CONGRESSIONAL HYSTERIA

The democrats' keening over the debt ceiling debate has reached such a fever pitch that the sound is rapidly reaching dog-whistle decibels.  It's quite amazing, really. 

First was President Obama's warning to seniors that if he doesn't get the plan he wants, Gramma doesn't get her check (baseless fear mongering, at best).  Ah, the Chicago way.  As Capone said, you can get much father with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word alone.  (so whatever happened to that "lockbox", if there's no money for checks, Mr. President?) 

Then came allegations that republicans are hoping for a default, which they can then somehow blame on President Obama (I'm not really clear on how that happens considering how well he polls against republicans on this issue but, like most things liberal, it requires a certain amount of blind faith, so just go with it).  Unfortunately, there are Tea Party members who don't want to raise the ceiling because they think either it is possible to avert surpassing the ceiling with spending cuts alone or that there won't be a default even if we pass the deadline.  Both of these notions are wishful thinking.  Period.  Something must be done, and it must be something that can pass BOTH houses of Congress, including the democratic majority in the Senate.  House Tea Partiers need to hold their noses and pass the Boehner bill and put it firmly in Harry Reid's court.  Once it passes the House, it's up to Reid to either table it or vote it down, and then he can deal with the fallout.  If, by some miracle it lands on Obama's desk, keep in mind that although the spending cuts are much smaller than hoped for, the tax increases Obama demanded aren't there at all and the ceiling increase is just as low as the cuts are; that's a win.  This bill will buy Congress six more months to debate real solutions, hopefully including entitlement reform and some seriously meaty cuts. 

Attempts have been made to play the race card in the debt wars, too - surprise!  But that's not the only fun we've been having with our calmer, gentler, less reactionary members on the left side of the aisle.  The Boehner plan, with its limited increase, would require another ceiling hike over the holidays, so of course the democrats have jumped on that one, too, claiming republicans hate Christmas or something stupid like that.  Speaking of gross exaggerations, check out these charts, which rebut the liberal argument that this debt crisis lies solely at the feet of the eeeevil Bush.  Just look at those numbers - nauseating, isn't it? 

Of course, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (or Debbie Downer, as I prefer) deserves a paragraph of her own for her unhinged, grossly false accusations.  How false?  Even liberal media are taking her to task on her lies.  From her accusations of Republicans hating women, seniors, and God only knows who else, to her allegations that republicans want to "literally drag us back to Jim Crow" (I'm not sure she knows what 'literally' means) or "throw us to the wolves", she's a real piece of work.  In fact, her rhetoric is so unhinged that, even as DNC chief, she isn't getting the kind of media play she was just a few short weeks ago.  My hometown newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel (hardly a conservative rag - we call it the "Slantinel"), even called her an embarrassment to her party.  Ouch!  The one thing I will say in favor of Wasserman-Shultz is that she was willing to do what no other democrat would - take ownership of the economy in the name of President Obama and the democrats.  Good on ya, Debbie.  (unfortunately, she thinks that's a good thing, because she thinks the economy is 'turning around'.  It seems high office does not necessarily denote high IQ)

But the pièce de résistance in this tour de force of hysteria comes from the one and only Queen Nan.  Ms Pelosi is sounding a bit, well.....unhinged (via Gretawire):

“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget,” she said. “We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”

Good gracious.  Somebody needs a Xanax, stat!  Obviously clear heads are not prevailing if our Penelope Pitstop of the Hill is running around, arms flailing, shouting "Hey-elp!  Hey-elp!"  Sorry, Nanny P., Chugga-Boom and the Anthill Gang aren't members of Congress and they won't be riding to our rescue (although it does seem like Dick Dastardly has taken up residence in the White House and his good buddy Mutley is currently running the Senate).

It really seems all the democrats have to offer is demagoguery and derision.  Well okay then, guys - fair enough.  If you insist, the republican bills stink on ice and should never see the light of day.  Happy now?  Okay then, so WHERE'S YOUR PLAN????!

Quite frankly, put up or shut up.  Or better yet, both.

Read more...

CONGRESSIONAL HYSTERIA

NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD-BYE

I've been singing the chorus to this all day.  Here's the picture of the day:

The votes are in.  Speaker Boehner won his spot with a unanimous republican vote.   Former Speaker Pelosi?  Eh, not so much.  The interesting part about the 19 who voted for just about anyone but Pelosi is that many of them are truly an endangered species - conservative democrats.  So the question is, if they are angry enough to publicly refute her via a roll call vote, are they angry enough to work with republicans to reverse her job killing, government expanding, budget busting agenda? 
Perhaps they just simply have no confidence in her anymore, which wouldn't be surprising after the shellacking they took in November.  Add in her utterly delusional take on her term of office yesterday, and it really just isn't surprising at all.  Deficit reduction has been their mantra, indeed.   Perhaps she sensed that the country needed a good laugh after her reign of terror tenure - intended or not, it was hilarious.  If spending $5 trillion in four years is fiscal responsibility, I'll eat my hat.  Thanks, Queen Nan, for reminding us why we dethroned you. 

Here's hoping the 112th Congress is a damn sight better than the 111th.  Luckily, Pelosi's set the bar pretty low.

Congrats, Speaker Boehner. 

Now don't screw it up.  We're watching.

Read more...

NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD-BYE

REBRANDING FEVER

The democrats are in a tizzy of rebranding this week.  This is their go-to tactic when things are falling apart.  Don't try to come up with a new message/legislation/platform, just slap a new name on it, hype a different angle and keep on truckin'. 

Rebranding is a not uncommon thing, but it has had a long history with progressives in particular.  Waaaaaay back at the turn of the 20th century, the progressive party took hold.  Unfortunately, their policies eventually fell out of favor and they had to start calling themselves liberals in the mid 1900's.  After a few decades of the same failed policies under the new label, they managed to make the term liberal unattractive, and so they pulled "progressive" back out of the closet, dusted it off, and have been using that term to describe themselves ever since.

