Posts Tagged ‘bipartisan’

The Worm Is Beginning To Turn On ObamaCare

January 21, 2011

Things are rapidly getting out of hand for ObamaCare.

The House just voted to repeal it with a bipartisan vote of 245-189 (with three Democrats joining all the Republicans).

For the record, the vote in favor of repealing ObamaCare was far higher than the vote to pass the damn thing (219 – barely above the minimum necessary for passage).

26 states are now officially on board with Florida to challenge ObamaCare in federal court.  The Florida State Attorney General said last night on Fox News’ “Greta” program that 2 more states have promised that they will be on board, and she has been in talks with several other states.

More than half the states now want ObamaCare tossed into the trash where it belongs.

Democrats and the mainstream media have routinely sneered about what a useless and time-wasting “symbolic” gesture this vote was.  One can only wonder: during the dark and dreadful reign of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority during the last two years, more than 400 bills were passed that were not taken up in the Senate.  And that was during a period in which Democrats RAN the Senate.  Did the Democrats and the mainstream media come unglued over those “time wasting gestures”????  I don’t think so.

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a long list of new tax hikes that ObamaCare is burdening the US economy with – in direct contradiction to Obama’s incredibly deceitful promise that “your taxes won’t go up one dime.”

These taxes include:

  1. Individual Mandate Excise Tax
  2. Employer Mandate Tax
  3. Surtax on Investment Income
  4. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
  5. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
  6. Medicine Cabinet Tax
  7. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
  8. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”
  9. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
  10. Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
  11. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
  12. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
  13. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
  14. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
  15. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
  16. Tax on Health Insurers
  17. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
  18. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2
  19. Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting
  20. “Black liquor” tax hike
  21. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”

And new studies are demonstrating that ObamaCare is a job murderer:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf recently spoke at the University of Southern California about the economic impact of Obamacare. He predicts that Obamacare will further depress the nation’s employment picture.

CBO’s analysis of Obamacare predicts that it will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by roughly half a percent. Elmendorf states that this impact will be small, but in reality the impact is small only in relative terms. For instance, a half-percent loss in jobs in the American economy today would translate into about 750,000 additional Americans losing work.

And the NFIB estimate is even more dismal:

Just as serious for the economy is the fact that Obamacare will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy. A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) found that the employer mandate  could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.

And the Democrats loaded up ObamaCare with so many faulty assumptions that the actual numbers of jobs destroyed will undoubtedly be worse.

Democrats played all kinds of gimmicks to get a CBO score that created the illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.  Because Democrats in office agree with fellow liberal Bill Maher’s take on the American people:

“Or take the health care debate we’re presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and “listen to their constituents.” An urge they should resist because their constituents don’t know anything.”

But even “stupid” people are smart enough to know that claiming that ObamaCare will ADD 35 million people to the health care rolls and actually cost LESS MONEY is itself a stupid claim.  They may not understand just how despicably deceitful Democrats were in manufacturing the numbers to get the CBO score (such as taxing ten years and only giving benefits for 6 years; such as double counting savings from revenue sources such as Medicare and Social Security; such as imposing all kinds of taxes that nobody knew about when this monstrosity was passed; omitting the so-called “doctor fix”, etc.), but they know something is very wrong.

Most Americans also know what the overwhelming majority of doctors know:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released Tuesday.

The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.

“When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve,” Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.

The worm is indeed beginning to turn on ObamaCare, indeed.

And maybe the worm is beginning to turn inside Obama’s scrawny gut, too.

Advertisements

Pelosi And Democrats Block BP Oil Spill Investigation

July 30, 2010

Democrats really want to get to the bottom of the BP oil spill and all the failures of leadership and action thereafter.

In other related news, I have decided to sell the Golden Gate Bridge in a closed bidding process.  Just send me your bid, and I’ll let you know whether you’re the lucky winner.

From before the disaster – when Barack Obama received more money from BP than any politician over the past twenty years – to after the disaster, Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves.

And their shame is showing:

Pelosi Blocks Oil Spill Investigation
by  Connie Hair
07/28/2010

The latest version of the CLEAR Act is slated for a floor vote in the House this week as Democrats look for ways to use the Gulf oil spill as a means to pass elements of their unpopular energy agenda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stripped out authorization for an independent investigation into the Gulf disaster.

The Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed the amendment in committee markup July 14 offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would establish a bipartisan, independent, National Commission on Outer Continental Shelf Oil Spill Prevention.

Unlike the commission set up by President Obama — packed only with environmental activists and no petroleum engineers — the commission unanimously approved by the Natural Resources committee would be comprised of technical experts to study the actual events leading up to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Not a single member of the committee voiced opposition at the bill’s markup.  The Senate has also approved an independent commission.

“To investigate what went wrong and keep it from happening again, the commission must include members who have expertise in petroleum engineering.  The President’s Commission has none,” Cassidy, the amendment’s author, told HUMAN EVENTS after the announcement.  “It defies common sense that this amendment passed unanimously in committee, only to be deleted in the Speaker’s office.”

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), top Republican on the Natural Resources Committee said the Obama’s administration’s commission was set up to protect the President.

“By deleting the bipartisan, independent oil spill commission that’s received bipartisan support in both House and Senate committees, Democrats have shown they are more interested in protecting the President than getting independent answers to what caused this tragic Gulf spill.  Some of the biggest failures that contributed to the Gulf disaster are the direct responsibility of the federal government and by deleting this bipartisan, independent commission, Democrats ensure that only the President’s hand-picked commission will be digging into any failures of his own Interior Department appointees.  There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium that will cost thousands of jobs,” Hastings said.

The bill also sets up myriad regulations and new standards and laws for drilling that have nothing to do with offshore drilling.

