The "Change" Obama Brought to Washington

Constitution Smonstitution.  Who needs the separation of powers when you can abuse your Executive Authority?  It's ALL ALLOWED. Legal, even.  Even our Founders, who crafted that glorious document to protect us from such evil, never envisioned the wholesale lack of HONOR we are now witnessing in Washington.

Thanks to he who shall not be named for sharing.

Dems AREN'T Suicidal. They're LAUGHING at Us. Here's Why.

I think these Democrats are fooling all of us.  Every pundit with a microphone is scratching their heads as to why they appear to be on a suicide mission with this bill.  They're not.  They're laughing at us with all those backroom meetings that aren't on CSPAN.  Here's my theory:

1.  We have reached the tipping point where those in the wagon outnumber those pulling the wagon:  51% pay no taxes, the other 49% pay all.  I don't have that on authority, but I have seen articles from reputable sources within the last year that suggest we are either at or fast approaching that point. If this is true, then the tyranny of the majority will vote them into office over and over again with, perhaps, a small recess in 2010.  Perhaps we have arrived and just don't know it, but they do.  We do know for sure that every reputable demographer says that we will be a majority afro-chicano nation by 2035.  Some say 2020.  Recent stories about the birth rate supports this.

2.  If they are willing to use the Slaughter rule to get this purely partisan monster of a bill foisted on us, there is no limit to their shamelessness, thus, they will push through amnesty and further populate the number of people in the wagon.

3.  This population of people, those happy with a nanny state, will be easy to manipulate with emotional pleas and since they will secure all educational lending, outlawing all private educational lending with this bill, we will have an uneducated populace in perpetuity because there will be endless provisos about skin color and cultural history that will demonize and exclude Western European history and meritocracy.

Obama Doesn't Like Being President

BRILLIANT piece below by a blogger I'd heretofore not heard of.  Wonderful dissertation on the old maxim:  "Be careful what you wish for..."

What Does Obama Like About America?

Saturday, January 23, 2010, 1:40 PM

The_Anchoress

We know all the things the Obama administration dislikes about America: Banks, business, journalists who ask actual questions, investors,entrepreneurs, unintimidated voters, traditional alliances, military tribunals,Gitmo, the private sector, the middle class, cities that are still thriving, or trying not to turn into Detroit, people who make more than federal workers while working within the private sector, George W. Bush, transparency, capitalism and possibly the rights to free speech, the rights to dissent and tea partiers.
Also, in general, he doesn’t seem to like being president, much, and having to do more than look pretty, read the teleprompter spend money and blame Bush.
What does he like about America? As one sycophant in the WH press corp has asked, What “enchants” him? The question is worth asking as Obama seems to be declaring a war against suburbia. 77% of investors think our president is against business. Jobs? I guess we’ll all have to work for the government. It’s the only thing Obama seems to like.

It seems to me that Obama stopped enjoying being president when the Ft. Hood massacre occurred, and Obama had to focus on something besides domestic legislation. His speech at Ft. Hood was alright, but his initial responses to it wereless-than inspiring, and recent reports about the incident are less-than-reassuring. That the Obama government can put out a report on Fr. Hood that does not mention Islam or terrorism communicates that Obama is still very uncomfortable with Ft. Hood
Since that event, Obama has seemed prickly and generally in a bad mood. He looks, increasingly, like a man who wishes it would all just go away. His exposed disconnect is disconcerting, his spending habits are deplorable and his instincts about the war on terror seem, um, undeveloped. Whether it comes to who is and his not prosecuted in a court of law, Obama’s Justice Department is remarkably troubling, as is Obama’s odd suggestion that the Justice Department seems to work independently of him, and he has no control over Eric Holder’s decisions.
I mean, he only hired the guy.
Byron York writes:

It seems like a pretty simple question. Who made the decision to charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused terrorist arrested for trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day, as an everyday criminal, as opposed to an enemy combatant?
After all, Abdulmutallab was trained by al Qaeda, equipped with an al Qaeda-made bomb, and dispatched by al Qaeda to bring down the airliner and its 278 passengers. Even though the Obama administration has mostly abandoned the term “war on terror,” the president himself has said clearly that the United States is at war with al Qaeda. So who decided to treat Abdulmutallab as a civilian, read him the Miranda warning, and provide him with a government-paid lawyer — giving him the right to remain silent and denying the United States potentially valuable intelligence that might have been gained by a military-style interrogation?

Writes the WaPo:

The Obama administration had three options: It could charge [Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab] in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Ah, that Eric Holder, the rogue AG who apparently does not communicate with his president!
Obama seems very content to keep his distance from his appointments, his legislators, his allies, and the nation he wants to govern, or at least that is the impression one gets. I am not the only one who thinks that Obama is not much liking being president

Maybe it’s me; maybe I can’t see any Obama speech as a good one these days. But today in Ohio, it seemed like the president was way off his game. But I thought he was defensive, prickly, almost indignant that he’s found himself in the tough spot that he’s in.
He began by talking about how much he didn’t like being in Washington, and apparently said something about the job being stifling. Sir, you spent two years trying to get this job.
One of his rallying cries as, “This is not about me!” Yes, Mr. President, but it’s about the decisions you make and the policies you’re trying to enact.

Now that the glory and adulation have passed, now that the pageant has ended, and the presidency has become a real job, requiring real maturity and a bit of real (not faux) open-mindedness, Obama seems unhappy with most Americans (except the unions) and the feeling of unhappiness and distrust is quite mutual.
Obama is not an optimist; in his incoherence, he cannot passably communicate his love of country (or countrymen) with reliability. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter, with less bitterness but more malaise.
We need better than this, and we deserve better than this. We need a president who seems to understand who Americans are. We need a president who wantsto be the president, and not the prince. We need a president who seem to actually like his country.
We need a president who…well…actually…we need a president.
What? Too much? Too over the top? Come on, some people make a very good living by opining in just that way!