More recent examples of their rebranding fervor was just last year, when the highly unpopular health care bill was rebranded.  "Single payer" became "public option" which then became the "consumer option" with a little side trip to "co-op".  

The war on terror became an overseas contingency operation.  Violent attacks on our country by jihadis were no longer terror attacks or suicide/homocide bombers, they were man-caused disasters.  Just a few weeks ago, President Obama declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, while leaving 50,000 active troops in the country.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was rebranded as Operation New Dawn, and voila! we're no longer at war in Iraq (even though we still have troops dying over there).

Just this week, the democrats launched their new website and logo in an attempt to rebrand themselves as...well, no one's really sure.  I just hope they didn't pay a lot of money for the logo design and website, because it sure looks like they didn't.

Now Science czar John Holdren has offered up rebranding for climate change.  Which, you may recall, was once called global warming.  Well, now they want to call it "global climate disruption".  After all, trying to sell us that we were actually changing a global phenomenon like the weather was a little far fetched, so they must be hoping "disruption" is more palatable. 

The other rebranding taking place this week is a rather odd, ham handed thing involving the much debated Bush tax cuts. Nancy Pelosi managed to really paint herself into a corner on the whole tax cut thing.  She was adamant that the cuts would expire, all of them, top to bottom.  Now she is being forced to backtrack because so many economists are warning of dire consequences to the economy if they are allowed to sunset. So what is her brilliant plan?  She gives them a different name and suddenly, instead of a Bush era payoff to the evil rich, they are an Obama-sent gift from above to the poor, suffering middle class.  She used the new term during her weekly press briefing today, talking about extending the "Obama middle income tax cuts".

 Now, maybe the woman is really stressed out - she certainly has reason to be - and is simply confused.  Unfortunately, the more logical answer is that, since they have nothing else to run on and more and more economists are freaking out, this is a feeble attempt to show her party in a compassionate light while denying credit to the evil Bush.  She seems to think that merely extending the tax cuts for a year or two will automatically make them the brain child of this administration, instead of a holdover from the last.  Frankly, it's rather insulting to our intelligence, Madame Speaker.  This is a blatant attempt to steal credit for something to score political points while simultaniously vilifying Bush for having done it in the first place. 

You would think that they would have learned that a tactic like that doesn't work.  After all, they tried that with the Iraq war, and got blasted for it.  But hope seems to spring eternal on Capitol Hill.  Either that, or she's having a nervous breakdown.  It's hard to tell which. 

Read more...

REBRANDING FEVER

JUMPING BACK INTO THE VAT

Back in October, I wrote a post in The Ripley Report about the Value Added Tax.  I'm reposting it, because it is still relevant, seven months later.  There is an addition to the post, though.

According to the trial balloon the administration is floating lately about the VAT, it would be set at about 5%.  Don't expect it to stay that way very long.  Let's not forget that the federal Income Tax started at 1%.  European countries have VATs of about 20% or more. 

The fact that Nancy Pelosi is enthusiastic about the idea - and has been for a while - is nothing short of frightening.  Public opinion and the good of the country mean nothing to that woman.  If she wants the tax, she will move heaven and earth, break arms, bribe, threaten and browbeat to get what she wants.  Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the health care "debate". 

Without further ado, here's the Ripley Report on the VAT:

Thursday, October 8, 2009


JUMPING INTO THE VAT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on PBS's 'The Charlie Rose Show' Monday, said, "Somewhere along the way, a Value Added Tax plays into the - of course we want to take down the health care cost, that's one part of it, but in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a Value Added Tax as well."

So what is a value added tax, anyway?

Well, the short answer is that it is a consumption tax that is added at each stage of production according to the value added to the product and included in the cost to the consumer.

The long answer? VAT is common around the world, and ranges from 5% all the way up to 25%, and would effect every good purchased. According to the Washington Post,

"a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor."

So a VAT would pay for our many entitlements, but we would feel it every time we purchased something. Don't forget, that VAT is in addition to whatever state sales taxes might be applicable. This is a hefty tax, and, although it technically is levied on manufacturers, the purchasing public will really be paying the price.

This is also a major redistributive mechanism, because a VAT of between 10-14% would generate enough revenue that families making under $100,000/year (about 90% of households) would be exempt from paying income tax, and even those in high tax brackets would enjoy a slight reduction in tax rates. Provided, of course, that the greedy little piggies at the Washington trough allow exemptions and reductions. I don't recommend you hold your breath on that one.

They will most likely attempt to spin it as a tax on all those mean old corporations who are - gasp - profiting from their endeavors. How dare they?! Businesses aren't supposed to make dirty old money, they're supposed to take care of us and give us stuff and be really, really nice and...hey, is that a unicorn peeping out from behind that pretty rainbow?

Back in the real world that all of us outside of D.C. have to live in, a VAT means that, while they can technically say with a straight face that this isn't a tax on the middle class, this is a tax on the middle class, and a big one, at that.

Read more...

JUMPING BACK INTO THE VAT

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

The far left in this country have been waging a war of words for decades, and their favorite tactic is changing meanings of words to suit their needs.  They are also fond of assigning labels, whether they are applicable or not.  They love to disparage their opponents by using the "scary words" - racist, fascist, extremist.  They know that people back down when they are called certain names, whether they apply to the situation or not. 

The most common example is, of course, the claims that the Tea Parties are racist.  There is no proof of this, but repetition brings on a sense of truth.  If they scream it loud enough and long enough, people will believe it.  Alan Colmes said today that just because there wasn't video of the alleged racial and homophobic slurs doesn't mean they didn't happen.  Actually, Mr. Colmes, that's exactly what it means.  With hundreds of cameras, several in the hands of the alleged "victims" themselves, the fact that there is no video proof whatsoever is in reality proof that the incident never occurred.  And yet the narrative continues.

