Filed under: Islam, Liberalism, Media Bias, Terrorism, The Constitution | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, The Ground Zero Mosque
Democrat pollsters like Charlie Cook are telling Democrats that the election in November is going to be a “wave” election. Democrats are running scared, and they’re desperate.
They were going to run against George W. Bush, but that’s not working. Obama has been president for 19 months, and the “blame Bush” theme has worn out. Most people don’t blame Bush. Then Democrats were going to blame Republicans as “The Party of No,” but that won’t work either. Democrats have control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. It doesn’t matter if Republicans say no.
Democrats have done exactly what they wanted to do, and it isn’t working.
Liberals just hate it when you disagree with them. They are quick to assign evil motives to conservatives when they disagree, and they quite literally hate conservatives for having the nerve to do so. Part of the problem is that liberals start with the policy that fulfills their dreams, and aren’t much interested in evidence of how that policy has worked previously. Liberals assume that of course it will work. Conservatives want to know how a policy will work before they pass it into law, so they look for studies and examples and history.
What this means is that when liberals are ecstatic about having passed a long-desired bill, there are the conservatives carefully explaining why it is not going to work, with facts and figures. Liberals cannot understand this way of operating, and assume that conservatives are just being their normal, evil, disgusting selves trying to destroy the liberal accomplishment.
So now, not only are conservatives saying bad things about liberals’ amazing accomplishments, but they are convincing the common folk out there that the Democrats were wrong. That makes them very angry.
So we return to the question of the mosque at Ground Zero. It is, technically, 360 feet from the World Trade Center site. The building that the mosque purchased was damaged when the undercarriage of one of the planes fell through the roof.
Muslims, of course, have freedom of religion: the only argument is that it is inappropriate to build a mosque so close to the site of 9/11, an attack made in the name of Islam. The families who lost their loved ones and friends in the World Trade Center are offended that the backers do not understand the inappropriateness of the mosque site.
Democrats saw an opportunity to demonize Republicans and are out in full-throated attack mode. Republicans are bigots and racists. They can have no other reason to oppose the mosque. Isn’t it about time they got over 9/11? Hypocrites as well — always talking about the Constitution as if it is a holy document and they can’t even recognize the poor Muslims’ right to freedom of religion.
- Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic”: “Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn’t bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I’ve heard or read.”
- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times blog, August 19: The far right-wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims.”
- Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “…a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists.”
- More, much more, from the likes of Peter Beinart, Tony Norman, Keith Olberman, James Zogby, Andrew Sullivan, here, and here,and here.
So some brilliant PR person has decided that the best move is to accuse Conservatives of being racist, evil, disgusting bigots. But what do they say about the moderate Muslims who say that of course the mosque is intended as a provocation? Other sources have noted that several floors of the “community center” are intended as offices for an effort to promote Sharia law in the United States.
I do believe that those who immigrate to the United States have an obligation to become Americans. They don’t get to bring their culture here and insist that the religious laws of their former country be observed here.
Filed under: Conservatism, Election 2010, Liberalism, Politics | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Economy, Spending, Unemployment
(h/t: National Review)
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Politics | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Moratorium on Deep Water Drilling, U.S. District Court Decision
The blanket moratorium seems to assume, wrote the judge,” that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.” The ruling stated:
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an unprecedented, sad, ugly and inhuman disaster. What seems clear is that the federal government has been pressed by what happened…into an otherwise sweeping confirmation that all Gulf deepwater drilling activities put us all in a universal threat of irreparable harm.
That is the assumption behind the six-month moratorium ordered by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. It was challenged in court by three companies that provide support services to offshore drilling. Judge Feldman notes that the government has not justified what he called a “punitive” moratorium. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the Administration “acted arbitrarily and capriciously.”
The judge noted that case law says that the court can’t substitute its judgment for that of an agency like the Interior Department, but the agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” He also criticized the report for stating that its recommendations had been peer-reviewed by seven National Academy of Engineering experts. Five of those did not agree with the moratorium and three others who were consulted also did not agree.
