amendments that were tacked on at the last minute to buy off senators, including Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders.

• Despite growing public opposition, Democratic members had the nerve to call those who questioned their monstrosity "obstructionists" and worse. Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse called health care bill foes "birthers," "fanatics" and "people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups." Is this what Democrats meant when they said they seek bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems?

• The bill contains at last count 18 new taxes totaling an estimated $406 billion — including significant new levies on those earning less than $250,000, a major breach of Obama's pledge not to raise taxes by "one penny" on those in that income group.

A family of four that refuses to buy into a "qualifying" health insurance program will pay a "surtax" of as much as $6,750. At the same time, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that health insurance premiums will nearly double by 2016.

As the nonpartisan Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation put it, "The House and Senate health care bills contain enormous tax hikes to accompany massive increases in government spending."

• Spending under the package, which Democrats vowed will "cut costs," will in fact increase. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that total health care spending will rise by $289 billion from 2010 to 2019. That's a lowball guess. Once all the budget gimmicks are removed, the real 10-year price tag is at least $2.5 trillion, Senate Budget Committee staffers say.

What's truly frightening about this bill isn't what it does, but what it sets us on course to do. Democrats have long said they see this bill as a first step toward a total takeover of U.S. health care, regardless of the consequences.

The bill's requirement that Americans buy insurance is a major step toward that takeover. It's the first time in our nation's history the government has made Americans buy something. Get used to it. It's going to become a pattern.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515934
 
 
 

 

Monday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Seedy Chicago Politics Passed Health Care Bill: Senator Lindsey Graham

The United States Senate reached an agreement on health care reform legislation this weekend, and they couldn’t have done it without a bit of Chicago grit. According to South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham thinks.

Graham, says the Democrat bill, which passed the Senate late Saturday night was only reached because of “seedy Chicago politics” which have been established by the new president from Chicago.  Obama and his core staffers are all denizens of the Chicago Democrat machine – the most corrupt political group in the country.

Seedy or not, now that the Senate has passed a version of its health care bill, both houses of Congress will attempt to reconcile the differences between their bills. That process should take just as much Chicago moxie to pull off. Expect bare knuckled threats, extreme arm twisting, and a great deal more bribes such as was seen in the case of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Seedy-Chicago-Politics-Passed-Health-Care-Bill-Graham-79791752.html

Sen. Reid’s Government-Run Health Plan STILL Requires a Monthly Abortion Fee

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan.  Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions.

Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services. 

In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=725

Obama’s Ambitious Agenda Carries a Few Bruises for his Democrats facing the voters

On any list of tough sales jobs in American politics, tax increases, higher energy prices and foreign aid would rise to the top. Negotiations on curbing climate change involve all three  It didn’t help Obama that science supporting his efforts were revealed as bogus on the even of Copenhagen.

Thousands of environmental policy makers and advocates left Copenhagen in disappointment. The agreement the United States reached lacked commitments to achieve its stated goals, was nonbinding and was not formally affirmed by participants, in any case.

Obama’s base line result from the Copenhagen climate scam, is no better than the one he was forced to accept regarding his efforts to win designation of Chicago as an Olympic site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21caucus.html?ref=us

Opinion:
Senate Democrats are challenged to find a way to shoehorn its position into a bill the Democrat House will accept.

Keep in mind, the debate on health care schemes is strictly a Democrat matter.  Democrat own whatever ends up being the “health care takeover”.

Republicans have been totally barred from any participation and Republicans have been unanimous in voting against what Harry Reid revealed this week end.  Democrats will likely play a big vote penalty next November for their actions on this issue.

Doctors, who have a very direct interest in the health care issue are responding to the Democrat actions.

Investor’s Business Daily reports:

“The GOP roster for 2010 House races includes at least seven doctors. Many are military veterans as well. Rand Paul, an eye surgeon and son of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is making a Senate bid in Kentucky. Congress has 16 doctors from various fields now serving. Most are Republicans.

Polls show the public is getting increasingly anxious about a medical overhaul.”

Democrat problems reach beyond their health care conspiracies.  More and more voters are recognizing the far left  nature of the entire Obama program, and such perceptions do not bode well for Democrat incumbents – especially those whose election resulted from their running as “conservatives”.  Of course in today’s reality NO Democrat is a conservative.  

Senate passage of a health care bill will face shoe horning differing details into a final bill needing House approval.  That won’t be easy given the far left demands of Democrats such as Pelosi and her people.  Betting now holds the Pelosi demands will be muzzled. 

This week end, Reid had to make major concessions – outright bribes.  Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson was the last Democrat hold out, and his vote was crucial to passage. He sold out, but not without lingering demands.

Nelson, received assurances of a “limited conference” in order to secure his vote for Reid’s bill.  He laid down at least two demands he says are “deal breakers”. Nelson says he can’t support: the inclusion of a government insurance plan – otherwise known as a “public option” and an income tax increase Reid’s bill would impose on wealthy individuals.

“That would break it,” Nelson said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

There are other shaky votes – especially those of far left Congressmen (and there are many among Democrats) who are outraged Reid didn’t go as far as they wanted in imposing socialized medicine.