Today on Fox and Friends, actress Aisha Tyler was part of a panel discussing political topics.  She is obviously an intelligent, informed woman (she has a degree in political science), but she said something that really irritated me, and it's something that definitely needs to be addressed.

One of the other guests commented that the current administration was fascistic.  Ms. Tyler took offense to that term, and stated that fascism is a strictly right-wing policy and so cannot be used to describe the current left-wing administration.

Let's take a look at what Merriam Webster has to say about the definition of  "fascism":

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I have checked other dictionaries, but have not seen a single entry that states that fascism is a right-wing only term. The premise that the Nazi's were right-wingers has sprung up in acedemic circles and is being taught in our universities - Ms. Tyler's thought process is most likely due to her poli-sci degree.  Why has fascism (and nazism) been assigned to the right?  (via Free Republic):

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

One also wonders if this attempt to demonize Nazism and make it a right-wing contrivance is because, unlike the atrocities perpetrated in the name of communism, the effects of nazism were photographed and documented for posterity.  It is difficult to whitewash the horrors of the Nazi socialist state because the entire world was inundated with those horrific images.  If that photographic evidence had not existed, would fascism still be considered a bad thing today?  Communism, on the other hand, has remained in the shadows, because the communist dictatorships never allowed such information to be disseminated.  Western cameras were not allowed into the gulags and firing lines.  Documentation was destroyed, redacted or remains classified to this day.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches. At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

The left is revising history yet again in their attempt to portray the Nazis as right-wingers, but if you check out the real history, you will find that they were socialists - the term "nazi" stands for National Socialist Workers Party.  Socialism is most definitely NOT a right-wing ideology.  The Nazis ruled from a strong central government that regulated both the economy and society with an iron fist, and they were assuredly in firm control of the press.  One need look no further than the death camps and all of the accounts of dissenters disappearing in the night to verify the "forcible suppression of opposition", and Hitler easily comes to mind when the topic of brutal dictators comes up.

The left also uses corporatism in their argument that the Nazis and Mussolini were right-wingers, but, again, this doesn't fly.  Our past few administrations are perfect examples of corporations benefitting from both sides of the political spectrum, but with this administration there might be a little buyer's remorse happening.  The left is just as arm-in-arm with corporations as the right, but there are one or two major differences between them.  The republicans are pro free market capitalism, and aren't really interested in government control of corporations - Bush-era bailouts didn't come with the strings of governmental control.   The left's bailouts come with strings so thick and unbreakable that they could be used as cables on the Golden Gate bridge.  Under Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the federal government is becoming more and more entwined with and calling the shots more and more often for corporate America.  The left also has something the right does not - the "power of persuasion" of it's union minions.  Power they have been wielding quite effectively over the past year or so.

Hitler was vehemently anti-capitalism, because he felt that the capitalist system favored the Jews.  Our current administration is anti-capitalism because of their quest for the perfect socialist utopia.  The reasons may be different, but the end result is the same - the destruction of the free market economy and the slide into socialism.

For those who scoff at the socialist label, I offer this definition of state socialism, which could also be considered "european-style" socialism:

an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class

We have allowed the left to hijack our history and turn it on it's head.  Up is down, left is right, and disinformation rules.  We must take back the narrative and set the record straight.  So the next time you hear someone call you a fascist because you lean right, set them straight.    Keeping silent allows their version to become the accepted reality.  Standing up to them will be a hard fight, but it's one worth winning, and it's one that most definitely CAN be won. 

Our quest over the next few years isn't just to take our country back politically, it's to restore our history, and teach it to our kids.  We must restore the true meaning of names and labels and thus strip the liberals of their power.  Always remember - "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Read more...

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

TIME TO FULLY ENGAGE

The passing of Obamacare has been a real disappointment, but, unfortunately, not unexpected.  Especially disappointing is Bart Stupak's deal with the devil for a non-binding, waste of paper executive order and nearly $800,000 in taxpayer dollars for local airports.  There's no need to go into detail about it, though.  Hopefully his conservative district will make sure he is no longer a policy maker come November.

I have been wanting to blog on the health care situation, but have had family illnesses to take care of, ironically enough.  It's a bit late in the week to give a rundown of the health care bill, though, as it's been played out in the press ad nauseum.  Besides, now that it's passed we're finally going to be allowed to read it, so there is sure to be plenty of new stuff to talk about.  But, with all of the talk about repealing the law, it's time to figure out what we the people can do to fight against the tyranny imposed upon us by "the most powerful woman in 100 years" and her corporate cronies. 

Which brings me to what else we can do to combat the european socialization of this country against our will.  One of the reasons the democrats are so powerful is that they have the unions and most major corporations in their pockets, no matter how much they protest that it is the republicans in bed with corporate America.  The unions are with them because of shared ideology, but the corporations are working with them out of greed and self-preservation. 

Big Pharma is in bed with the administration because, in exchange for $80 billion in 'consessions' (lower drug costs), they will rake in hundreds of billions in perks.  The twelve year moratorium on imported drugs alone is highly lucrative.  Let's not forget, too, that there will be millions of new customers in the system and  no price controls.  The insurance industry has bought into the plan as well - after all, that means millions more customers for them, too.

In short, their greed is their destruction.  They have cut a deal for short-term gains, with nary a thought to the control they have handed over.  This is soft nationalization.  On the face of it, it seems like the industries are in control, but in reality, the government calls the shots.  Eventually it will evolve into hard control, but progressives are all about baby steps.  It enables them to call something "ridiculous" because it is still 10 steps away.   But a decade or two later, there we are. 

Since their greed impels them, it is their greed that we must tap into.  We the People have no lobby, so we must use our wallets in other ways.  It's difficult to boycott health industries, because it's often impossible to forgo or substitute the care we need, but there is still a way.

