Big Dogs House

Obama Would Not Take His Own Health Plan

Jun 25, 2009 Political

Barack Obama had his big infomercial on ABC last night and it looks like those poll numbers that are slipping are for real as the show had the lowest ratings of any show of the night including some reruns. Perhaps people are just tired of seeing him day in and day out. Since he is pushing this crisis in health care through and wants it done yesterday and since those without health insurance think of nothing else I would have figured he would have had 46 million viewers. I mean, he was talking about health insurance for that number of uninsured (though that is not an actual number).

He struggled the entire evening and could not make the sale. He had a hard time explaining what he wanted and he was vague in a number of areas. He received tough questions and was not very good at answering them. These are not my observation because I did not watch it. I am basing this on the observations of those who did and on the view of the network that carried it.

Obama gave away a little secret. It has long been speculated that the wealthy will not be bound by this (and Congress will be exempt) because they can afford what they want. They will not be denied care because it costs too much. Obama fits in that category. When he was asked if his family needed some treatment or care that was not covered would he live by that decision. He said that he wants his family to get the best care. In other words, as a millionaire he will ensure his wife and kids are cared for government plan be damned.

The bill is loaded with double talk and methods to disqualify the insurance you already have. It is designed to make you take government health care.

On the campaign trail Obama promised that if you liked your plan you could keep it. He said he would ensure you were not put on the government’s plan. Now he is saying that if your employer drops coverage then he can’t control that. He promised that you could keep it so he should find a way to keep that promise. Perish the thought. He wants us all on the government plan.

A commenter here likes to say that those without insurance or those with inadequate insurance are a burden to us all. We are all paying for them and they are a drain on society. Even if you pay your own medical bills he claims you are a burden and that your risks are built into his premiums (that is how a risk business works. Same for car insurance, homeowner’s insurance, etc).

What seems to be missing is that with government run insurance those of us who pay taxes ARE paying for everyone else’s insurance. A government run program is paid for with our tax money so we will be paying for the health care anyway.

The British hate their system and the Canadians have it no better. Those who are satisfied with it are the ones who do not get sick. Once they get ill and require a lot of care they rapidly find out how bad it is.

Obama failed to seal the deal. He made it clear that he would not adhere to it if it meant his family could not get care.

If it is not good enough for Obama and his family then it is not good enough for the rest of us. We are his employers and he should not forget that.

Say no to Socialized medicine.

Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU.

Related:
John Lott

Share on Facebook

Tags: abc, health care, no deal, Obama, socialism

White House Launches Propaganda On OTV

May 23, 2009 Political

ABC News Reports that the White House has started its own reporting service and that it excluded the MSM from an event that was later shown on the new service dubbed OTV by ABC. The University of Connecticut Woman’s Basketball Team was received at the White House to honor them for winning the National Championship and then they went to the basketball court where Obama shot hoops with them.

The MSM were not allowed to go in and could only hear occasional cheering from the other side of the bushes. However, the entire event was captured on video and published by the White House which uses the picture of the White House as a logo (what is it with this guy and logos?). In the early part of the ceremony Obama shows off a bracelet he got from the team that signifies the fight against cancer. A noble cause to be sure but when he said he had a bracelet I could not help but think back to the childish display he put on in the debates. Ohh, me too, me too. I’ve got a bracelet.

We have a media in this country and it is free. They have a Constitutional freedom and history shows that, for the most part, they have been the watchdogs over politicians. Admittedly they are in the tank for Obama and they have not tried to hide their devotion to him. This makes it very curious that Obama would have his own people capturing events. It would not seem so strange if the MSM were not excluded but excluding them makes it look like he is a third world dictator with his own state sponsored media.

Obama is a buddy of Hugo Chavez who is a man that has his own media and has attacked and shut down any media critical of him. The police just raided the only opposition broadcasting company in Venezuela. Dictators shut down the opposition and have their own propaganda machine.

Obama shut out the MSM and had his own “media” record the event.

Obama is a Socialist and he likes the way the elite in Socialist countries live. He was emulating them way back when he was a community rabble rouser and now he is an elitist leader who is moving us toward Socialism.

He will have the Obama Army of jack booted thugs that will be as strong as the military when they are up and running and now he has his own media. I know that is redundant because the MSM is a wing of the Democratic Party. Of course some of them are hacked off at being pushed aside.

The term useful idiots comes to mind.

My advice, join the resistance.

I want my OTV
I want my OTV
I want my OTV

Share on Facebook

Tags: abc, media blackout, Obama, otv

Obama; We All Have To Have Skin In The Game

Jan 11, 2009 Political

Looks like Barack Obama is changing his tune with regard to how things will be run and what he can do for America. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said that the reality is, he will not be able to deliver everything he promised. Now there is a shock of all shocks. Those of us who did not drink his Kool Aid knew that all along.

The interesting thing is that he ran on taxing the rich and making them pay the lion’s share while he gave to the middle class and poor, or as he told Joe the Plumber, redistribute the wealth.

Now he is singing a different tune saying that all Americans will have to sacrifice and that we all have to have skin in the game.

“And when will that get done?” I asked.

“Well, right now, I’m focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place. But what you described is exactly what we’re going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?”

“And eventually sacrifice from everyone?” I asked.

“Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” Obama said. ABC

Those of us who work and pay taxes have had skin in the game for a long time. The problem is, we keep getting asked for more skin.