“Even more outrageous is this bill’s attempt to use the oil spill tragedy as leverage to enact totally unrelated policies and increase federal spending on unrelated programs by billions of dollars. What does a solar panel in Nevada, a wind turbine in Montana, uranium for nuclear power, or a ban on fish farming have to do with the Gulf spill? Nothing — but the spill is a good excuse to try and pass otherwise stalled or unpopular new laws,” Hastings said.

Another member of the committee, Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), pointed out the hand-picked Obama commission is just getting underway with no findings or recommendations made.

“This ‘fix it’ bill is being rammed through without an accurate and full understanding of what actually went wrong. The Presidential Commission is just barely beginning its work, no investigations are yet concluded, and the failed [blowout preventer] still on the ocean floor, yet we are voting on a bill without knowing what went wrong,” Fleming said.

“Furthermore, at a time when Washington should be focused on creating jobs, this bill will do just the opposite by hampering future energy development and stifling job creation along the Gulf Coast,” Fleming added.  “This knee-jerk legislation — coupled with the Administration’s damaging Moratorium on offshore drilling — will worsen, not help, the situation.”

Yet the House is poised to vote this week on the CLEAR Act, likely Friday.

“This bill has less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production,” Cassidy said.

UPDATE: House Republicans released bullets on the CLEAR Act this morning breaking down some of the measures included in the bill, including:

–     Imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes for onshore natural gas and oil production. It fundamentally changes leasing onshore by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which affects not just leasing for natural gas and oil, but also for renewable energy including wind and solar. Forest Service and BLM leasing are shoved into the three new agencies that are replacing the former Minerals Management Service (MMS).

–     Creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two programs that have nothing to do with the oil spill (the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund). In the version of the bill headed to the House floor, Democrats added brand new language that expressly allows this $30 billion to be earmarked by the Appropriations Committee.

–     Raises taxes by over $22 billion in ten years – with the taxes eventually climbing to nearly $3 billion per year. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families and businesses, hurt domestic jobs, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. This tax only applies to U.S. oil and gas production on federal leases – giving an advantage to foreign oil and hurting American energy jobs.

–     Requires the federal takeover of state authority to permit in state waters, which reverses sixty years of precedent. The mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the federal government are being used as justification to expand federal control by seizing management from the states.

–     Allows 10% of all offshore revenues – an amount possibly as high as $500 million per year – to be spent on a new fund controlled by the Interior Secretary to issue ocean research grants (ORCA fund). There is no requirement that the fund is used for the Gulf region or anything related to oil spills or offshore drilling. These funds can be earmarked.

If this wasn’t yet another way that Democrats are scheming to implode this country, it would be hilarious.  This bill is akin to my shooting you, and then using the shooting incident to pitch my gun-ban agenda.

You DO have to applaud the Democrats for their creative use of oxymorons.  I mean, to take a bill that deliberately prevents any kind of transparent independent investigation, and call it the “CLEAR Act,” is really something else.

Don’t forget to bid on my bridge.  You might be able to win it cheap!

And you can trust me not to rip you off, of course.  Because I’m at least as honest as Nancy Pelosi.

Oops.  My bad.  Nancy Pelosi famously promised to “drain the swamp,” but then she helped fill it instead.  So I’d have to be a total slimeball indeed not to be as honest as Nancy Pelosi.

Democrats With TWICE The Time Still Managed To Lose Health Care Summit

February 26, 2010

The breakdown as to the time spent talking at the health care summit:

Democrats: 114 minutes
Republicans: 110 minutes
Barack Obama (uber Democrat): 119 minutes

Which means that for every one minute Republicans were allowed to speak, Democrats allowed themselves more than 2 minutes to speak.

How bipartisan of them.

Obama by himself spent nine more minutes talking than he allowed the 17 Republicans combined to have:

“President Obama pledged to “listen” at the outset of his much-ballyhooed bipartisan health care summit on Thursday. Turns out he meant he’d be listening to his own voice.”

Obama acknowledged the massive disparity and the massive unfairness of the meeting this way:

“You’re right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because – I’m the president.” Half the room laughed. “I didn’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”

But that’s not the whole story.  Oh, no.  Obama not only gave himself more time to talk than all the Republicans combined, but he also gave himself more time to talk than all the other Democrats combined.

And Obama spent most of his time attacking the points made by Republicans, who were rarely ever allowed to respond and defend themselves as Obama dictated the event.

Throughout the event, Obama – ever the ideological moderator – remarked while Republicans were getting one of their rare chances to speak that they were behind the time schedule.  At one point while Republican Senator Dr. Tom Coburn was speaking Harry Reid said, “Mr. President, if I could just say, I’m not an expert on much but I am filibusters and we’ve got 40 members of Congress here.”  But the problem CLEARLY wasn’t Dr. Coburn and it clearly wasn’t the Republicans.  Rather, the problem was Obama and his “Help! I’m talking and I can’t shut up!” problem.

Still, as unfair and partisan as it was, it was still the closest by far and away that Democrats have been “bipartisan.”

The Democrats took unfair partisan advantage and cheated.  But the Republicans still kicked their asses today.

From Don Surber’s Daily Mail:

Rave reviews for Republicans

Their sampling of quotes:

CNN’s WOLF BLITZER: “It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s DAVID GERGEN: “The folks in the White House just must be kicking themselves right now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

GERGEN: “He doesn’t have a strong Democratic team behind him.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I think we need to start out by acknowledging Republicans brought their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

THE WEEKLY STANDARD’S STEVE HAYES: “I think to me the most important thing to come out of the morning so far is that Republicans have spent a great deal of time talking with great passion, and I think eagerness about their plans, detailing the plans that until this morning them Democrats had been saying didn’t exist. Well, you now see, I think, in great detail that Republicans do have plans, that they care about the same issues and that they feel passionately about it.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

My take is this is health insurance is a boring topic that has shown just how boring and dull this president is. He is hopelessly lost in the Land of Actuarial Tables, where co-payments and deductibles reign.