Wall Street.  Sell all Big Pharma and insurance stocks and buy into other sectors.  After the passage and signing of the bill, health industry stocks had nice little rallies - their gamble is paying off already, and it
is tempting to want to take a piece of that.  It's important to remember that they will be rewarded for their manipulations if people buy their stocks and drive the price up.  Instead, we need to sell their stock and drive the price down.  There are some who have even taken the step to remove all holdings related to the Obama administration as a whole.  IRA's, 401(k)'s, any stocks that support groups supporting Obama, Pelosi and the agenda need to lose their shareholders and thus the price of their stock.

There are still ways to fight this agenda.  We still have power, and we don't have to wait until November to use it.

We're winning other battles by going around the left - this is just one more front.  We're winning the media battle by using the internet, and in Texas we're winning the propaganda battle being waged against our children through their textbooks.  As Rosie says,

If money is the only language they understand, then we will talk in money.  Not just the health care industry - let's not forget that they are taking up Cap and Trade soon, just as soon as they rebrand and repackage it.  We can get a twofer on that one - GE is heavily leveraged in green technology and the administration.  That includes GE, NBC Universal and RCA.  Any company that lobbies for an administration bill should be held accountable by the stockholders.  Dropping share prices speak far more clearly to them than protest signs held across the street behind police barriers.  As a health care activist so aptly put it at a $10,000 a seat fundraising dinner last year for Sen. Max Baucus, who was putting together his health care bill (via the Washington Post):

"Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside."

Protesting was a potent weapon in the left's arsenal because they received positive coverage from the media.  Tea parties get paltry coverage, and what there is of it is generally negative and diminishing in nature.  Not that we shouldn't keep protesting - no matter how much they spin it, pictures don't lie.

We need to realize that we have more than one arrow in our quiver, and it's time to start letting them fly.

Read more...

TIME TO FULLY ENGAGE

DEMON PASS NOW THE RULE

The House voted 222-203 to use demon pass on Sunday's upcoming health care vote today.  A few dems who said they were no votes on Obamacare voted yes on the use of the Slaughter Solution, but it's anybody's guess as to whether they will keep their word on Sunday and vote no or not. 

This is bad, bad news, since many fence-sitting dems seemed to be more concerned about the process than the content or cost of the bill.  Apparently the process wasn't as worrisome as first thought.  With any luck, they will realize the error of their ways come November, but, in the meantime, we will have to deal with the repercussions of their actions.

If they pass this monstrosity with demon pass on Sunday, and it ends up going to Obama for a signature, there are still a few things that can be done.

Namely, lawsuits.

There are a number of suits being prepared.  Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation is preparing to file suit against the federal government if they pass the health care legislation through deem and pass. 

But wait, there's more....

Idaho passed legislation last night that would require the state attorney general to file suit against the federal government because of the individual mandate.

Virginia was the first state to pass legislation against the federal government over the health care legislation.  On March 11, 2010 they passed a bill opposing the individual mandate, arguing that insurance is a good and the federal government has no right to force their citizens to buy a good of any kind.

Thirty-six other states have filed legislation to challenge Obamacare - .Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Missisippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Four more states have indicated an intent to file - Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, Utah.

It may only be symbolic, but the fact that 38 states are preparing to sue the federal government over a piece of legislation could easily be viewed as a consitutional crisis.

It's a bit surprising that Texas wasn't on any of those lists, but, then again, they seem to prefer to seceed altogether. 

My home state of Florida is stepping up to the plate, too.  The attorney general, Bill McCollum, has sent a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General:

"I invite you to join me in preparing a legal challenge to the constitutionality of whatever individual mandate provision emerges, immediately upon the legislation becoming law."

Sunday's vote does not mean the end of this 'debate'.

Oh, and you'd better gird your loins - The One is saying the Slaughter rule is so nifty that they might just use it on immigration "reform" and other goodies.

It has been said that Mr. Obama has told House democrats that his presidency is at stake.  Because when you really get down to it, it's always about Obama, isn't it?

There is the faint hope of a silver lining to all of this, and it all depends on the Supreme Court.  With any luck, the fact that there is no provision allowing the feds to force the public to buy goods nor pass laws by 'deeming' them passed, that more than half of the states are preparing to file lawsuits, and that the majority of the American people are vehemently against this bill will weigh heavily in their decision. 

It looks like this mess is going to pass, even though Senate Republicans are preparing a flood of amendments to slow things down.  Reid only needs 51 though, and he most probably has it.

We can only hope that the legal challenges stave off the taxation that will start immediately, and that the Supreme court will hear the cases and find in our favor.  Hopefully the remaining 12 states will file their own legislation along with the rest, but counting on California, Oregon, Vermont and Hawaii is probably not a wise move.

All we can do now is watch democrats flip and flop like fish in the sun as they are threatened and bribed for the final vote.
.

Read more...

DEMON PASS NOW THE RULE

SUNSHINE = DEMON PASS

There is a new term for Rep. Louise Slaughter's unconstitutional solution to the democrat's health care dilemma.  Pelosi called it a "deem and pass" rule.  When you say that quickly, it sounds like "demon pass" - which is quite fitting, really, and seems to be sticking.   What more perfect name for a bill straight from the depths of Hell that has been served up by the queen succubus herself?  For those who don't know what a succubus is, it is a demon who takes female form to fornicate with men.  The only difference with my reference is that it will be the entire US population that will be getting screwed, not just the men.

Demon pass is in the process of being covered up, too - it's that distasteful.  Democrats are out on the talk circuit saying there will be a vote for health care, and whatever the public may have heard otherwise is sheer propaganda on the part of Fox News, Glenn Beck, and other lying right-wing radical propagandists. 

Their arguments just don't pass the sunshine test, though.  Speaking of sunshine, did you know that it's "Sunshine Week" on Capitol Hill?   It really is starting to feel more and more like we have all been unceremoniously dumped right in the middle of the Bizzarro world, doesn't it?  Nothing makes sense anymore, and the irony is so thick right now that I'm surprised there hasn't been a magnetic pole shift.