Democrats claim Republicans oppose health care reform.  That’s a lie, of course.  Republicans are in accord with a majority of Americans opposing this particular bill and the threat of socialized medicine it contains.

Normal Americans might count themselves fortunate that Reid holds the whip hand in the current progress of the radical health care bill Democrats are forcing on us all.  Reid’s version has been forced to dull the cutting edge of the outrageous legislation.  For Obama, victory is not as complete as he had hoped or expected.  In fact, Obama and his radical crew expected to have achieved passage of their scheme last Spring.

Public opposition – demonstrated by the tea party uprising – forced major delays on that and other far left efforts.  That same public opposition and unmistakable activism by millions of voters who feel strongly about threats to their government today, is needed as never before.  Public opposition may be the last resort.

The overriding obligation of the moment is uprising of normal Americans everywhere.  Delay, delay, delay.  Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.  Hold back the far left threat to our nation and its future.

Then liberal incumbents – all those who have supported the Pelosi and Reid programs – can be held fully accountable and replaced with people who will help turn back the tide, and begin repairing the immense damage that has been done to our country.

It can be done.

Liberal insanity can be successfully confronted and defeated.

A new day on Capitol Hill can be realized.

The answer lies on the shoulders of responsible Americans everywhere.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs

1.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30844.html

Health plans on collision course

Despite a last-minute weekend deal that put the Senate on the brink of passing health care reform this week, liberal and moderate Democrats remain on a collision course over the bill, as both sides dug in Sunday for the next phase of negotiations.

President Barack Obama’s liberal base and powerful union leaders once hoped the expected House-Senate conference would partly undo a year of retreats and compromises, with Obama weighing in to nudge the moderate Senate bill to the left.

But the titanic struggle to lock in Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as the 60th senator for the first key test vote early Monday morning has changed all that. The need to hold Nelson and other moderates in line means major changes on the public option, abortion, taxes, Medicare and Medicaid are unlikely — and that the Senate’s vision of health reform is likely to prevail over the House’s in the final talks.

“It is very clear that the bill — the final bill — to pass in the United States Senate is going to have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Otherwise, you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.”

Nelson, who received assurances of a “limited conference” to secure his vote for the Senate bill, has already laid down at least two deal breakers in the House bill that he can’t support: the inclusion of a government insurance plan and an income tax increase on wealthy individuals.

“That would break it,” Nelson said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

House Democrats acknowledge that they will be limited in how far they can tweak the Senate compromise. But House leadership also knows that its rank and file need to force some changes, however small, before they will accept the final package — as a face-saving measure to be able to swallow late changes to the bill in the Senate, most notably the decision to eliminate a public option.

But on the left, the sentiments of a liberal base that revolted over concessions to moderates were channeled Sunday by Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, who last week repeatedly called on Democrats to scrap the bill.

“This can’t be the final version of the bill,” Dean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It simply sets us on a track in this country which is expensive and where we’re going to have lots more political fights.”

In a slight shift, however, Dean tempered his words, saying the bill is better than it was earlier in the week.

“I would certainly not vote for this bill if this were the final product,” Dean said. “I would let this thing go to conference committee, and let’s see if we can fix it some more.”

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, identified areas beyond the public option in which Democrats in both chambers could agree, including boosting the federal insurance subsidies for middle-income Americans and strengthening insurance regulations.

“It is about progress, and we now have to fight for the changes in the conference committee and decide, when it is over,” whether to support it, Stern said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Senior administration officials contend the conference will not be as difficult as predicted because the differences between the two chambers have been known for months. “Once the Senate passes this bill, obviously there’s work to be done,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on “State of the Union.”

Two big voices in the health-reform debate came out with endorsements of the measure moving ahead in the Senate this week: the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents private community hospitals, and AARP, the nation’s largest seniors organization, which urged the Senate to move ahead with debate.

In addition, Democrats desperately tried to avoid an ugly public fight over abortion, but it looks as though the issue will haunt them right up until the end.

Abortion-rights supporters and foes alike blasted the compromise Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cut with Nelson late Friday night. But it’s unclear whether their opposition will be enough to sink the broader bill.

“I have some deep reservations with this Nelson language on first examination,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, told POLITICO on Sunday.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a leading abortion opponent, said during the weekend, “While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable.”

The final Senate bill grants state legislatures the right to prevent insurance plans that operate in the proposed health insurance exchange from covering elective abortions. The changes also require people who seek abortion coverage through the exchange to pay two separate checks each month to their insurance company to “segregate” federal funds from private funds that pay for abortion.

Reproductive-rights advocates argue the new system would create a more onerous burden for women seeking coverage for the procedure, while abortion opponents have argued throughout the debate that segregating payments still violates the existing prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortion.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, called the changes “book-keeping contortions” and said that his group plans to put pressure on any senator who votes to consider the changes Reid unveiled.