Judge Feldman’s ruling validates what Louisianans have been arguing for weeks: that the Administration’s broad drilling ban isn’t justified and stands to cause even greater economic harm to this state than the devastating oil spill itself.
The Obama Administration has said it will appeal Judge Feldman’s decision. They really want to keep that drilling ban in place. The ban is political. The decision suggests the government would need a much better substantive case to prevail.
The Feldman decision also lists the environmental groups that had joined the Administration’s defense against the suit. One was the Natural Resources Defense Council, whose president, Frances Beinecke, has been appointed by President Obama to his deep water drilling commission. Ms Beinecke has called for a ban on all offshore and Arctic drilling, as well as banning ethanol. She is far too politically ideological and biased to serve on such a commission. She should step down.
It is becoming clear that the Administration wants drilling shut down for political purposes. They want to keep the pressure on so Congress will pass the cap-and-trade bill that would bankrupt the country. Obama has his list of things he wants to do, and he doesn’t intend to let ordinary annoyances get in his way. Shameful.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Health Care, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Repeal
Democrats, in their arrogance, thought that they could change the way our economy works. “We have to pass the bill,” said Nancy Pelosi,” so we can find out what’s in it.” We are slowly finding out. Those studying the bill explore the incentives and the consequences of the provisions, and are learning that what was claimed for the bill is far from accurate, and the impact on businesses and individuals is far worse.
—If you like your present coverage, you can keep it, Obama said. Nope. The Public Option is alive and well, but hidden. The U.S Office of Personnel Management has new responsibilities, establishing and running two entirely new government health insurance programs to compete directly with private insurance. The OPM will have to power to set profit margin premiums and terms of coverage. It is a place-holder for the Public Option.
—It was, President Obama said, to cost less than one trillion dollars. The Congressional Budget Office has added $115 billion to their estimates, which puts it well over a trillion, and the so-called “Doc-fix” would add $287 billion if Democrats had not put it in a separate bill to avoid its being added to the cost. (The Doc-fix puts back the money that they cut from Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals in an attempt to make ObamaCare look better —and yes, it was just a scam). Keep in mind that it is a very rare government program indeed that costs less than estimated. The only one I know of is Bush’s Medicare Drug Program.
—The bill will cram 32 million newly insured into already overcrowded emergency rooms.
—Doctors in Texas are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates of 100-200 a year.
—Obama has consistently said that “Health insurers won’t be able to drop your coverage just because you get sick.” It has been illegal since 1997 under the Health, Income Portability and Accounting Act for an insurer to drop coverage because someone gets sick. Even before that, the practice almost never happened. Rescissions happen when an insurer cancels a policy and returns premiums to policy holders. This almost always happens because the insurance application was fraudulent. Rescissions are very rare, and only happen in the individual market which is 10% of the private insurance market. They occur in less than 4/10 of one percent of the time. Even then there is an appeals process both internally and outside the insurance company, and there are state regulators whose job is to correct insurance companies if they are wrong.
HHS Sec. Sebelius accused Wellpoint of targeting thousands of women after a breast cancer diagnosis. Obama repeated the charge. Wellpoint pointed out that they paid in full for over 200,000 cases of breast cancer, and rescinded 4 policies for fraudulent applications.
—New high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, will increase health-care spending by $311 billion.
—Those with pre-existing conditions who have been sacrificing to pay for insurance in their state high-risk pools — playing by the rules, and paying 1 1/2 – 2 times the normal cost — would have to drop their insurance and wait six months to get ObamaCare.
—The State of Indiana has said that the new law could cost the state an additional $3.6 billion. Louisiana has passed a law that the federal government cannot force the state to make their citizens buy coverage, as have 19 other states so far.
—Seven more states have joined Florida in the lawsuit against the federal government — a total of 20 to date — alleging that it is unconstitutional for the government to force individuals to buy health insurance under penalty of fines and prison. The suit has been joined by the National Federation of Independent Businesses on behalf of their 350,000 members.
—Extending dependent coverage to ‘children’ up to age 26 on their parents’ policies means that family premiums will rise by 1 % in 2012, and an additional $3,380 for each dependent.