I’m beginning to see why he keeps flogging this dead horse: He has nothing closer to a unicorn than this; it is all he knows.

There’s a lot more than that.  TPM provides another slew of liberals who basically give the Republicans the win including this one:

“I think it was a draw, which was a Republican win,” said Democratic political consultant Dan Gerstein. “The Republican tone was just right: a respectful, substantive disagreement, very disciplined and consistent in their message.”

If Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein says it was a draw, it was a Republican ass-kicking.

There were several moments that were illustrative of the sham of Obama’s faux-bipartisan summit (e.g., Obama’s personal attack against John McCain by telling him, “We’re not campaigning any more.  The election’s over” – which was a personally harsh and incredibly hypocritical charge given the fact that even Democrats acknowledge that Obama has done little BUT constantly campaign); but one moment stood out to me as summing up Obama’s strategy to forcibly twist the Republicans to either bow to his agenda or demonize them as “obstructionists”:

THE PRESIDENT: “Dave, I don’t mean to interrupt. But the — we’re going to have the whole section talking about deficits. And we can talk about the changes in Medicare. We were trying to focus on costs related to lowering families’. And the only concern I’ve got is — look, if every speaker at least on one side is going through every provision and saying what they don’t like, it’s going to be hard for us to see if we can arrive at some agreements on things that we all agree on.”

Let’s recap: The Republicans had asked/begged/demanded that Obama take the current 2,700 page Democrat bill off the table.  Obama refused.  And then Obama offered his own even worse and more expensive version of that 2,700 page Senate Democrat bill.

Obama and the Democrats used the word “agree” so many times that it was simply unreal.  Clearly, the idea was to represent the Republicans as being in substantial agreement with the Democrats’ bill, and then demand why they weren’t supporting a bill which they basically agreed with.

Only the Republicans DIDN’T agree with the Democrats’ 2,700 page monstrosity.  And they wanted to explain why.

This was unacceptable to Obama.  He wanted to make the Republicans appear to agree with him, so he could later demonize them as the obstructionist party of no.

If Obama had really wanted to seek agreement with the Republicans, he would have withdrawn the 2,700 page howitzer he was aiming at them.  And he would have taken off the table a second howitzer of using reconciliation (aka “the nuclear option”) to fundamentally change the Senate rules to shove that 2,700 page howitzer down the Republicans’ throats.

But he refused to do that.  He refused to allow the Republicans to talk about what they could agree on, and instead forced them to confront the 2,700 page ObamaCare boondoggle which they – and the overwhelming majority of the American people – had already completely rejected.

This was never about Obama seeking agreement from Republicans; this was all about attempting to use a “bipartisan summit” to make them look bad so he could demagogue them.

Only – too bad, so sad for Barry Hussein – the Republicans didn’t look bad.  In fact, they looked pretty dang good.

Judging from the polling, Americans overwhelmingly came away from the summit believing that it was nothing more than political theater.  Which was exactly what it was.

Obama White House Accused By Democrat Of Federal Crime In Specter, Bennet Races

February 23, 2010

Richard Nixon was honest to a fault compared to Barack Obama – and Obama is displaying corruption in only a year (Nixon was into his second term before he got caught).

We have Obama on video telling what we now recognize were seven major lies in less than two minutes when he was lying his way to the presidency:

[Youtube link]

We’ve got Obama displaying a shocking pattern of corruption and lack of transparency in a case involving a friend and a sacred-cow program.  It is also a case of a president firing an Inspector General for the crime of investigating a crime in a manner that was not merely Nixonian, but Stalinist (link1; link2; link3; link4).  Rest assured that Obama has his own enemies list.

The case of the illegal firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin is far from over as it works its way through the legal system.

Getting closer to what we now have before us, we have the cases of the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and a list of political bribery shenanigans that gets too long to follow.

All from an administration that deceitfully promised unprecedented transparency and openness and continues to shamelessly represent itself as being the best thing since sliced bread.

But this story – supported by the testimony of Democrats – may be in a whole new class of corruption:

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races
By Jeffrey Lord on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM

“Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” — 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

“In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a “high-ranking” government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.”
Philadelphia Inquirer
February 19, 2010

“D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff”
Denver Post
September 27, 2009

A bombshell has just exploded in the 2010 elections.

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrat challenging Specter for re-nomination, launched the controversy by accusing the Obama White House of offering him a federal job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter.

In August of 2009, the Denver Post reported last September, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet was appointed to the seat upon the resignation of then-Senator Ken Salazar after Salazar was appointed by Obama to serve as Secretary of the Interior. According to the Post, the specific job mentioned was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Post cited “several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.”

The paper also describes Messina as “President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop.” Messina’s immediate boss is White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

In an interview with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane, who broke the story on Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Comcast Network show, Sestak says someone — unnamed — in the Obama White House offered him a federal job if he would quit the Senate race against Specter, the latter having the support of President Obama, Vice President Biden and, in the state itself, outgoing Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. Both Biden and Rendell are longtime friends of Specter, with Biden taking personal credit for convincing Specter to leave the Republican Party and switch to the Democrats. Rendell served as a deputy to Specter when the future senator’s career began as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, a job Rendell himself would eventually hold.

Asked Kane of Sestak in the Comcast interview:

“Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”

“Yes” replied Sestak.

Kane: “Was it Secretary of the Navy?”

To which the Congressman replied:

“No comment.”

Sestak is a retired Navy admiral.

In the Colorado case, the Post reported that while Romanoff refused comment on a withdrawal-for-a-job offer, “several top Colorado Democrats described Messina’s outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

The Post also noted that the day after Romanoff announced his Senate candidacy, President Obama quickly announced his endorsement of Senator Bennet.