But the real fight will occur in negotiations between House and Senate leaders over a final bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California can’t afford to lose any Democrats. And with Stupak threatening to vote against the Senate compromise, she’ll need to offset his vote with other Democrats who voted against it the first time. She might be able to pick up some moderate-to-conservative Democrats who favor the Senate approach, but many of these lawmakers will need to be OK with the final abortion restrictions.

On the other side, a bloc of abortion-rights backers, led by DeGette, has already promised to vote against any bill that includes Stupak’s amendment, which would prevent people who receive government subsidies from purchasing coverage for elective abortions through the exchange. DeGette believes many of the 41 Democrats who voted for Stupak and “yes” on the House health care bill are willing to work with party leaders to find a middle ground.

The opposing camps are similarly entrenched on the public option and the method for financing the health care expansion. The House would create a government-sponsored insurance plan, but the Senate bill is silent on this point. After several attempts at compromise, Reid nixed the public option altogether.

The taxes could prove difficult to bridge. The House relies on a so-called millionaires’ tax, and has refused to consider the tax on expensive insurance plans. The Senate has taken the exact opposite posture. But because the White House has weighed in several times in favor of the tax on “Cadillac” plans, as a key component to slow the growth rate in health care spending, the Senate is likely to win this round.

Meanwhile, Republicans increaed their attacks on the bill Sunday, criticizing a variety of deals cut to win the votes of Democratic senators, such as Nelson, who got the federal government to pick up the cost of any Medicaid expansion under the health reform bill in the state of Nebraska forever. Republicans said Democrats have refused to say which state would get about $100 million inserted into the bill on behalf of a still unidentified university hospital.

“This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “And it’s a shame that that’s the only way we can come to consensus in this country is to buy votes.”

But Nelson defended his efforts. “I always put Nebraska first,” he told POLITICO in an interview Saturday. “But I looked at this through the standpoint of Nebraskans and the country. ... There is a difference between holding out for something and holding up. I was holding out for something to make it better.”

John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

2.

Republican Study Committee’s Info Alert: Summary of Major Changes to Senator Reid’s Takeover of Health Care Bill, H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

 Procedure:

The Senate Republicans are not giving up and will use every procedural tactic available to them in the coming days. As of now the Senate expects to have the final vote on the bill at 7:30 PM on December 24, 2009, in light of the 60-40 cloture vote on the Reid Manager's Amendment earlier this morning.

There are three possible scenarios that could play out if the Senate passes H.R. 3590 including:
      Ping-Pong: The House may choose to take up the Senate bill, making necessary changes to garner enough votes, and then send it back to the Senate where once again it must achieve a 60 vote threshold. This seems the least likely scenario.
      Conference Report: A robust Conference report is less likely at this point, but should that occur, final passage in the Senate will still require 60 votes for passage. Sen. Nelson, during his press conference on December 19, 2009, stated that he reserves the right to vote against the bill if major changes occur in Conference.
      The House simply accepts the Senate bill through an up-or-down vote: Although Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer have said they will not simply accept the Senate bill, it remains to be seen whether the progressives and pro-life Democrats will keep their promises or crumble.
 
Major Issues to be Resolved Between House and Senate:

      Illegal immigrants’ ability to purchase coverage in the exchange
      Federal funding of abortion
      The government-run option vs. the federally overseen “Multi-State Plan”
      Financing the expansion of coverage through a surtax on the “wealthy” and small businesses vs.  a union opposed tax on “Cadillac plans” and the Medicare payroll increase for the “wealthy”
      Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), also known as “MedPAC on Steroids” 
 
Main Issues:

      Costs still go up: CBO has said that the net increase in the federal budgetary commitment to health care will go up $200 billion.
o       Most recently, CBO revised its long-term estimate to lower their projected savings by 0.25% of GDP or $500 billion.
      Premiums still go up: CBO says the amendment would have little impact on premiums.
      Hurts access and quality of care: According to CBO, if the projected $470.7 billion (up from $464.6 billion) in Medicare cuts are actually allowed to occur, they could still harm beneficiaries’ access and quality of care.
      Real cost once implemented: Previous estimates place the cost of the bill once fully implemented (FY 2014-2023) at $2.5 trillion.
      If you like what you, have you can’t keep it: CBO has estimated that 8-9 million people would lose employer coverage under the Reid bill. 
 
Summary:
The nearly 400-page Manager’s Amendment (bringing the total bill to 2,733 pages) makes several substantial changes to the underlying bill, H.R. 3590. Some highlights of the changes include:
 