—AT&T and Verizon pegged ObamaCare losses to them at $ 1 billion each. They indicated that they might have to dump retirees and employee health-care altogether. Other large companies have expressed similar doubts.
—The White Castle chain has said that one provision of ObamaCare will cut the chain’s income in half, and jeopardize future hiring and employment.
—Healthy individuals could save $3,000 annually be dropping coverage, paying fines, and waiting until they get sick to buy coverage. A family of four could save $8,000. This is happening in Massachusetts.
—The requirement that insurers charge everyone of a given age the same premium, regardless of their health status will effectively deny care to sick Americans who are content with their current coverage. If healthy people cost $5,000 to insure, and sick people cost $25,000 — forcing insurers to charge everyone the same premium turns every sick person into a $15,000 liability.
— The United States has been home to most of the important medical advances made over the past forty years. In some fields, America contributes more important innovations than all other nations combined.
Obama could have come up with a law making care better, more affordable and more secure through a bottom-up process of innovation. Instead he extended the world’s most expensive health care system to 32 million more people. And he did so in a way that could “dump” more sick Americans than ever before.
This is a deeply flawed and damaging bill that cries out for repeal.
Filed under: Economy, Health Care, Politics, Statism | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, Obamacare
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, points out some of the danger signs for ObamaCare revealed in the actuary report. The White House says that only 23 million people will remain uninsured, instead of the previously estimated 24 million. The bill won’t really take effect until 2014, but there seems to be plenty of trouble ahead.
Here are the danger spots, as Ms. Turner lists them:
1. About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage.
2. Big fines for companies: Businesses will pay $878 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer government-mandated insurance, and because some employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.
3. Tens of billions in new fees and excise taxes will “be passed through to consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums. Small businesses will be hardest hit.
4. The “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance will face a significant risk of failure. There is a serious risk that the program will be unsustainable.
5. National health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. The federal spending curve will increase by a net total of $251 billion over the next ten years.
6. An estimated 23 million will remain uninsured by 2019, 5 million undocumented aliens, and 18 million who pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.
7. Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within 10 years
8. Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will jeopardize care for beneficiaries. Doctors are threatening to drop Medicare if reimbursement rates mean they can’t cover their costs.
9. A significant number of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them.
Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee explain in a new report the impact of a #14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. This tax will be passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year and will fall more often on small businesses and their employees.
These things stand out at this point, but there are many more money-saving claims that Democrats have made, that seem destined to fail to reduce costs. Governmental plans oft go awry, and things always cost far more than estimated. But we knew all that too, didn’t we.
Filed under: Health Care, Law, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Corruption, Obamacare
You need to sit down. There is news, and you may find it shocking.
ObamaCare will cost more than they claimed.
A new report by the actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at Health & Human Services concludes that rather than cutting costs, the Affordable Care Act will increase medical spending by at least one percent over ten years — a figure that could get bigger — because the government is unlikely to follow through on the proposed Medicare cuts that would push 15 percent of hospitals into the red, and result in service cuts for seniors.
Bet you never expected that, did you?
Some of the cost control measures in the bill, could help reduce the rate of cost increases, but “during 2010 – 2019, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage. Also the longer-term viability of the Medicare ..reductions is doubtful.”
The report also notes that cuts in Medicare Advantage will drive as many as half of seniors out of their plans and into more traditional, and more insolvent, Medicare plans while boosting their out-of-pocket costs. And a new long-term care insurance program buried in the bill — whose premiums were among those items wrongly double-counted as deficit-reducing, faces a “very serious risk” of insolvency.
HHS Secretary Sebelius said: “The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law.”
So there you go. File this under media report.