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/01/23/what-does-obama-like-about-america/

"Weather" ISN'T "Climate" ...unless it's CONVENIENT

Al Gore is wanting it both ways again... And that's how we're going to get it:  coming and going, if he has his way.  See my original post and update here.

Sanctimony on OVERDRIVE... and WRONG

I try to do my due diligence and watch "the other side" to see what they are saying in the hope that I might actually learn something or at least be better able to focus my side of the debate, but I never learn anything, and usually end up drowning in the sewage of emotion they think is reason. I literally had to change the channel last night when Crazy Larry was doing this piece it was so over the top wrong. The sanctimony needle was pinning way to the right and damn near burst the glass... Thank GOD Michelle Malkin was able to stomach it to write what needed writing here...

Doing the health care anecdote-vetting the Left won’t do

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 16, 2010 11:27 PM

Here is Larry Scary O’Donnell — who can usually be seen frothing at the mouth with bulging neck veins as he melts down on MSNBC — sloooowly reading a teleprompter as he chastises me, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck for “attacking” 11-year-old Marcelas Owens. Nice to see your Valium is working Larry:

As usual, he gets basic facts wrong — like accusing Rush and me of being “desperate to catch up” with Beck. Actually, he’s got the timeline upside-down, as the enraged Media Matters chronology correctly lays out here.

My syndicated column raising inconvenient questions about Owens’ case appeared was published on March 10 and my follow-up post on Harry Reid hiding behind Owens was published on March 12.

Rush addressed the Democrat exploitation of Owens on March 12.

Beck then discussed the case on March 15.

Also wrong: At 3:28, O’Donnell falsely claims I called the parents of S-CHIP poster child Graeme Frost “spoiled brats” — a misattribution which he alsoregurgitated from Media Matters.

Also moronic: At 6:45 in the video, O’Donnell says conservatives can’t find a single person on Medicaid or Medicare who is unhappy with his/her coverage. Ahem, meet NYTimes columnist Nick Kristof’s favorite health care poster boy, John Brodniak.

Facts, schmacts.

At 7:25 in the video, liberal columnist Chris Hayes of the Nation decries the tendency of conservative pundits to “raise questions and point out errors.” God forbid we do that. Doing the health care anecdote-vetting the Left won’t do? FASCISTS!!!

O’Donnell dubs our analyses of Owens and his left-wing activist grandmother’s claims “childish attacks.” But it’s immature demagogues like O’Donnell who refuse to grow up. I repeat what I said about the NYTimes’ shoddy, gullible, unquestioning coverage of the story four days ago:

The Times fails to mention that Owens’ grandmother and family have been longtime activists for the left-wing, single-payer advocates of the Washington Community Action Network or that the boy and his grandmother traveled to Washington with sponsorship from the Astroturf lobbyists of the Health Care for America Now outfit, which characterized Marcelas as an “insurance abuse survivor.”

Never mind that there is not a shred of evidence that any health insurer ever “abused” Marcelas. Never mind that the family has made no claim that Marcelas himself has survived without insurance (in Washington state, low-income children have been covered either through Medicaid, SCHIP, or the SCHIP expansion program Apple Health for Kids). Newsbusters is also covering the MSM’s soft-shoe coverage of the Democrats’ use of the Owens’ kiddie shield here, here, and here.

Not that gullible health care sob story coverage is anything new to the Times. See: Unbelievable update: The crappiest NYTimes column on Obamacare just got crappier; Update: Kristof’s disingenuous non-response.

The usual hyperventilating from the Left — horrible conservatives “targeting” poor, innocent kid! conservatives “assault” poor, innocent kid! — just proves my point. Despite President Obama’s repeated admonition that health care reform is a “complex issue that can’t be reduced to snippets,” it’s exactly what Reid, Murray, Schumer, and his Owens’ grandmother propped up young Marcelas to do. Anyone who questions the narrative and absolute moral authority of the kiddie human shield is a heartless, right-wing stalker who should be vilified, if not arrested.

As always, the current ruling majority is incapable of holding an adult discussion on the costs and consequences of its plans.

(Makestickers.com)

***

Attacks on Fox News for vetting President Obama’s Ohio poster patient, Natoma Canfield, in 3, 2, 1…

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Natoma Canfield’s battles with cancer and with insurance companies have become a centerpiece of President Obama’s campaign to pass a health care system overhaul.

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield’s sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she’ll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is “racked with worry” about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said “all indications” at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.

Obamacare Will BANKRUPT America

Tim Cahill slams Barack Obama, Dems on health care 

By Jessica Van Sack   |   Wednesday, March 17, 2010  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Local Politics

Photo by Mark Garfinkel

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, taking swipes at both Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, boosted his bipartisan chops yesterday, telling Herald columnist Howie Carr on WRKO, “I voted for John McCain, believe it or not.”
Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”
“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.
“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”
Gov. Deval Patrick argues the state’s universal health care program has added 1 percent to the budget, but Cahill said the real impact is buffered by federal dollars.
Meanwhile, Republican Charles Baker’s campaign said Patrick “has consistently failed to address rising health-care costs in Massachusetts.” Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim CEO, advocated for years for greater transparency on the part of medical service providers.
Cahill called on congressional Democrats yesterday to go “back to the drawing board,” saying he fears they will “bankrupt” the country.
Patrick’s campaign yesterday used Cahill’s health-care smackdown in its latest fund-raising pitch, e-mailing supporters that Cahill “is advocating policies that could put that access, and their health, in jeopardy.” Patrick, whose administration held a hearing on health-care costs yesterday, said exorbitant premium increases and medical service costs need to be curbed through legislation he has proposed.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1240176