      New government-run “Multi-State” plan: Although the government-run plan with a state-opt out has been removed, the Manager’s Amendment still allows for the federal government through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to run, oversee and “negotiate” with new “Multi-State” plans offered in State Exchanges and available nationwide.
o       At least one of the plans must be non-profit and at least one plan must not offer coverage of abortions.
o       Individuals who enroll in an OPM run multi-state plan will be placed in a separate risk pool from federal employees enrolled in the FEHBP. 
o       Qualified plans must still be licensed in each state and meet all state and federal requirements including newly established standards for medical loss ratios, profit margins, and premiums.  OMP-run multi-state plans must cover all essential health benefits and meet all of the requirements of a qualified health plan, and comply with 3:1 age rating.
o       CBO stated that the new plan would have little impact as insurers may not want to or be able to participate and would probably already be participating in the Exchanges.
      Still allows for the funding of abortion, and is far from the Stupak language that passed the House with the support of 64 Democrats.
o       Specifically Nelson’s “compromise” would mandate that every state provide an insurance plan option that does not cover abortion while giving each state the right to pass a law barring insurance coverage for abortion within state borders (which was already allowed in the underlying bill). However, the provision still allows for state taxes to go toward abortions in other states, and there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally-subsidized exchanges. Each state through the new government run plan (“Multi-State Plan”) overseen by the Office of Management Personnel (OMP) can provide access to two plans – only one of which must exclude abortions. Currently no plan under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, overseen by OMP, provides for abortion coverage.
o       Additionally, it fails to fix Sen. Mikulski’s amendment which gives the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) the power to require private insurance plans include abortion coverage under the title of “preventive care.” Finally, the amendment fails to provide adequate conscience clause protection, as it does not prohibit any government entity or program from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.
      Increase in individual mandate penalty: The penalty is now tied to the higher of a flat dollar (up to $750) amount or 2% of taxable income up to the national average of the “Bronze” (lowest value) plan premium, bringing in $15 billion - $7 billion more than the underlying bill. 
      Tighter insurance restrictions on Medical Loss Ratio (MLR): It requires insurers both before and after the establishment of the Exchanges to have a MLR of 80% in the small group and individual market and 85% in the large group market, forcing insurers to cut down on administrative costs such as Health IT, fraud detection, care management, etc. Plans that exceed this must give a rebate to consumers, and states can determine a higher MLR rate in any market. This is a new federal intrusion into private companies as it dictates how companies can allocate their resources. According to CBO, if the government dictates MLR up to 90% (combined with the bills other regulations) it would essentially make private insurance a government program, dramatically adding to the cost of the bill.
      Removes the temporary “Doc Fix”(SGR): The underlying bill provided for an 0.5% increase in Medicare reimbursements to physicians for 2010. The Manager’s Amendment removes this doc fix without addressing the problem. The temporary payment freeze passed in the DOD bill to avoid the 21.2% cut effective January 1, 2010 will expire March 1, 2010 and thus the Senate must enact a separate SGR fix. Some members may be concerned that such an important health priority is omitted from a “health care reform” bill and that this change is simply a budget gimmick to eliminate the $11.3 billion cost of the patch.
      Still expands Medicaid with new carve outs: The bill still contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid, but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (tailored to get the votes from Sens. Nelson and Sanders).

 These states will receive FMAP bonuses such that:

o       Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely.
o       Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program.
o       Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program.
o       According to CBO “there would be roughly 15 million more enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP than is projected under current law,” bringing the total in 2019 to 50 million people or 1 in 6 (50 million out of 282 million). 
      Coverage: Increase coverage by 1 million people – now leaving 23 million vs. 24 million uninsured under the bill.
      Taxes: The bill increases taxes by $518.5 billion – up $25 billion from the underlying bill and still raises taxes on middle class families, breaking President Obama’s pledge not to tax Americans earning less than $250,000. The major changes to the tax provisions include:
o       $86.8 billion tax increase: Raises the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9% (an additional 0.4% increase from the underlying bill which raised it by 0.5%) on individuals making $200,000 and families making $250,000 (thus maintaining the marriage penalty).
o       $2.7 billion tax increase: Replaces the “botax” or excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery with a new excise tax (10% of the amount paid for the service by the customer) on indoor tanning services. 
o       $19.2 billion tax increase: Moves the annual tax on medical devices back one year from 2010 to 2011 and increases it to $3 billion up from the previous $2 billion beginning in 2018. 
o       $13.3 billion tax increase: Indexes Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) to CPI-U after 2011
o       $59.6 billion tax increase: Moves the tax on health insurers back one year (from 2010 to 2011) and changes it from a flat tax of $6.7 billion a year to a phased in tax starting at $2 billion in 2011, $4 billion in 2012, $7 billion in 2013, $9 billion in 2014 - 2016, and $10 billion in 2017 and thereafter.
o       $2.6 billion tax increase: Places a “fee” on insurance policies to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund. The amendment provides a new exemption from the health insurer fee for nonprofit insurers that meet certain requirements (only two insurers in the States of Nebraska and Michigan qualify), including a high MLR.
o       $148.9 billion tax increase: Includes additional carve outs for several types of insurance that would be subject to the tax on “Cadillac” or high-cost health care plans such as workers compensation, automobile medical payment insurance, coverage for on-site medical clinics, supplemental liability insurance.
         Specifically exempts Longshore (Union) workers from the tax on “Cadillac” plans by qualifying them as “high-risk workers”. 
      CLASS Act: It still contains the new unsustainable long-term care entitlement program – the CLASS Act, which faced major opposition from Senate Democrats, including Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, who called it a “Ponzi Scheme”. The CLASS Act, would create a government-sponsored long term care insurance program that would automatically enroll individuals unless they actively opt-out. This amounts to a federal take-over of the private long-term health insurance system.
o       Individuals would pay premium levels set by the federal government (estimated to be $123/month on average) in exchange for a $50-a-day benefits to cover the cost of care. However, an individual must first pay into the program through premiums for 5 years before they can receive any benefits - meaning that the program would not pay anything out until 2016. Furthermore, the $50-a-day allocation for long-term care insurance is only a portion of the actual cost of long-term care for seniors. The CLASS Act would only add confusion about Medicare coverage of long-term care without covering the true cost of care. This may cause seniors to drop their current coverage.
o       The CLASS Act is another unsustainable program being used to disguise the short-term costs of the broader bill through a budget gimmick. According to the CBO, the CLASS Act would raise $72 billion over the first ten years in the Senate bill (while paying out $0 in benefits for half of that time), but will begin to increase the deficit following FY2029. A group of seven Democrat Senators stated in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid, “We have grave concerns that the real effect of the provisions would be to create a new federal entitlement program with large, long-term spending increases that far exceed revenues.  This is especially the case if savings from the first decade of the program are spent on other health reform priorities.”
o       Numerous organizations have raised concerns with the CLASS Act, including CBO, the Concord Coalition, as well as the American Academy of Actuaries, who found that due to its program design, the program would require massive premium increases and benefit decreases by 2019 to remain solvent. Some conservatives may be concerned that this is another unsustainable program being used to disguise the short-term costs of the broader bill through a budget gimmick.
      Comparative Effectiveness Research: The bill still establishes the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), a nonprofit corporation, to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER). PCORI will replace the Federal Coordinating Council created in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Despite repeated attempts by Republicans to prohibit the government from using CER to make coverage decisions, such amendments failed along party lines. There is concern that this unelected, bureaucrat-appointed board will lead to rationing and make one-size-fits-all judgments prohibiting treatment options on the basis of cost.
o       The bill allows the Secretary of HHS to use CER findings to make a determination regarding coverage as long as it is done through an open and transparent process.
o       To pay for these activities, the bill would impose a new “fair share” tax on insurance policies.
      Still contains the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), or “MedPAC on Steroids,” made up of non-elected government bureaucrats that are empowered to make arbitrary cuts to Medicare providers that will limit access to care for seniors. Congress would be required to consider legislation implementing the proposal or alternative proposals with the same budgetary impact on a fast track basis. The recommendations of the board would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action.
o       IMAB’s recommendations would be required if the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program projected that the program’s spending per beneficiary would grow faster than the average of the growth rates of the consumer price index for medical services and the overall index for all urban consumers fiscal years 2015 through 2019
o       After 2019, the threshold would be increased and IMAB’s recommendations would be required if Medicare spending growth rose faster than gross domestic product (GDP) per capita plus 1 percentage point.
o       CBO revised its long-term estimate to take into account this change in 2019, such that it lowered the projected savings by 0.25% of GDP or $500 billion.
      Adds State demonstration programs for Medical Liability Reform: The amendment allows for grants to States to test alternatives to civil tort litigation, which would be evaluated by the Secretary of HHS who would then determine their effectiveness.  These demonstration projects would only allow models that emphasize patient safety, disclosure of health care errors, and the early resolution of disputes with the ability for patients to opt-out at any time. The bill contains no actual medical liability reform.
      “Free-Choice vouchers”:  The amendment requires employers to provide their share of premiums through a tax-exempt voucher to be used in the Exchange if coverage they offer is unaffordable for employees. Eligible employees are individuals below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) whose premiums exceed 8% of income (but not above 9.8%) and are not enrolled in employer coverage. CBO estimates that about 100,000 workers would utilize this option.
      New carve outs for some physician-owned hospitals: The amendment pushes back the date from February 1, 2010 to August 1, 2010 by which a physician-owned hospital must have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare. Of the 125 projects projected estimated to be eliminated through the prohibition on physician owned hospitals, 55 are expected to be saved by this carve out (including projects in Nebraska). 
 
 Other Provisions:        

      Extends CHIP program:  Continues the current reauthorization period of CHIP for two years, through September 30, 2015. 
      Adds a Second Amendment protection clause: Clarifies that the Secretary of HHS cannot collect, maintain or use information on the possession or use of firearms. The amendment also prohibits the Secretary from implementing any sort of incentive program (including wellness programs), that could change rates on insurance, simply due to an individual owning, possessing or using a firearm.
      Expands basic health program eligibility to immigrants: Allows legal immigrants with incomes less than 133% FPL, who are not eligible for Medicaid due to the five-year waiting period, to be eligible for the new state-run, federally-funded, basic health program that states can establish for “low-income” individuals above 133% FPL.
      Expansion of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation:  Adds payment reform models to the list of items the Center may consider and instructs the Secretary of HHS to focus on models expected to reduce program costs while preserving or enhancing quality of care.
      Health professionals State loan repayment tax relief: Excludes from gross income for tax purposes, payments for participants in the National Health Service Corps, as well as State loan repayment or loan forgiveness programs, to provide for the increased availability of health care services in underserved or health professional shortage areas. 
      Expands adoption tax credit: Makes the adoption tax credit refundable, increases it from $10,000 to $13,170 and allows for the tax exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance benefits to be increased by the same amount.
      Adds the Indian Health Services reauthorization, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

2.
 