Filed under: Environment, Health Care, Law, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, EPA, Regulating CO2
This is going to seem really boring, but stick with me. There is method in my madness. Ken Green, who is a scholar at AEI specializing in energy and environment, offers a quick definition from Wikipedia:
Data dredging, according to Wikipedia, is “the inappropriate (sometimes deliberately so) use of data mining to uncover misleading relationships in data. These relationships may be valid within the test set but have no statistical significance in the wider population.” Wikipedia gives a particularly relevant example: “Suppose that observers note that a particular town appears to be a cancer cluster, but lack a firm hypothesis of why this is so. However, they have access to a large amount of demographic data about the town and surrounding area, containing measurements for the area of hundreds or thousands of different variables, mostly uncorrelated. Even if all these variables are independent of the cancer incidence rate, it is highly likely that at least one variable will be significantly correlated with the cancer rate across the area.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2). It looks like cap-and-trade will not make it through the Senate, so the next best idea is regulating — and taxing — CO2, under the Clean Air Act, as a “pollutant.” As CO2 is what we exhale, it’s going to take some heavy evidence to get away with that. Particularly since Climategate has pretty much put a damper on the whole global warming thing. Congress never intended the Clean Air Act for any such thing, but Obama wants a carbon tax. So the EPA proposes to give away $1.4 million in up to $300,000 portions to fund directional data dredging that looks only for relationships that suggest that exposure to various air pollutants cause harm to human health. The polite term for this is “fishing expedition.”
EPA, ever helpful, gives some examples of what such data-dredging exercises might look like. Air pollution associations with respiratory and cardiovascular disease have been studied extensively, but there might be some “air pollution impacts” on additional health conditions including diabetes, neurological disorders, tooth decay, brain tumors, zits, (Okay, I made up the last three, but surely you see the problems).
While data dredging can identify some correlations, it cannot identify causation. It’s one thing for scientists to identify illness in a population, and to investigate what it is that might be causing it, but this is “Seek and ye shall find,” looking for ever more obscure health impacts to justify expanded regulation and EPA intrusion into the economy. This funding proposal should be scrapped.
And the EPA should be scrapped while they’re at it. (But I said that before).
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, Obamacare
Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been signed into law, President Obama has been out on the campaign trail, trying to sell it to an angry populace. In Charlotte, North Carolina, Doris Ravis asked him: “In the economy times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care? Because it — we are over-taxed as it is.”
The president has a fondness for lists:
Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have. Here’s the bottom line: Number one is that we are the only — we have been up until last week the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance, and the vast majority of those folks work. It’s just that they don’t happen to work for a company that is either big enough or generous enough to provide them any coverage.
The president just said that Ms. Ravis’ question was “misapprehension.” But there is another “misapprehension” here. “We are the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance”
This statement, which turns everything on its head, has been the big excuse behind the drive to redistribute income, which is the true goal. The idea that we are somehow behind countries that have universal health care simply doesn’t hold water. Obama keeps implying that anyone who doesn’t have health insurance (and the number was never 50 million, we are only pretending to force 32 million to buy insurance) is going to die as a result.
American health care has been the finest in the world. It is expensive because of 300 million people’s individual decisions. We have chosen to see a specialist, get the test the doctor recommends. And to make sure that there is a safety net, as a country, we have made a law that no one can be turned away from an emergency room. The only place in our health care system where people are forced to do without needed medical care is in the government-run Indian Health Care Service and in the VA. The failures of our health care system can be laid at the doorstep of government regulation.
Socialized medicine does not work in those “advanced” countries with universal health care. Governments tinker constantly, trying to reduce costs. All are in crisis of varying degrees. And we need to pay close attention to the failures, because health care doesn’t matter much when you are perfectly well, it matters when you desperately need it.
Point Number Three is attack the insurance companies . You may think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it. It has been the law for years that insurance companies cannot do any such thing. Obama’s assumption that people are too dumb to grasp this is insulting. He always likes to throw in “going bankrupt and losing your house.” This is pure demagoguery.
“Because the costs are so out of control, all the programs that we already have — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program — all those things are completely out of control. Above all, costs are out of control because of waste, fraud and abuse — estimated as high as $10 billion. And there is nothing in the bill that will reduce that fraud.