I agree that the government needs to be looked at to determine what works and what does not as well as where the money is spent. The problem with Socialists like Obama is that he will determine the definition of what is working. That means there will be more emphasis on saving failed social programs and on spending more of our treasure to try and get out of the economic woes. His plan to have more government jobs and to rack up the largest deficit in our history is a recipe for disaster.

Obama does not have the testicular fortitude to cut social programs assuming he can recognize those that are failures. To Democrats, things they want only fail because they have not been tried by people like them who know what they are doing or have been grossly mismanaged by others who are not so well informed. The reality is, government spends our money on too many things and a lot of them are not in accordance with the Constitution.

It is interesting how he has changed, not in the fact that he has but in the fact that the people who supported him are not up in arms (so to speak) at the way he so casually dismissed what he promised.

He is the one, this is our time, and hope and change has arrived.

Looks like the change was him changing what he promised and the hope involves people hoping they still get what they were promised.

Good luck with that.

Share on Facebook

Tags: abc, Obama, promises, stephanopoulos

CBS Vindicates Palin On Bush Doctrine

Sep 15, 2008 Political

The people on the left who have been running scared by the nomination of Sarah Palin could not wait until Charles Gibson of ABC interviewed her so they could see her exposed. The left went nuts and people like Alan Colmes said that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. People said she looked like a deer in the headlights and that she had little knowledge of a doctrine that everybody in the world should know. Turns out there is no official Bush Doctrine but that at least four things have been given that label. CBS, in a hit piece on Palin and how she will fade, unwittingly exonerated her.

The premise is that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine is and that this shows she is unqualified to be VP. Yes, Gibson had to tell her what it was because she must have been too busy putting on lipstick to pay attention. But, Gibson told her one version of the doctrine and it was from 2002. Gibson said:

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? [emphasis mine]

So that settles it. The Bush Doctrine is what Gibson laid out and any rube who does not know that should not be out in public alone. Everyone knows the doctrine except Palin, or do they? In the hit piece at CBS News, they said this:

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate. [emphasis mine]

Now, if CBS is saying that this is the Bush Doctrine we have a problem because it differs from what Gibson said and this means that not everyone is in agreement as to what the term means. The one Gibson relied on is from 2002 and the one CBS wrote about is the most current version. So, when Gibson asked Palin what she interpreted it to be and she answered “His world view”, she was pretty much in line with CBS and the current line of thinking on the topic.

One would think that CBS would have looked at the transcript (they couldn’t have if this is what they think Gibson “put to her”) so that their version would match Gibson’s. Since they decided to write “what everyone knows” they have unwittingly vindicated Palin. She demonstrated there is more than one version when she asked “in what respect?” and she demonstrated that she is current by saying “his world view.”

I think that it is funny that while CBS was trying to reassure liberals (and keep them from jumping off bridges) with a hit piece designed to diminish Palin by promising that she will fade, they actually helped her out by showing that she is not stupid, had the correct answer and that Gibson was wrong. His credibility (and theirs) took a hit.

One other thing. The CBS piece, when discussing the fact that Palin will fade, presented this gem:

This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)

Notice that one name is missing from the list of stars raised to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions; Barack Obama.

Obama is a media creation and CBS is right, his star is fading. It is being dwarfed by the Palin star. All we can hope is that this won’t change by election day.

If she gets one third the time he had, she will still be shining in November.

Share on Facebook

Tags: abc, bush doctrine, cbs, gibson, Obama, palin

The bias of ABC

Apr 8, 2008 Political

It is no secret that the MSM has fallen in love with Barack Obama. Chris Matthews gets chills down his leg listening to Obama talk a lot but say nothing. He is not the only one to go ga ga over the Obamination that could be our next president as many in the media have dropped off the Clinton bandwagon and climbed aboard the hope express. The MSM helped decide the Republican nomination and now it is working on ensuring Obama wins the primary and the general election by using biased reporting to make Obama appear more popular among certain groups than he really is.

This is the case with ABC’s recent report on the military and the presidential race. ABC reported that many of the troops were supporting Barack Obama (with one Hillary supporter) because the troops wanted out of Iraq. About 80% of the people in the military vote Republican so 20% of them vote for some other party. It is not surprising that ABC could find people that support a candidate who is not Republican. What is surprising is that ABC was unable to find one single John McCain supporter. Assuming that 20% of the military has switched due to the prolonged war ABC would still stand a better chance statistically of finding a McCain supporter than supporters of Obama and Clinton.

And yet ABC could not find even one. I suspect that they found quite a few members of the military who are supporting the Republican candidate but only reported on those who were supporting Democrats and they pushed the ones supporting Obama to boot. They did this to give him credibility with the military because Obama is not military friendly. He is a blame America first racist who has no use for the military. He wants to bring them home in defeat just like his party did to those who served in Vietnam.

I cannot believe that members of the military would support a person who will hand them a loss. Make no mistake about it, withdrawal would be a loss and Obama will never allow that loss to be placed on him or his co conspirators in the Democratic party. They will place the blame squarely on the military and use loss as an excuse to restrict future use of military power regardless of the circumstances.

ABC News is directing the show and it is picking the candidate that it wants to win the primary and the general elections. ABC is using biased reporting to influence the election rather than reporting the facts and allowing people to decide for themselves as a reputable news outlet would.

I know a lot of members of the military and very few of them support either Democratic candidate. That is not to say that none are, just that most are not. I am certainly biased (and not a news source) but I was fair about my findings.

Share on Facebook

Tags: abc, bias, Clinton, Military, Obama