From: Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions

Government and the gallows: History repeats itself, again

Jim Waters

In the biblical account of Queen Esther, the evil Haman, one of her nation’s highest government officials became so consumed with envy and control that he eventually hung on the gallows he built for Mordecai, his righteous nemesis.

Haman used legislative maneuvers to trick the king into signing an edict to destroy the Jewish people, including Esther, a leader in the nation, and her Uncle Mordecai.

In the current battle over the future of our nation, the people – just like the ancient king – got tricked into believing more government would mean a better life for them and a more hopeful future for their children.

But then they started discovering the truth:

The nation’s “Esthers” discovered that the current health care bill would result in middle class Kentucky families paying 19 percent of their pre-tax income on insurance premiums, copays and deductibles.

Elderly “Mordecais” found out about $500 billion in proposed Medicare funding cuts. The people learned that women younger than age 50 and older than age 74 face pressure to forego mammograms, while those older than age 50 are ordered to get them only every two years.

The health care proposal represents a trillion-dollar gallows built to kill our freedom. But it remains to be seen who hangs. With chances of a “government option” fading, it appears the unraveling is under way.

Meanwhile, environmental wackos built gallows, too – from recycled arguments, of course. Like Haman, they count on folks not finding out that they have based their tax-raising, government-growing and business-destroying plans on a fraud.

The king in that ancient Persian tale started reading old news when he couldn’t sleep one night. He discovered that his life had once been saved by none other than Mordecai – the man Haman was trying to destroy. So now we read old e-mails acquired by a hacker that reveal manipulation of data to hide the fact that the earth may actually be cooling.

Gov. Steve Beshear, state Democrats and the horse-racing industry set fundraising records in the Dec. 8 special state Senate election. They spent more than $1 million to build political gallows for Senate Republicans and their candidate, Jimmy Higdon.

But it backfired. Higdon of Lebanon routed Jodie Haydon from Bardstown and further diminished chances of lawmakers approving expanded casino gambling.

Instead of popping champagne, Beshear & Co. find themselves with the proverbial noose around their political necks on their own very costly gallows. Kentuckians found out that gambling won’t repair our fading economy or crumbling schools. It only serves politicians and shady gambling interests.

Higdon ran against a national Democratic Party radical agenda, and the 2010 midterm elections could see quite a few political “hangings” of the gallows builders.

Envy and a desire to control the flow of information also play a part in this modern-day Queen Esther story.

When Mordecai informed King Xerxes about the attempt on his life, his stature among the people rose – putting Haman’s downfall in motion.

When Fox News began exposing the truth about the radical agenda the big-government types in Washington have planned for hard working taxpayers – including, as President Barack Obama said during the campaign, taking from those who work hard to earn and giving it to bailout-minded moochers – White House staff built gallows: They shut out Fox reporters from the president’s network interviews.

It gives me hope that the administration’s numbers began to tank while Fox’s ratings went stratospheric.

Is that the gallows I hear creaking?

— Jim Waters is director of policy and communications for the Bluegrass Institute, Kentucky’s free-market think tank. You can reach him at jwaters@freedomkentucky.com. Previously published columns can be read at www.bipps.org

3.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whos-responsible-for-the-Senates-middle-of-the-night-vote-79781687.html

 Who's responsible for the Senate's middle-of-the-night vote?

Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

Why did the Senate gather at 1 a.m. Monday for a vote to move ahead on the Reid Amendment to the Democrats' national health care bill? Democrats blame Republicans. "Everyone knows we're here at one in the morning because of my friends on the other side of the aisle," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said moments before the vote. On CBS Sunday, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu said, "We don't have to vote in the middle of the night, but [Republican Sen. Tom Coburn] is the one making us do it -- not Harry Reid, not the Democrats. It is a Republican obstructionist that is making us vote in the middle of the night."

Coburn has no doubt slowed debate on the bill. But the fact is, there is no reason the Reid Amendment vote could not have been held at a more reasonable hour. One a.m. Monday was the earliest moment that Senate rules allowed a vote, but there is no rule keeping the Senate from voting at some time after 1 a.m. If Reid had scheduled the vote for, say, 11 a.m. Monday, that would have been fine. If he scheduled it for 4 p.m. Monday, or 10 a.m. Tuesday, that would have been fine, too.

But Reid is determined to pass the national health care bill by Christmas, and to do so he has to get the cloture vote on his amendment done at the earliest moment. The timeline is Reid's and Reid's alone. "The bottom line is, Sen. Reid schedules the floor," says one well-connected GOP aide. "He is the only one who can schedule the floor." If Reid had scheduled the vote during business hours on, say, Tuesday, a final vote would not have taken place until the day after Christmas -- an outcome Reid apparently found unacceptable.