Then he started a new list at number one: “Most people individually shouldn’t buy health insurance on their own because they have no leverage and the insurance companies take advantage of it. Instead what we’re going to do is we’re going to set up a big pool, a marketplace, that allows everybody to buy into this pool — that members of Congress, will be a part of so that you know it’s going to be a good deal — because members of Congress, they’ve got to look out for their own families; they wouldn’t vote for it if it wasn’t going to be a good deal.”
That’s when I gave up. I don’t know when they amended the bill to take out the exclusion written in for Congress and key staffers. I suspect that it hasn’t happened, for it would be pretty big news. I would urge you to read this whole speech for yourself. All hopey-changey, say anything that you think the suckers will swallow. The extent to which the president will go in trying to sell his bill is depressing. They must be really worried that we will repeal it.
One more: ” We’re going to start encouraging paying doctors not based on how many tests they take, but based on the quality of the outcome — does somebody end up healthy.” Wow! I’ve never heard of a doctor being paid based on how many tests they order. The tests are usually done by a variety of laboratories, who are reimbursed for their work. And most tests are designed to help a doctor diagnose the state of your health. And they’re going to save money because you won’t get a test from your doctor, the same test from the specialist. Nonsense. My doctors, at least, fax test results, have x-rays hand carried. Nobody repeats the same test.
Ms. Ravis got a 17-minute, 2,500-word response to her question, all over the map, and she never got an answer.
Filed under: Capitalism, Health Care, Law, The Constitution | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Obamacare
Representative Phil Hare (D-Ill) is concerned about all those folks dying in the streets because they don’t have health insurance. Rep. Hare finds those people a much greater concern than the Constitution of the United States, even though they don’t exist. There is no one in the United States that goes without medical care, including illegals, poor people or the homeless.
The Constitution has served us well for 223 years, the oldest and most envied Constitution in the world, but too many of our legislators cannot be bothered to become familiar with it and ponder its meaning.
Do you suppose he really believes that people are dying because they are uninsured? Do they absorb their talking points to such an extent that they believe them? They keep giving us these marvelous glimpses of the Progressive mind. Sad. Really sad!
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Energy, Statism | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, Useless Regulation
The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have set aggressive national standards for fuel economy (35.5 mpg by 2016) and the first ever “greenhouse gas emission levels” for passenger cars and light trucks.
Responding to one of the first major directives of the Obama Administration, DOT and the EPA jointly established “historic” new federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States.
Essentially, the administration is announcing that the American people are not making the “proper” choices about the cars they drive. The government is better qualified to make those choices, and you will obey.
Since the only way to increase fuel economy is to make cars lighter, there will be an increased highway death rate. Decreasing “greenhouse gas emissions” will have no effect on climate. It will have little effect on cleaner air, since CO2 is not a pollutant as claimed by the EPA. Cars will cost more, at a minimum something in the range between $1,100 and $5,000 per car, which means that people will hang on to their old cars longer, meaning more jobs (estimates are 50,000) will be lost in the automobile industry, for car companies will sell fewer new cars.
Taxpayers spent $60 billion to bail out GM. They now own 60% of the company. Now they are going to buy its cars. Obama announced that Washington DC will purchase the first 100 plug-in cars to come off the line, which will have to be Chevy Volts, since they are the only ones available, at $40,000 each, or another $ 4 million from the taxpayers.
Somehow all of Obama’s new directives end up forcing something on Americans that they don’t want, that will cost more, that will accomplish absolutely nothing that it is intended to accomplish, and will destroy another large number of jobs in the process.
If you remember, GM didn’t even want to try to produce the Volt. It costs too much, will only go 40 miles on a charge (if you’re lucky) and its gasoline engine is wimpy. Obama insisted. He knows best.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Health Care, Law, Statism, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, Media Bias, Obamacare
Progressives apparently thought that the Tea Party Movement was so scary— all those people carrying flags and signs — that the ordinary folk out there would be frightened. After all, New York Times reporter Benedict Carey found the country running a right-wing political fever of rage, in a front-page Sunday Week in Review essay. The online headline said “When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?”