"During Sunshine Week, which focuses on the importance of open government and freedom of information, Congress is taking action to make the government more accountable, transparent and responsive to the American people," reads a fact sheet distributed to House Dems' offices, and which was provided to Hotline OnCall by an incredulous Dem aide.
"The public's right to know what its government is doing is fundamental to a thriving democracy and critical to empowering the American people to play an active role in their government, and to giving them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger," the document reads.

The glaring hypocricy of this statement is staggering.  House democrats are in the process of passing a bill that no one has read by the entirely inappropriate means of attaching it to yet another bill that no one has been allowed to read (and don't forget the other bill included in the mess for good measure) and 'deeming' it passed instead of actually voting to pass it.  The only vote will be for approval of the rule that allows this travesty to occur.  The bill is chock full of smoke and mirrors, and the people out touting the bill are shamelessly lying through their teeth and being caught at it on a regular basis.   The bill itself is a deception of monumental proportions, from it's cost to it's effect on the American people, economy and health care system

This ridiculous attempt at touting transparency isn't really unexpected, though, if you think about Pelosi's modus operandi.  You can pretty much assume that anything out of her mouth is the exact opposite of reality, so her campaign to appear to support 'sunshine' and 'transparency' really means we should brace ourselves for more deception, substerfuge and shady dealings.  Apparently the democrats think that we are still believing whatever they say, no matter how insane it may be.

When, exactly, does this all go from bad behavior to tyranny?  In my personal opinion, the line is getting pretty blurry. 

Methinks the public will be doing a little 'demon pass' themselves.  Come November, they will 'deem' this administration an abomination and will 'pass' on reelecting them.

Read more...

SUNSHINE = DEMON PASS

THE SECRET SHELL GAME

In a report on health care tonight on Special Report with Bret Baier, they played a clip of Nancy Pelosi speaking at the National Association of Counties today about the legislation.  She said:

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it - away from the fog of the controversy."

After the clip, Baier said "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it?"  To which the reporter, Jim Engle, replied (with a laugh) "Yea, I just report it, I didn't say it."

Whatever happened to that whole thing about transparency and bills being online for the public to view for at least 72 hours before a vote?

With all of the "controversy" over the bills and the way they are ramming them through, no one has really focused on what bill exactly we are talking about.  It is generally acknowledged that we are talking about the Senate bill, but, really, is it?

Obama himself apparently has a "proposal" out there, for what it's worth.  When he talks about the legislation, it seems like he is talking about his proposal.  But when the pundits speak about the situation, they are talking about the Senate bill.  Pelosi is just using the generic term "legislation" at this point.  Perhaps she thinks the Senate will miraculously pass her bill. 

What, exactly, is the point of Obama's "Proposal"?  It seems like it is just a blind behind which the democrats are hiding.  Sure, the proposal claims a lot of things, but, really, what does it matter?  It isn't going to get voted on, the items in it are not being included in the legislation, so what is the deal?  To me, it seems like its entire purpose is to act as cover when a democrat is asked if something is in the Senate bill that isn't.  "Sure, yeah, that's in the proposal".  Remember, these are lawyers we're talking about.  They aren't lying, because it probably is in the proposal - but that doesn't mean it's in the legislation. 

The Tonight Show had a hilarious spot about Pelosi talking health care while playing a shell game.  How apt.  One can assume the three cups are the House plan, the Senate plan and Obama's proposal.  God only knows what piece of garbage is going to emerge out from under all of this, but it's safe to assume that the country is being played, and the game is bait and switch.

Meanwhile, Robert Gibbs is starting to walk back his March 18th deadline.  Is it just me, or does it seem like this bill is like one of those nightmares that you think you have woken up from but find out you are still in - over and over and over again?

During the round table discussion, Charles Krauthammer opined that Rep. Stupak will probably vote yes on the bill:

"I predict Stupak will accept a compromise because I think he does not want to carry the mark of Cain all his life as the man who sank historic health care reform."

I have no doubt whatsoever that that is exactly how Pelosi is pressuring him (along with making plenty of hollow promises, bribes and threats).  What he really needs to think about, however, is the other side of that coin.

This bill is flawed - it doesn't matter which bill we're talking about, because all of the democrat health care offerings are flawed.  So although I can understand him not wanting to be blamed by his own party for killing health care, I wonder if he is prepared to be blamed by anywhere from 57 - 81% of the country as the man who cast the vote that forced this nightmare on the people.

Read more...

THE SECRET SHELL GAME

LIAR LIAR

As a mom, I've heard some real whoppers.  On the second day of preschool, my eldest came to me, limping.  "I can't go to school, Mom", she gasped out, her little face scrunched up, one hand grasping her leg.  "What's wrong, honey?  Why can't you go to school today?" I asked, concerned.  "I can't go to school today because I broke my leg" she moaned, bottom lip stuck out to really sell it.  Ooookaaay.  Get your coat on and get in the car, kid.

I learned two things that day - one, my child definitely has a career in the theater if she so chooses, and two, there is no lie too ridiculous for some people.  Now, my child was just 4 when she said this, so I will cut her some slack. 

Unfortunately, there are people in high places whose mothers apparently never caught (or chose to ignore) their offspring's blatant fallacies.  This has to be the case, or else why would we have been subjected to the obvious whoppers that have been tossed out for our consumption just this past week. 

Our first example of creative modification of the parameters of a situation comes from the Goracle himself, the High Priest of Gaia, Al Gore.  Mr. Gore has finally made a statement about ClimateGate.  So what excuse has Mr. Gore given for the fiasco that is ClimateGate?  He's had about three months to come up with something, so I'm sure it was worth the wait:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Okay, maybe not.