The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law — in order to preserve the Democrats’ Senate majority — could prove explosive in this highly political year. The 60-seat majority slipped to 59 seats with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. Many political analysts are suggesting Democrats could lose enough seats to lose their majority altogether.

This is the stuff of congressional investigations and cable news alerts, as an array of questions will inevitably start being asked of the Obama White House.

Here are but a few lines of inquiry, some inevitably straight out of Watergate.

* Who in the White House had this conversation with Congressman Sestak?

* Did Deputy Chief of Staff Messina have the same conversation with Sestak he is alleged to have had with Romanoff — and has he or anyone else on the White House staff had similar conversations with other candidates that promise federal jobs for political favors?

* They keep logs of these calls. How quickly will they be produced?

* How quickly would e-mails between the White House, Sestak, Specter, Romanoff and Bennet be produced?

* Secretary of the Navy is an important job. Did this job offer or the reported offer of the US AID position to Romanoff have the approval of President Obama or Vice President Biden?

* What did the President know and when did he know it?

* What did the Vice President know and when did he know it? (Note: Vice President Biden, in this tale, is Specter’s longtime friend who takes credit for luring Specter to switch parties. Can it really be that an offer of Secretary of the Navy to get Sestak out of Specter’s race would not be known and or approved by the Vice President? Does Messina or some other White House staffer — like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — have that authority?)

* What did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel know, and when did he know it?

* What did Congressman Sestak know and when did he know it? Was he aware that the offer of a federal job in return for a political favor — his withdrawal from the Senate race — could open the White House to a criminal investigation?

* What did Senator Specter know about any of this and when did he know it? .

* What did Governor Rendell, who, as the titular leader of Pennsylvania Democrats, is throwing his political weight and machine to his old friend Specter, know about this? And when did he know it?

* Will the Department of Justice be looking into these two separate news stories, one supplied by a sitting United States Congressman, that paint a clear picture of jobs for political favors?

* Will Attorney General Holder recuse himself from such an investigation?

While in recent years there have been bribery scandals that centered on the exchange of favors for a business deal (Democrat William Jefferson, a Louisiana Congressman) or cash for earmarks (Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham), the idea of violating federal law by offering a federal job in return for a political favor (leaving two hotly contested Senate races in this instance) is not new.

Let’s go back in history for a moment.

It’s the spring of 1960, in the middle of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination between then Senators John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Stuart Symington and the 1952 and 1956 nominee, ex-Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson.

Covering the campaign for what would become the grandfather of all political campaign books was journalist and JFK friend Theodore H. White. In his book, the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the President 1960, published in 1961, White tells the story of a plane flight with JFK on the candidate’s private plane The Caroline. The nomination fight is going on at a furious pace, and White and Kennedy are having another of their innumerable private chats for White’s book while the plane brings JFK back from a campaign swing where he spoke to delegates in Montana.

The subject? Let’s let White tell the story.

The conversation began in a burst of anger. A story had appeared in a New York newspaper that evening that an Eastern Governor had claimed that Kennedy had offered him a cabinet post in return for his Convention support. His anger was cold, furious. When Kennedy is angry, he is at his most precise, almost schoolmasterish. It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor. This was an accusation of a federal offense. It was not so.

Let’s focus on that JFK line again:

“It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

With a fine and jail time attached if convicted.

What Larry Kane discovered with the response of Congressman Sestak — and Sestak is sticking to his story — combined with what the Denver Post has previously reported in the Romanoff case — appears to be a series of connecting dots.

A connecting of dots — by Democrats — that leads from Colorado to Pennsylvania straight into the West Wing of the White House.

And possibly the jail house.

“It is a federal offense,” said John F. Kennedy, “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

And so it is.

Obama – who is loudly and frequently patting himself on the back for how “bipartisan” he is, is the most radically ideological partisan who ever sat in the Oval Office.

And as Obama continues to push his ObamaCare boondoggle apparently to the very last Democrat, it is more than fair to ask: why on earth are we trusting these dishonest rat bastards with our health care system and literally with our very lives in the event that their government takeover succeeds?

Democrat Points Out Fact That No One In The Obama Administration Knows Anything About Actually Running A Business

February 4, 2010

This is coming from Senator Blanche Lincoln, who basically is just beginning to realize that she doomed her re-election bid by helping Democrats try to jam ObamaCare down her constinuency’s throats.  But a Democrat is a Democrat, and using the Democrat logic that a single Republican voting for one of their bills makes it “bipartisan,” it is therefore a “bipartisan” recognition that Obama’s White House is completely business illiterate:

Lincoln presses Obama on party ‘extremes’ at Q and A
By Jordan Fabian – 02/03/10 12:00 PM ET

Centrist Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) on Wednesday asked arguably the most contentious question during a discussion between Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, hitting at conservatives and liberals.

Lincoln, who faces a tough reelection fight, asked Obama to push back against “people at the extremes” of both parties, especially against Democrats “who want extremes.”

She also took a swipe at Obama’s White House, referencing a constituent who “fears that there’s no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and make a payroll on Friday.”

Lincoln faces a steep reelection bid in 2010. She trails the likely Republican nominee, Rep. John Boozman, by 23 points and has only a 27 percent approval rating in a recent poll.

Obama responded by defending steps his administration has taken to right the economy and said “Moving forward, Blanche, what you’re going to hear from some folks…[is that] the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we did before the crisis.”

The president reiterated that he would not return to past policies.

“If the price of certainty is for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression…the result is going to be the same.”

But Obama conceded that “Blanche is right that we sometimes get bogged down in ideology.”

Obama’s last statement immediately above reveals the mockery of his core promise as a candidate for president that he would be post-partisan and would reach across the divide.  He has done absolutely nothing of the sort, and has instead created the most poisonous partisan environment ever recorded in a president’s first year.

But I want to return to Blanche Lincoln’s “fears that there’s no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and make a payroll on Friday.”