This is how it works. Reid introduced his amendment Saturday morning. (It's the one that has the Sen. Ben Nelson Medicaid buy-off and other curious features.) Senate rules say there has to be an intervening day between the introduction of the amendment and a vote on limiting debate on the amendment. That intervening day was Sunday. That meant the cloture vote could be held Monday, or any time thereafter. The rules also say that the vote has to be held at least one hour after that next day has begun. So the Senate's Monday business began at 12:01 a.m., and the Reid Amendment vote could be held at 1:01 a.m. (As it happened, Reid himself spoke last, and his remarks went over the mark by six minutes.)

After the middle-of-the-night vote, there will be a maximum of 30 hours debate on the amendment. Then there will be a 30-hour period for a Republican substitute bill, followed by a 30-hour period on the final bill. Reid's schedule calls for a final, final vote on the health care measure to take place at about 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Voila! The bill will be passed by Christmas. That couldn't be done unless the Reid Amendment cloture vote were held in the earliest hours of Monday morning, setting off the final chain of votes and waiting periods. "This is purely to satisfy a self-imposed, arbitrary deadline," says the GOP aide.

By the way, when the 1 a.m. vote took place, the Reid Amendment had been public for about 36 hours, and the public had not had a single business day to examine it. "Make no mistake," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a few minutes before the vote. "If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn't be forcing this vote in the dead of night." Referring to the Nelson buy-off and other special arrangements in the bill, McConnell said few people would have imagined that the health care debate would have ended "with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o'clock in the morning."

But that's what happened. In the end, to no one's surprise, the Reid Amendment moved ahead, 60-40, on a straight party-line vote. Democrats can blame Sen. Coburn and Republicans all they like, but the fact is, there is no reason, beyond the Christmas deadline, that the vote had to take place at 1 a.m.

Sunday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.

Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. See recent demographic highlights from the tracking poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Deal on health bill is reached

For 48 hours, Senator Ben Nelson was seen as a highly principled figure – only to sell out to Harry Reid and prove he is just another politician with his hands out.

Nelson’s support was purchased by Reid at a ridiculous price that will certainly face SCOTUS scrutiny if it survives.

The issue now goes to negotiations with the House to reach common ground on two vastly different bills.  There is noting the GOP can do to stop the Democrat conspiracy…and ALL America is watching and seeing the very worst side of politics and government on parade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900797_pf.html

Book: Prosecutors were prepared to indict Clintons

Prosecutors investigating Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton were prepared to seek indictments of them for their roles in the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky affairs, an explosive new book about the former president's scandals charges.

In "The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr," due out in February, author Ken Gormley also says that Lewinsky believed Bill Clinton lied about their affair during grand jury testimony about his relationship with the White House intern.

The Associated Press on Friday obtained a copy of the book by Gormley, a Duquesne University law professor, about the scandals that enveloped the final years of the former president's second term. Excerpts from the book were first reported Thursday on the Politico news Web site.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091219/D9CM4CKG0.html

Opinion:
Tone deaf Democrats

They just don’t get it.

Democrats are celebrating getting 60 votes for Harry Reid’s health care scam.  They finally achieved that figure through what most Americans paying attention about such matters believe to be the most outrageous case of political bribery of all.

Give him credit, Senator Ben Nelson wrestled incredible commitments from a desperate Harry Reid.  If Nelson’s payoff is not crass bribery, the burden is on him to prove otherwise.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow travelers were dashing back to a snowed in Washington from an equally snowed in Copenhagen – and an international conference on (of all things) Global Warming.

 No display could have as effectively proven the irresponsible idiocy of Al Gore’s myths and fantasies than the weather that ended the confab.  Fortunately, we are informed no threat to sanity resulted from the Copenhagen huddle.  It could have been far worse.

Of course Hillary promised a mass of our dollars to poor countries to underwrite their own efforts to oppose carbon emissions.  I am struck by findings by many scientists (now void of credibility since it has been revealed a whole lot of cheating has been going on among them) holding cattle gas emissions are among the worst offenders.

If they use Hillary’s funding to rid themselves of cattle, what’ll these poor people do for protein?  I suspect no liberal scientific has addressed that element of the problem.

Not to worry.  Few of those dollars will actually go to dealing with the problem.  Government officials and hangers on will sop up that money in corruption and graft as always happens in such matters.

Recall the “Food for Oil” conspiracy?  That’s the way such things always work out. But Hillary feels better, got more smiles at the conference, and comes home to try selling that madness to the Senate who must ratify such deals.  Given Democrat domination of the Senate, Hillary’s largess will be approved – probably with even more outrageous additions, amendments, and admissions.  Until America retakes Capitol Hill, we lie vulnerable and unprotected against raids on our treasury and restrictions on our rights and freedoms.

Memo to Democrats:

Take the Tea Party movement seriously.  Recognize the fact you are digging your hole deeper by the day and reform.  Roll back what you can.  Stop spending what we cant afford, and drop bills such as Pelosi’s Health Care, Obama’s Cap and Trade, and cut off efforts to pass amnesty before they can build up steam.