Only two mistakes, huh Al?  I think not.  Let's see - the Himalayan glaciers aren't going to disappear by 2035.  African agriculture is increasing, not decreasing.  The sea levels are not rising.  The rainforests are not at risk of becoming tropical savannahs.  Not only aren't the polar bears waning into extinction, their numbers have increased fivefold in the past 25 years.  The Arctic is not ice-free and most likely won't be for a long time.  Those issues I just mentioned are the foundation and pillars upon which the Gaia cult has been built.  The so-called 'scientists' involved in the scam have perverted the scientific process from one of empirical evidence, stringent peer review and theories proved by scientific fact into a quasi-religious ideology of hysterical what-if scenarios fobbed off as fact, alienation of skeptics to the point of ostracism and career destruction, and forcing facts (to the point of blatant fabrication) to support a theory.   BTW - this is a point of view now supported by none other that Phil Jones, the disgraced former head of the CRU.

Mr. Gore, you are lying.  You have been called out on it, and doubling down and pretending you wish it wasn't true doesn't make it so.  The scam has been exposed.    I myself would like to see hearings on this and see prosecutions of the scam artists at the center of it, Mr. Gore included.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an epidemic of liars on the liberal front.  The entire agenda seems to be falling apart, so they are all doubling down and blatantly lying in a vain effort to further their plans.

Take Nancy Pelosi for instance.  This weekend Queen Nan went on the talk show circuit and didn't just tell a strategic lie or two - it was more like a carpet-bombing expedition.  The lies were flying so fast and thick that it was a little difficult to keep it all straight.

The most stunning lie was her assertion that she and the Tea Partiers had 'common ground'.  I can only imagine the reaction of most tea partiers, but I for one, was utterly disgusted by the naked opportunism on display with that one.  With one breath she talks about them being astroturf, and with the next, they are her long-lost brethren.  Hey, wait...taken in that contex, maybe she's right.....

She spoke of fellow democrats giving up their careers to do what is best for Americans.  Easy for her to say, since the odds of her losing her seat are about the same as her stimulus bill creating a job - about 787 billion to one.  She says she is listening to the people and doing what is best for them.

She also mentioned a unique definition of 'bipartisan':

"Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint."

Fascinating.  The only imprint I can think the Republicans have left in regards to this bill is the imprint of their knuckles on the locked door behind which Madame Sneaker wrote the bill with her closest cronies.

The blatant lying is reminiscent of my four year old, clutching her leg and really trying to sell it that it was broken.  Sorry, honey, but I'm just not buying it.  Or, better yet, in words she will be able to understand:

"Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire".

Read more...

LIAR LIAR

HEALTH CARE HUSTLE

The health care intervention summit can be summed up thusly:

The Democrats spoke for a total of 5 hours 46 minutes and the Republicans were allowed to speak for 1 hour 50 minutes...and the Republicans still won.

Pelosi told a whopper, but Harry Reid was determined to outdo her. 

Obama got testy but still managed to avoid the subject he was being grilled on.  "We can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about what the American people need right now."  Translation:  "How dare you call me out on that - stay on topic!"  (Saul Alinsky translation - the ends justify the means - it doesn't matter how we got here; what matters is that we're here.)

All in all, it was sort of fun - in a really excruciatingly boring way.

Read more...

HEALTH CARE HUSTLE

STATE OF THE YAWN-ION

Boy, was the State of the Union speech boring last night.  Even his own people couldn't stay awake.  Well, except for Nancy Pelosi, who was doing her annoying jack-in-the-box/seal clap routine. Granted, political speeches generally are boring, but this one was particularly so because it was just a rehash of every other speech he has given for the past year.

I guess you could say that speaks to his convictions.  Unfortunately, even his own party is starting to reject his agenda - after all, he may not be up for reelection this year, but they are. 

He has offered to listen to other ideas for health care reform.  Okay, how about the many options the Republicans have offered up that are languishing in committees in both Houses?  The problem with them is that they don't require a massive new bureaucracy and entitlement, so the democrat leadership aren't interested.

He blames Bush and the Republicans and literally in the next sentence calls for bipartisanship.  Nice.

He calls for spending freezes because of our faltering economy - to start next year.  What about this year, champ?  We're hurting now.

He mentions Cap and Trade, too.  Great....more billions spent on 'science' that is looking more and more dubious with every passing day.  He argues that green jobs will stimulate the economy.  I think Spain would argue with that - for every green job they created, they lost 2.2 regular jobs.  Yeah, that will help - help make us nostalgic for the good old days of 10% unemployment....

He barely mentioned foreign affairs or the two wars we are waging.  I suppose national security isn't important enough to rate more than 5 minutes.  Perhaps he didn't want to dwell on it and risk alienating our enemies.  Wouldn't want to offend the terrorists, now would we? 

All in all, it was the same old schtick.

He is going to continue to ram his agenda down our throats, he is going to continue to bankrupt the country and risk massive inflation by printing money to pay for his agenda, and he is going to continue to ignore the fact that there are people out there in the world who want to kill as many of us as possible.

The only new thing was his announcement to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'.  As a free society, everyone has a right to be who they are, and if you are gay and want to fight and possibly die for your country, so be it.  No one should have to pretend to be something they're not, especially when you put your life on the line every day.  Our military fights for the freedom of all Americans, so all Americans should be able to join the ranks.

For those who are wary of the gayification of the military, rest assured - I'm pretty sure the more flamboyant characters won't be signing up and sashaying to the front lines wearing guyliner, platform boots and sparkly glamoflage.  There have been gays in the military throughout history, and there are gays in our military now.  As a free society, if they want their peers to know their orientation, they should be allowed to speak about it without fear of reprisal.  The stigma of homosexuality isn't what it was 20 years ago - most young people these days have known at least one gay person - and, as I said earlier, it's their country, too, and if they want to serve it, they should be allowed to do so.

So aside from 'don't ask, don't tell', the speech was pretty much the same old, same old.    Dear Leader is hell bent on bankrupting our children and forcing us all to be subservient to the Nanny State.