Ouch.  The truth hurts when you stink on steroids.

It’s significant that this is a bipartisan statement which Democrats now share with Republicans.  Democrats were shrilly running every campaign against George Bush.  Oh, everything was about “Bush’s failed policies.”

Now Democrats are running away from Barack Hussein just as frantically.  And now all of a sudden everything is about Obama’s failed policies.

A full year into his presidency, Obama has lost more jobs in a single year than ANY president ever lost in a ANY year since records started being kept in 1940.

And at the very same time he’s destroying jobs while offering the most pathetic assertions to the contrary, he is presiding over the most insane deficit-laden government spending spree in the history of the human race.

Businesses understand that in the real world, you can’t avoid disaster by printing your own money.

And so you’ve got the DemocRATS jumping off the sinking ship.

You’ve just GOT to love the poetic justice.

Blanche Lincoln also has the virtue of being completely correct: the most “anti-business” administration in our nation’s history has the least actual real world business experience of any administration in history.

From National Journal Magazine:

Critics say that one area where the Obama team lacks luster and diversity is in the realm of business. Few of his key people can point to significant business experience. In 2001, Bush had four former CEOs (including his vice president) in the Cabinet: career Texas oil man Donald Evans at Commerce; Treasury’s O’Neill, who had run Alcoa for almost 15 years; and Defense’s Rumsfeld, who had spent some 15 years at the helm of three businesses, including the international pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle. Cheney had been CEO of the oil-services and construction giant Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Even Bill Clinton recruited from business: Thomas (Mack) McLarty, CEO of the natural-gas company Arkla, became his chief of staff, and Hazel O’Leary, an executive vice president of a Minnesota utility firm, was his Energy secretary. (They failed to distinguish themselves in those posts, however.)

It’s actually far, far worse than that.

You want to see how the Obama administration compares to others in having people with actual business experience making decisions and running things?

Here are the percentages of people with private sector business experience serving in previous administrations:

T. Roosevelt…….. 38%
Taft………………….40%
Wilson …………….. 52%
Harding…………….49%
Coolidge………….. 48%
Hoover…………….. 42%
F. Roosevelt……… 50%
Truman……………..50%
Eisenhower………. 57%
Kennedy………….. 30%
Johnson…………….47%
Nixon………………. 53%
Ford………………… 42%
Carter………………. 32%
Reagan……………..56%
GH Bush………….. 51%
Clinton …………….. 39%
GW Bush…………. 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is…………..

Obama……………. 8% !!!

Yep! Thats right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what’s best for GM…Chrysler… Wall Street… and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society…the one with the most successful economic system in world history… stand and talk about business when he’s never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one??!

And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers.! They’ve spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs….or as “community organizers” ..when they should have been in an employment line.

So when Blanche Lincoln points out that nobody in the Obama administration has any idea what it’s like to actually make a payroll, she’s completely correct.

What we have is a bunch of people who have either worked for egghead academia or the government their entire lives frantically pushing the buttons and pulling the levers of government to somehow stimulate businesses that none of them know anything whatsoever about.

Sarah Palin Demolishes Obama’s Pretentions State of the Deception Speech

January 28, 2010

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Today at 2:17pm

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

– Sarah Palin

She nailed it.

Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie

November 11, 2009

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

In other words, any reasonably intelligent person should have known that Obama’s core promise as candidate was in actuality a cynical deception from a fundamentally dishonest politician who was cravenly willing to pass off any deceit to get himself elected.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

It nearly immediately became obvious that Obama’s “transcending the ideological wars” was a cynical marketing gimmick offered by people who had no intention of living up to their campaign rhetoric.

Republicans reacted angrily to the president’s change in tone. Mr. Obama and the Democrats were talking eloquently about bipartisanship, they said, without letting the Republicans have any real influence.

“There is a disconnect between the tone of what I’ve been hearing, from the White House and the Democratic leadership, and the substance of what I’ve been hearing,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “We thought what [bipartisanship] meant is that the president would define an agenda and then we’d sit down together and put forth our best ideas.”

If Republicans such as Lamar Alexander actually thought that way, they were as gullible as the American people who swallowed Obama’s lies much the same way that fish in a pond gobble up obnoxious kids’ spit.  Like those disgusting snot-filled lougies, Obama’s core promise of transcending the partisanship was something that the American people were so hungry for that they rushed to thoughtlessly gobble up even the most disgusting substitute.

Here’s what Obama recently said to Democrats, again as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Note to world: Obama is talking about his own citizens.  And his hatred for them drips out like venom.

Not only is this caustic remark in no way close to anything even faintly resembling “bipartisanship,” but it is in fact diving to the bottom of the partisan, idelogical watters where the most loathsome bottom feeders reside.

Obama has demonized George Bush, demonized Wall Street (after having cynically taken more campaign contributions from Wall Street firms than anyone), demonized banks, demonized American citizens for exercising their rights at tea party events, demonized car manufacturers, demonized health insurance companies (whom he demagogued as “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” even as HIS administration and party trotted out lie after lie against them), demonized doctors (whom he claimed amputated diabetics’ feet and yanked out childrens’ tonsils just to pad their fees), repeatedly demonized and attempted to undermine Fox News, demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and demonized anyone else who disagreed with his radical agenda.

George Bush never even came close to being such a demagogue.  I frankly don’t believe that even NIXON was such a demagogue.

I have never seen such constant demagogic and demonizing rhetoric – against American citizens and American businesses – from a U.S. president of either political party in my adult lifetime.

That divisive demagoguery, in spite of his many promises to heal the divide and restore bipartisanship, is Obama’s biggest failure.  And his biggest lie.