An archive photo from Getty Images of the late-1960s left-wing domestic terrorist group The Weathermen, with Obama’s friend Bill Ayers sat directly above a picture of marching Tea Party protesters. Seems to me that the Weathermen were actually responsible for killing and attempted killing. The photos caption:
VARYING DEGREES OF RAGE The Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, second from right, during the Days of Rage in 1969, and anti-health reform protesters in Washington on Sunday.
Rep. John Lewis, (D-GA)claimed that when he and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked through a tea party protest last week in Washington, they heard the N-word shouted at them 15 times. No video or audio recording — when everyone seems to have a recorder — has shown up to back the claim. Andrew Breitbart offered a hefty reward for any such recording, but none has appeared, and videos of the Caucus walk have surfaced with a distinct absence of such threats. The only person arrested for threatening violence in recent days was held for threatening Eric Cantor, the No.2 Republican in the House, and a spent bullet hit the window of his district headquarters.
The Tea Parties I have seen videos of, seem cheerful, as if the protesters are having a great time waving their Gadsden ‘Don’t Tread On Me” flags or national flags, and their signs and conversation seem to indicate that they are well-informed, and object to policy. There is an absence of threats unless you consider “Kill the Bill” terribly threatening.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) canceled a town hall meeting on the healthcare law Tuesday because of concerns about the security of the event reported The Hill.
The congressman’s office cited safety issues at the facility where the meeting was to take place and threats to his office, according to a report by News 21.
We just thought it best to cancel it for safety concerns. This was not meant to be a place where we’re going to talk partisan politics, Pat Lowry, a member of Ryan’s staff told News 21.
Cute idea, fellows, but it just didn’t work. The Tea Party people are angry, but their anger is directed at policy they disagree with, and at the process through which that policy was enacted. And just as a reminder, this is exactly the way things are supposed to work.
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Gullible Left-Wing Media Discovers Right-Wing “Hate:”
And a Little Trip Down Memory-Lane:
There are few things so embarrassing as a montage of the media obediently following the talking points, especially when there was no basis for all their excitement, no basis at all.
Filed under: Economy, Health Care, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, Economic Disaster
This has been an amazing time. President Obama, fresh from a victory in passing a very dirty health care reform bill, now feels it necessary to go out to “sell” ObamaCare. Apparently some 54 (?) speeches before the vote in Congress didn’t succeed in selling it, so he’s now going to give some more speeches — mostly to sneer at and disparage those who cry “Repeal.” This is probably not wise.
The bill passed by a very tiny margin, and passed only because of sleazy backroom threats and bribes, by a Democrat Congress that clearly isn’t enamored with what they have wrought. It passed in the face of the vast disapproval of the American public, who expressed themselves very clearly in poll after poll. The people do not like this bill. They did not want it, and as the folks who assume that they are getting free heath care wake up to reality, opposition will only climb.
Can it be repealed? Those who have watched the British and the Canadians passively accept treatment that we would not stand for, because it is “free,”are afraid that it cannot be repealed. But Americans thought Social Security and Medicare were good ideas at the time. They weren’t demanding ObamaCare, they were demanding jobs and a recovering business climate. Perhaps the greatest lack of communication ever. Or the most arrogant choice to refuse to listen.
There was a time when we thought Prohibition was a good idea. It was a Constitutional amendment, for we were sure that it was a fine and permanent thing. It wasn’t and we repealed the amendment.
Slavery was the way of the world. Every society on earth had practiced slavery, and in spite of an angrily divided country, we repealed that too.
The thing that I find most amazing are the folks who seem to think that it is time we imitated the more advanced Europeans. Where did they get the idea that Europeans are in any way more advanced? America has always been a beacon of freedom to the oppressed peoples of old Europe.
Our economy is in dreadful shape, and one business after another is reporting on the disastrous effects the health care bill will have on them. The “jobs bill” just passed will do little to create any jobs, and Obamacare is a huge job killer. But rather than directly address any of the real problems, the Democrats are urgently chasing old, tired, unworkable liberal ideas left over from failed administrations, from long ago.
Democrats told us back in 2004 that the trouble was that they didn’t have any ideas. I’m afraid that for once, they were right.