I have to say it's actually a little bit of a relief that he has decided not to 'pivot' and head back to the center.  That means the republicans are pretty much guaranteed to take the House come November, and possibly make the Senate a 50/50 split.

Now that's a state of the union I can get behind!

Read more...

STATE OF THE YAWN-ION

POLITICAL FREEZE

The President is expected to propose a freeze on discretionary spending in his State of the Union tomorrow.  The pundits are having a field day, trotting out campaign video of Candidate Obama lambasting John McCain for suggesting the same thing and crowing about another example of liberal hypocracy. 

Yes, yes, it's hypocritical, but that is just a little minor side issue.  The bigger issue is what is and isn't being cut and how much is really coming off.

The freeze will basically keep discretionary spending at 2010 levels until 2013.  What is not being mentioned is how much funding went up in the past year under the democrats.  Much like stores are accused of jacking up prices before declaring a sale, our federal government has jacked up spending before demanding a freeze.  To the tune of about 12%.  That should keep them until the freeze is over (then prepare for another huge increase to make up for three years of no increases).

So who doesn't make the cut, you ask?  Well, the military, for one.  This actually comes as quite a surprise.  Not that the Pentagon couldn't afford to trim $30 or $40 billion, but usually the military is the first place liberals go to make cuts - deep ones.  All entitlements are exempt, of course.  Too bad they won't rescind the Welfare reform repeal they legislated last year.  The reforms of the 1990's were so successful because states were no longer getting paid to increase their welfare rolls.  Welfare became a fiscal burden to the states instead of a subsidy bonanza - they couldn't afford it anymore, so they cut programs.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid have reinstituted those payoffs to states for increasing their rolls with the passage of the stimulus bill.  How about cutting that? 

The other objectionable 'mandatory' spending item is international aid.  Now, for emergency situations like Haiti, I think a certain amount of aid is necessary.  However, Obama pledged $900 million to Hamas last year, for example, to help them rebuild after the latest skirmish with Israel.  No money was pledged to Israel, but Hamas, a terror group that has been previously unrecognized by our government because of it's stance against Israel, is offered nearly a billion dollars.  That money will most likely go to rebuilding their depleted munitions stores instead of infrastructure and aid to it's citizens.  I say every terrorist for themselves - cut the payout.

Any and all international aid not related directly to emergency circumstances should be halted immediately.  The rest of the world may feel the pinch of a few years without (or reduced) American aid, but it gives us a chance to save ourselves.  The world economy is sinking.  We are the strongest swimmers out there, but we are being dragged down by all of the hangers on.  It's time to focus on saving ourselves first, so we can then help everyone else.   A three year pinch is a heck of a lot more desirable to tanking the economy that drives the globe.

So don't get caught up in the hypocrite hype.  There are much bigger (and more expensive) issues at stake.  We need more than just politically expedient freezes.  We need deep, meaningful cuts.  It's time to get to the red meat.

Read more...

POLITICAL FREEZE

THE BEAST IS DEAD

Praise God, hallelujah! The beast that is Obama Care is dead!!

After a desperate last ditch (closed door, natch) negotiation among House democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally admitted defeat.  For now.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Fear not, I'm sure a monster like that won't die easily, but hopefully it's next incarnation will be bipartisan and more palatable to the American people.  Hope springs eternal!

Here's the line that made me choke:

"We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

Isn't this the same bill they have been trying to rush through under cover of darkness?  Didn't they set, like, 4 different timetables for it?  Wasn't it absolutely going to be on Obama's desk for his signature by the time he gave his State of the Union address?  Nah, no rush....

Perhaps now they will focus on jobs and the economy (hey, at least the K Street lobbyists had a banner year - it's a start, right?)

Read more...

THE BEAST IS DEAD

JACK CAFFERTY GOES OFF Updated

CNN's Jack Cafferty goes off on Obama, Pelosi and Congressional democrats in general:





It seems Pelosi has gone too far with her laughing about campaign promises as just a means to an end, not something to be held to, and her arrogant insistence that the whole health care process has been transparent.  Even the left-wing neoPravda media now know just how stupid she thinks the American people are.

Welcome to the resistance, Jack!  I'm glad you took the red pill....better late than never!

UPDATE:  Jack must really be disillusioned.  Make sure you watch to the end - he makes a comment about Pelosi that is just priceless:




At least the hookers were free!

Read more...

JACK CAFFERTY GOES OFF Updated

NANCY'S GOTTA GO

Nancy Pelosi must go.

She is a danger to this country - her tactics since becoming Speaker of the House are foul, underhanded, and quite possibly treasonous.  She is implementing her radical agenda against the protests of a majority of Americans.  Her response to the many outrages she has committed against them is to deride, ridicule, slander and patronize.

Her response to a reporter's question on whether she will allow C-Span to cover the health care negotiations that will be taking place in some back room under cover of darkness with no bipartisan consensus was to be expected. 

The woman actually laughed - laughed - when the reporter mentioned Obama's campaign promise to allow C-Span to broadcast the open, transparent, public-approved negotiations.  She made a blatant dig at Obama and his remarkable record of broken campaign promises by saying, "There are a number of things he was for during the campaign."

Silly Americans, she seemed to say, don't you know we will say anything to get elected?

My response?  Silly politician, don't you know we can fire you for your insolence?

Now, granted, the odds of Pelosi being voted out of office in San Francisco are about equal to the odds of, say, Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin being voted in to take her seat.   So she will always be a fixture in the House, like it or not. 

But we can join together and boot her out of the Speaker chair. 

Although President Obama is getting the most heat for the radical nature of the current administration's agenda, the real force behind it is Pelosi.  She is the one breaking arms and making deals - Harry Reid is dancing to her tune and following her lead in his efforts to further her agenda.  Not that Obama isn't culpable, mind you.  The fact that he is stepping back and allowing Pelosi and Reid free rein (all the while giving lip service to a 'new era of bipartisanship') is the main reason he is taking the heat for their actions.  A leader he is not, and that will come back to haunt him in 2012, if not sooner.