House Democrats Pass Worst Bill Ever To Destroy U.S. Health Care, Economy

November 8, 2009

Congratulations, America.  This is what you’ve “won”:

NOVEMBER 1, 2009

The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she’s prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that’s what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a “critical milestone,” may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan “reform” and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be “universal coverage.” The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country’s fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate.  Most of the money goes into government-run “exchanges” where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this “firewall”—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It “pays for” about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, “saving” about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to “pay for” universal coverage. While Medicare’s price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the “matching rate” for this joint state-federal program—up from today’s 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington’s budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point “surcharge” on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won’t have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn’t indexed for inflation. Yet it still won’t be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they’ll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don’t offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers’ premiums, which eat into wages. Such “play or pay” taxes always become “pay or pay” and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth
. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won’t buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

The insurance takeover. A new “health choices commissioner” will decide what counts as “essential benefits,” which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as “private” health insurance.
***

All of this is intentional, even if it isn’t explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back “public option” entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress’s balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can’t regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of “change,” but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi’s handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

In 2008, America voted for national suicide, whether they understood it or not.  While it is increasingly obvious that Americans are rethinking their suicide pact with the Democrat Party, and beginning to change their minds, Democrats are nevertheless racing ahead to finish the job of destroying the country while they still can.

Think Cloward-Piven.  The Democrats believe that they are creating a “win we win, lose we win” stratagem.  If by some increasingly unlikely miracle our massive unprecedented debt-financed spending doesn’t cause the entire economic structure to implode, Democrats will be in a position to claim credit for their “success.”  If, far more likely, the economy self-destructs under the weight of the mind-boggling debts and economic hamstringing foisted upon us by the liberal agenda, Democrats are counting upon the fact that hungry, desperate, panicking people will turn to massive government structures to feed them and help them from the very problems that massive government structures caused in the first place.

Health Care Debate: Why Won’t Ignorant Conservatives Realize They Need Their Government Savior?

September 2, 2009

The Los Angeles Times can’t understand why conservatives refuse to embrace “one nation under Government.”  After all, James Oliphant points out in his article, conservatives would stand to benefit by bending the knee to their big government masters and embracing the socialist system.

Have you ever tried to help a wild animal that simply couldn’t understand you would only seek to free it or help it?  That’s the elitist and patronizing tone Oliphant takes in his article.

States most likely to win under healthcare overhaul are home to its biggest foes
Rural states have more uninsured and lower-income people who stand to benefit from legislation, but it’s there where the effort faces the most vocal resistance. It’s a factor that stymies legislators.

By James Oliphant
September 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington – Wyoming, with an economy marked by farming, ranching and small businesses, has a disproportionate number of people without medical insurance. And by that measure and others, its people are among the likely winners if Congress approves a healthcare overhaul.

But if Republican Sen. Michael B. Enzi was expecting a pat on the back from his constituents for working with some of his fellow senators to seek bipartisan agreement on the issue, he was disappointed.

Last week, Enzi held a town hall meeting in his hometown of Gillette. And when he told the 500 people in the audience that he believed both sides could eventually strike a deal, it turned out that wasn’t a popular thing to say.

A state legislator even stood up and demanded that Enzi pull out of the congressional talks altogether, and was widely applauded by the audience.

The scene in Gillette was replicated in towns across the U.S. last month, as screaming taxpayers filled TV screens with criticism of healthcare proposals. The clashes dramatized a conundrum faced by lawmakers such as Enzi who are seeking compromises.

As you can see, Oliphant begins his article by presenting a narrative of a Republican politician who wants to seek bipartisan agreement on health care.  What he doesn’t bother to do is explain how one seeks bipartisanship when none of the Republican ideas have even been considered.  He certainly doesn’t bother to tell you that Republicans have been shut out of the “bipartisan” process nearly completely.  Rep. Tom Price – who happens to be a medical doctor – writes to Barack Obama and points out that:

several Members of Congress from your party have publicly admitted that Republicans have been shut out of House negotiations on health care reform.

H.R. 3200 is 1017 pages long.  How many of those pages have been written by Republicans?  What Republican representatives have contributed?  What’s that, Mr. Oliphant, you don’t give a damn if Republicans haven’t been allowed to contribute?  You don’t want to believe that big, bad Republican Tom Price, who is probably one of the doctors ripping out kids’ tonsils and sawing off diabetics’ feet that Obama warned us about?  How about paying attention to the centrist Blue Dog Democrats, who claim that they, too, have been shut out?

Let me point out to you that those hicks and hayseeds in Wyoming understand something that you clearly don’t: WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?

“Compromise” is not bowing the knee to the liberal agenda.  When Republicans are treated as equal partners, then we can talk about bipartisanship and compromise.  Until then, such claims as writers like Oliphant are making are simply factually untrue.

Oliphant drones on – er, I mean, continues:

Some of the most vociferous opposition to the proposals before the House and Senate comes from residents of rural states that could benefit most if the present system is revamped.

“The states that tend to be more conservative have a higher rate of people who are uninsured,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of FamiliesUSA, which backs a healthcare overhaul. “As a result, healthcare reform is going to provide a disproportionate amount of resources to those states.”

In Wyoming, for example, nearly 1 in 3 people younger than 65 went without health insurance at some point during the last two years, according to Pollack’s group. A huge majority of the uninsured have jobs, but work for employers who don’t provide coverage.

Fewer options

The problem pervades other rural states as well, where a high percentage of employers are small businesses. Although there is a consensus in Congress for keeping the current employer-based system of medical insurance, that system is riddled with holes in coverage that disproportionately affect rural states.

Well, again, those hicks and hayseeds in Wyoming seem to know something that James Oliphant – for all of his liberal elitist arrogance – doesn’t seem to know.  They know that ObamaCare would be a disaster for the small businesses that they depend on for their jobs and their livelihoods.  They understand that many businesses that DO provide health care for their employees would be discouraged or even forced to stop doing so under the Democrat plan, with the result being shoving people into the “public option” or the “co-op” (or whatever the hell they’re going to call their government option).  And they know that,  Democrat protestations and hand waving dismissals aside, that ObamaCare is ALL about rationing.