If Democrats don’t heed the warning, the poll results, and the growing anger and fury of normal Americans via the Internet, they will take a major hit next year.  That defeat will grow daily and may once again make liberals irrelevant.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A8304D7C-18FE-70B2-A87FAC1F3F5420D2
 
Stupak, working with GOP, trying to sink abortion compromise

Ben Smith

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

The emails show that Stupak — who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it — is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise.

They also demonstrate a previously unseen degree of coordination between Stupak and the office of Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

(NOTE: In 1981, outraged by Democrat fiscal outrage, Texas Democrat Congressman Phil Graham switched parties and led Blue Dog Democrats of the day, in a major uprising against liberals.  Stupak is positioned to achieve similar results,)

Stupak is the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats who say they’ll oppose the sweeping legislation if it uses government money to pay for abortion, while McConnell is firmly committed to killing the legislation. The fact that the two have made common cause against the Senates health care compromise will likely further infuriate Stupak’s Democratic colleagues in the House, and demonstrates his willingness to stop any bill that doesn’t pass his test.

“Guys - when will we see your letters of opposition to the managers amendment?? We need them ASAP!” wrote Erika Smith, a Stupak aide, at 9:23 this morning, less than an hour after the amendment had become available.

The email’s recipients included key staffers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, as well as Autumn Fredericks Christensen, aide to a top pro-life Republican Joe Pitts, and Lanier Swann, a McConnell aide.

A minute after Smith sent out her plea, Lanier reiterated it to the list.

“Nelson is telling people in the building he will vote yes. If there was any time to weigh in against this deal —- THIS IS IT,” Swann wrote at 9:24 a.m.

As of early Saturday afternoon, the groups had not released statements on the compromise.

Stupak, too, has remained silent, and Stupak aides, including Smith, did not immediately respond to questions about the email chain.

The manager’s amendment, which emerged after hours of negotiations between Nelson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stops short of the total ban on health insurance plans that participate in a new exchange system offering abortion coverage. Instead, it includes a provision that allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the exchanges.

The amendment also requires that health plans that provide abortion services separate, for accounting purposes, private premiums and federal funds, and ensure that the federal funds don't pay for abortion services, a maneuver derided in the past by anti-abortion groups as a shell game.

The compromise paved the way for a Senate vote on President Obamas top priority, but the frantic emails this morning suggest the House may remain an obstacle.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC 

2.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73077-chambliss-abortion-compromise-sets-up-a-supreme-court-challenge
 
Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss: Abortion compromise 'sets up a Supreme Court challenge'
Michael O'Brien

The Senate healthcare bill's language on abortion "sets up a Supreme Court challenge," one senator warned Saturday.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) asserted that the compromise on abortion contained within the bill, which would seek to segregate federal funds from subsidizing health plans covering abortion, is unconstitutional.

"What this provision does that Sen. Nelson negotiated sets up a Supreme Court challenge. Roe v. Wade's pretty clear on federal funding for abortion," Chambliss said at a Capitol Hill press conference.

The compromise was set up to win the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who had previously threatened to vote against the bill unless he was satisfied the bill wouldn't provide federal support for abortion. Nelson announced on Saturday morning that he'd reached an agreement to his satisfaction, and would vote for the bill.

Pro-life groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have rejected the compromise language.

"And now, you're seeing that law that was laid down years ago in Roe v. Wade thrown up in the air. It's pretty obvious that votes have been bought," said Chambliss, who didn't signal whether or not he would lead a legal challenge to the bill.
Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73077-chambliss-abortion-compromise-sets-up-a-supreme-court-challenge

3.

Which stories did media bury in 2009?
WND readers' chance to weigh in on year's top 10

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Attention, WND newshounds! As it does every year, WND is inviting readers to submit their candidates for the most "spiked" stories of the year in Operation Spike!

At this time, news organizations prepare their year-end retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories of the previous 12 months. But WND's editors have always found it more newsworthy to publish a compilation of the important stories most ignored by the establishment press.

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988, and since founding WorldNetDaily in May 1997 has continued the annual tradition. For the past 11 years, WND has invited its readers to join in and submit what they considered the most underreported stories of the past year.

Last year, WorldNetDaily's "readers' choice" picks for the 10 most underreported stories of 2008 were: 

1. Charges that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and thus constitutionally ineligible to serve as president 

 2. U.S. Senate committee report that hundreds of top scientists have testified they believe claims of man-caused global warming are fraudulent 

 3. The true causes of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, which point directly to the Democratic Party 

 4. Obama's ties to terrorists and extremists 

 5. The stunning success of the Iraq war 

 6. The sources of Obama's campaign contributions 

 7. Obama's far-left voting record 

 8. Bush's refusal to pardon imprisoned border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were prosecuted by the president's friend, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton 

 9. Suppression of Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna," which exposes the worldwide threat from Islam

(NOTE: I have removed one subject from WND's list:

<<The campaigns of third-party presidential candidates, and Ron Paul's sensationally successful grass-roots campaign >>

Third party campaigns were not viable enough to cover. They won]t be in the future either and encouraging such flights of fancy have one and only one result: electing Liberal Democrats.

 For the record: Ron Paul ran as a Republican.)