The hyperpartisanship that has become such a blatant feature of this Congress is entirely due to Pelosi.  It began in 2007 when she took over as Speaker, but, since the democrats won a supermajority and the White House, she has really gotten out of control. 

She seems to be drunk with power, and rightly so.  There is not a single person in a position of power even attempting to rein her in. 

Why?  Because her agenda is their agenda, but she can take the heat because the odds of her being voted out of office are slim to none (although, at least in my case, hope springs eternal).  I'm sure Harry Reid is wishing it was the same for him.

The damage she is doing to this country is inexcusable.  She must be removed from the Speaker position in November.  Conservatives must take control of the House.  It is the only hope this country has to get the train back on the tracks.

The great part about unseating her is that there is a good chance that people like Alan Grayson or, God willing, Barney Frank will be removed in that effort.  We need to act locally but think nationally (and believe me, as a constituent of Grayson's, I will be working overtime to make sure he is a one-termer).  For every Grayson or Frank removed brings us one step closer to prying that gavel out of her power grabbing fingers.

It's time to take a page from the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook the liberals have been following.  It's time to make Pelosi the figurehead of the democrat movement and invoke Rule #13.  It's time to pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.  Wouldn't it be sweet, sweet poetic justice to use her own tactics to neutralize her?

However it's done, though, Nancy's gotta go.

Read more...

NANCY'S GOTTA GO

SPENDING GUILT

The other night, our esteemed Representatives scuttled from Washington like cockroaches when the light is turned on, heading for home, vacation or Copenhagen after a few last minute votes, including for the $174 billion jobs bill.  They also passed a $636 billion defense bill, $128 billion of which is going to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is no provision for the Afghan surge Obama has ordered, mind you, and a large portion of the money in the bill is going to short term extensions for unemployment benefits, health care subsidies for the jobless, doctor payments, the federal highway and transit system and the Patriot act.  But all $636 billion will be calculated as war debt, naturally.  If the wars aren't expensive enough to make people lose heart, they will make them so, it seems. 

Remember just a few years ago when they were squabbling over any bills costing more than $100 billion?  Now they are passing $1.1 trillion bills without a second thought (and barely a peep from the media) - and hurling insults at anyone who has the temerity to question the speed and size of the legislation.

The jobs bill, as usual, does very little for actually creating jobs.  There's plenty of unemployment relief and additional funding for teachers and firefighters, as well as 'new initiatives' for infrastructure issues like repairing roads and bridges.  Didn't the first stimulus, that is barely half spent, cover all of that?  Or was that just the bill of goods they sold us?

The bills today have officially put America over it's debt limit, so at least there's that....Oh, wait...never mind.  They just raised the debt ceiling by $280 billion.  Reminds me of the old joke 'we can't be broke - we still have checks!'

The insane spending has got to stop.  These bills are so full of earmarks - which both parties are guilty of indulging in - that it is getting harder and harder to determine what the original purpose was.  Not that it really matters anyway, since they can't be bothered to read them and we seem to only get them hours before a vote and barely have time.

With all of the tricks and sneaky closed door dealings going on, it's time we started using their own tactics against them.  One of their favorite ways to get public support for the bill is guilt - 'so you want people to die?!'   Or maybe, 'Oh, you must be one of those greedy selfish types who don't believe in fairness and social justice...'

Maybe it's time to use the power of guilt on them.  Let's remind them who the real victims are.  We need to start bringing our children to the Capitol.  Perhaps seeing those little faces in the gallery will remind them whose money they are spending. 

They seem to have forgotten.

Read more...

SPENDING GUILT

SO MUCH FOR AFFORDABLE

CNSNews has a report out on another little selling point for the senate version of ObamaCare. 

According to the article, families making more than $88,000 per year may be subject to a federally mandated insurance 'fee' of $15,200.

A family of four—two parents and two children—earning $88,200 would be at 400 percent of the poverty level this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A family of four earning $88,201, therefore, would not be eligible for a federal subsidy to buy insurance under the Senate health-care bill. If the mother and father in such a family could not get employer-based health insurance—because their employers decided not to buy their workers insurance—the family would be required by law to purchase a policy with its own money that would cost an estimated $15,200 per year, according to the CBO.

In case you were wondering, a $15,200 'fee' on a family of four making $88,201  is roughly 1/6th of their income. 

What are the odds these workers will have to pay this premium?

The bill imposes a maximum fine of only $750 per worker on employers with more than 50 workers who do not buy insurance for their workers. Thus employers will face a choice: Pay the employer’s share of the insurance plans for their workers--including the employer's share for the typical $15,200 family insurance plan--or drop insurance for all their employees and pay a maximum fee of only a $750 per employee.

Hmmmm.  I really don't see a tough choice for employers, do you?

That little loophole was put in to guarantee that as many people as possible are put on the government plan, of course.  Single Payer or Bust, eh, Harry?

Combine this with Nancy Pelosi's version of health care, and not only will the cost of your insurance be steep, but so will the penalties for not getting it.  (via The Hill)

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the House version of the healthcare bill specifies that those who don’t buy health insurance and do not pay the fine of about 2.5 percent of their income for failing to do so can face a penalty of up to five years in prison!


The bill describes the penalties as follows:

• Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3] 

So, would that be the whole family in jail, or just the breadwinner?  May as well put the whole family in - at least that way they will be guaranteed three squares, cable tv and a roof over their heads.

The Progressive Agenda - destroying America one family at a time.

BTW - don't forget that on top of the new premiums, these families are also going to be taxed to within an inch of their lives to pay for the 18 million who are getting the subsidies that they can't....

Read more...

SO MUCH FOR AFFORDABLE