Next Oliphant points out what will happen if “bipartisan” Republicans don’t properly “compromise”:

Given that reality, it may not be surprising that senators from these states have been the most active in the effort to salvage a bipartisan compromise on healthcare. Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who hold top posts on the Senate Finance Committee, are part of a group of senators still talking about a deal, along with Enzi, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine).

If they fail, the Democratic leadership in the Senate has threatened to ram a bill through without GOP backers.

So now we get to the essence of the Democrat vision of “bipartisanship” and “compromise”: “Do it our way or else.” This amounts to a mobster coming into your store and threatening to break your knee caps if you don’t purchase his “protection.”

And in this case, the mobster is literally blaming the store owner for the broken knees.  After all, if the stupid store owner had just played ball, his knees would have been fine.

And what Oliphant doesn’t understand is that the Wyoming hicks and hayseeds hear these threats and just get all the more enraged and all the more distrustful – as they should.

What follows next is a section in which Oliphant fundamentally misrepresents the actual dynamic.  He presumes the pseudo-narrative that Republicans are blocking health care when in actual fact Republicans have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with it (having been shut out, and lacking the votes to impose anything on anybody).

Although Enzi has said that he wants to find common ground on healthcare, his public remarks have become more polarized during the congressional recess.

“The Democrats are trying to rush a bill through the process that will actually make our nation’s finances sicker without saving you money,” Enzi said in the GOP’s weekly radio address Saturday.

Eric Wedell, a Wyoming physician and governor of the state chapter of the American College of Physicians, applauded Enzi’s efforts to broker a compromise. Enzi “is continuing to work hard on healthcare reform because he knows we need it,” Wedell said.

But another Wyoming physician, Timothy Hallinan, disagreed, saying it would be better to have no bill than to have the kind Enzi is negotiating.

It was Hallinan, a state representative, who demanded at the meeting in Gillette that Enzi stop working with Democrats.

“Perhaps Sen. Enzi will get the most egregious — in his and my view — items dropped through compromise. Nonetheless, the compromised bill will be going in the wrong direction and must be seen as a down payment on where the current majority plans to go — a complete takeover of medical practice by the federal government,” Hallinan said.

“I would rather see no bill than that. I suspect that a large percentage of the American population agrees,” he added. “I know that a big majority here in my district agrees with me.”

You might as well blame the dinosaurs for causing global warming as blame the Republican Party over blocking health care.  Nancy Pelosi is running the House of Representatives with an bejeweled iron fist (made by Tiffany); and Harry Reid has a filibuster-proof majority.

The reason health care hasn’t passed is because the American people are overwhelmingly against it.  The reason health care hasn’t passed is because it is such a bad bill that even Democrats can’t support it.  The reason health care hasn’t passed is because a lot of Democrats know they will lose their seats if they vote for it.  Not because of Republicans.

Let me be clear: any scintilla of a hint that Republicans are “blocking health care reform” is a fraud.  All Democrats have to do if they want Republican support for reform is yank out the public option and replace it with tort reform.  But to blame Republicans for not supporting a philosophy and a system that they are diametrically opposed to is simply saying that we should be a fascist system where everyone does what Big Brother wants or else.

Oliphant continues:

Potential benefits

Although much attention has been focused on whether the ultimate legislation will provide for a government-run insurer or a series of private health cooperatives to help cover the uninsured, the bill is also expected to increase eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, which could provide a lift to states like Wyoming.

“Things that are enormously important are getting less attention,” lamented Pollack of FamiliesUSA. Rural, conservative states, he said, “are going to get the influx of new federal dollars.”

But those opposed to the proposals, such as Hallinan, point to the cost. Even at current coverage levels, Medicare and Medicaid spending is expected to vastly increase the country’s debt.

Others are simply nervous about more government involvement in healthcare. Although centralized government can often deliver healthcare services more efficiently, “it runs counter to perhaps the rugged individualism on which America is built — where everything is available for everybody,” said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the nonprofit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Oliphant states as an assumed fact that “centralized government can often deliver healthcare services more efficiently.”  But based on what does he say that?  Does he not know that Medicare is about to go bankrupt?  Does he not know that the U.S. Post Office – which Obama used as a metaphor for his health care plan – is about to go bankrupt?  Does he not know that government is the home of the $435 hammer, the $640 toilet seat, and the $7,600 coffee maker?  Does he not know that the government only recently showed how inefficient it is by paying nearly twice as much for canned ham as they could have paid simply by going to a grocery store?

In theory, the government should be able to use its purchasing power to benefit from bulk discounts.  But in actual fact that never happens.  There are simply so many layers of bureaucracy and so few incentives for the government to save money (they’re not using their money, remember; they’re using yours) that waste and abuse is rampant.  Often the very system itself – exemplified by governmental budgeting systems which perversely encourage government employees to consume their entire budgets so they can get more money in the next budget cycle – actually make the very idea of savings counterproductive to their agenda.

The assumption that “the government can do it faster, cheaper, and better than the private sector” has kept complete fools in government for generations.

What follows is a summation of the overall tone of the article: conservative hicks and hayseeds are frankly just too stupid and ignorant to understand that they are acting counterproductively to their own obvious interests:

In Iowa, where almost 70% of those who are uninsured have jobs, Grassley has faced combative audiences in a series of town halls, to the extent that speculation has risen that he will pull out of negotiations.

But Jack Hatch, a Democratic state senator from Des Moines, said that much of the anger and uncertainty in Iowa was directed at Wall Street bailouts, the stimulus and other government spending.

“I’ve been to a half a dozen of these,” Hatch said. “There are maybe 15 to 20% of the people who are just angry with everything. They’re angry with their economic situation.

“They’re afraid of any kind of deficit spending,” said Hatch, part of a White House-led effort to enlist state lawmakers to promote the legislation. “When we shift to healthcare, there’s a lot less noise and a lot more questions.”

But he admitted that opponents of the plans had succeeded in making Iowans nervous — and that supporters would have to sharpen their message in states such as his.

“All we have to do is get the people to listen through the screams of this small minority,” he said. “We have to be more vocal and fight back.”

James Oliphant – like Democrat Iowa state senator Jack Hatch – either doesn’t bother to look at the polls (which show a people overwhelmingly opposed to the Democrat’s health care agenda), or simply assumes that most Americans (even the non-hicks and hayseeds) are stupid.  They simply aren’t capable of “listening through the screams of this small minority.”

The people who oppose the massive new Democrat takeover of health care will cost money that the country simply doesn’t have.  Obama’s deficits are simply shocking, out of control, and utterly unsustainable.

The people who oppose health care understand that there is always a trade off to a massive government program.  They understand that what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.  They understand that more government power means less individual liberty.  They understand that the Democrats plan to take away about half a trillion dollars from Medicare and redistribute that money to younger people and even illegal immigrants who don’t have health insurance.  They understand that horror stories abound in countries that have embraced government health care systems.

The people who are opposing ObamaCare are not only not stupid, they are actually a heck of a lot smarter than James Oliphant.

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

August 28, 2009

There is a bizarre conspiracy afoot that most Americans are simply unwilling to comprehend, much less believe.

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’
Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP.  Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession.  In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care.  Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The term, “Cloward-Piven strategy” resounds in Hanson’s article without having ever once been used:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

An American Thinker article provides flesh to the concept:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Nobody wants to believe that a large and influential group of our leaders would want to create a catastrophe as a means of having an opportunity to impose their will upon an ensuing “super-government” that would necessarily have to arise from the ashes.  The concept strikes many as madness.

Only it’s happened too many times in just this century to label as “madness.”  It is, in fact, the goal of virtually every revolutionary movement.  You have to tear down the old in order to create the new.

Consider the fact that the leftist organizers of the 1960s – like Barack Obama’s friend and mentor William Ayers, who was instrumental in Obama’s early career and his run in politics – are very much still around and still profoundly shaping the leftist agenda.  Take Ayers’ Weather Underground co-founder Jeff Jones, whose Apollo Alliance wrote a big chunk of Obama’s stimulus package.  Take Tom Hayden (who endorsed Obama), leader of the leftist group Students for a Democratic Society.  He proclaimed in a landmark 1962 speech that the youth must wrest control of society from their elders, and that to that end universities had to be transformed into incubators of revolutionary “social action.”  And his calls to use any means necessary to achieve that “social action” – certainly including violence and force – colored and in fact defined the entire 60s leftist radicalism.  Hayden was one of the writers of the “Berkeley Liberation Program.”  Some highlights: “destroy the university, unless it serves the people”; “all oppressed people in jail are political prisoners and must be set free”; “create a soulful socialism”; “students must destroy the senile dictatorship of adult teachers.”  And his “community outreach” fomented horrific race riots.

These people are still dictating the agenda of the left today.  They were trying to fundamentally transform society then, and they are trying to fundamentally transform society today.  Only their tactics have changed; the goal remains the same.

You don’t think Barack Obama – who was in turn mentored by communist Frank Marshall Davis, by radical organizer Saul Alinsky, by terrorist William Ayers – (the link is to a CNN story demonstrating that Obama’s relationship to Ayers was MUCH deeper than Obama claimed) – doesn’t value these people and share their values?  Then, to put it very bluntly, you are a fool.  The words of our current president:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos.  The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.  We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.  At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.  When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.  We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.  We were alienated.”

But of course, Obama really wasn’t alienated, by his own statement.  He was a member of a community–a community of far-far-leftist radicals.

Also, of course “the more politically active black students” were the violent, racist, and criminal Black Panthers.

Obama was always about “change.”

You may not believe me now.  I understand that.  But hear this: it is my contention that things are going to get seriously bad in this country.  And that there are liberals, progressives, socialists (as Obama’s climate czar Carol Browner is), communists (as Obama’s ‘Green jobs czar’ Van Jones describes himself) – or whatever the hell these people want to call themselves – who are manipulating and riding the current times in order to take advantage of the future collapse.

Things didn’t have to get as bad as they’re going to get.  It certainly won’t be George Bush’s fault (all of Obama’s efforts to turn him into the current version of Emmanuel Goldstein to the contrary).  It is not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama’s budget accumulated so far in 2009 exceeds all eight years of Bush’s combined deficits.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that we have seen historic and completely unsustainable levels of red ink under Barack Obama.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama is essentially truing to nationalize wide swaths of our economy, such as health care and energy.  It’s all on Obama.

Obama’s massive debt is creating serious worries about the future of the U.S. dollar.  We are forecasted to be paying a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the debt by 2019; and it will very likely be a lot more a lot sooner.

What’s going to happen then?

Well, let me tell you what the Cloward-Piven proponents believe will happen: they think the coming complete crash of our economic system will result in the complete takeover of the economy and the society by the state.  They think that as panicked and hungry people look around at the disaster big government created, they will have no choice but to turn to government for help.  They think that they will finally have the socialist utopia they always dreamed of but American independence and self-reliance would never allow.

If by some miracle in defiance of all the laws of economics Obama’s economic policy actually doesn’t kill our economy, Obama and Democrats will win big.  If, far more likely, Obama’s economic policy causes a crash of the entire system, liberals believe that Democrats will ultimately STILL win big.

You can call me crazy if you like.  But mark my words.

As you see things getting worse, and liberals using the complete and catastrophic failure of big government to justify even MORE and even BIGGER big government, what might seem crazy to you now will make a lot more sense.