We already know that a number of Democrats lost their seats in the last election because of their support for Obamacare. This has been well documented and accounts for over a dozen seats that were lost. But Democrats like to say that was not an issue and that it is a wonderful thing even though we had to pass it to see what was in it.

One thing Obama did in his Socialist takeover of health care was to cut Medicare funds (and double count them) and there was a lot of bluster about Medicare Advantage. The DHHS rated many of the plans as “average” and a number of seniors would likely be forced into regular Medicare. A lot of them were not very happy about that and the support among seniors is the lowest with regard to Obamacare.

We are approaching an election season and Democrats are again worried that Obamacare will cause them problems so now Obama wants to give some Medicare Advantage plans bonus points to make them above average and infuse about $6 billion into the system. The regime claims this is to ease a problem and that politics is not involved but the reality is that they are trying to delay some of the more painful parts of Obamacare until after the next election.

They are trying to use taxpayer money for political purposes to the tune of $6 BILLION dollars. We are in a crisis and they are still piddling around spending billions of dollars.

AARP endorsed Obamacare and a lot of seniors left that organization because of it. The plan was rammed through and there was little regard for how it would affect people because the elitist pigs in DC know better how to run our lives than we do. Remember, this was supposed to be a great, pie in the sky plan that everyone would love once they understood what was in it and how great it would be. Now that the uncomfortable parts might hurt Democrats they want to change things.

Screw that. They need to keep it the way it is. People need to feel lots and lots of pain for supporting this and they need to know how bad it is so that they will stop supporting the Democrats who are bound and determined to hurt them.

There are two options, keep it like it was passed or repeal it all together. No Republican should support any change unless that change is repeal. They said it was wonderful and now it is showing to be anything but so we need to hang it around their necks.

Do not allow these weasels to change anything and avoid the wrath of the public. Make them stand on their votes and on their forceful imposition of an unconstitutional law on the American public.

Make them fall on their swords and die for supporting it.

Period.

Repeal is the only option. In fact, repeal should be a part of any plan to raise the debt ceiling and that plan should include a provision that any signing statement makes the entire thing null and void. Obama has already lied about his use of signing statements and he will do so again.

Hang him and his Democrats with their Socialist law.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Of course, the political blame game continues in full force today. Everyone is yelling and pointing fingers. The left is in full attack mode, blaming the right. The right is in full defense mode, pointing out all the times that the left has used the exact same words. But few people are actually blaming the shooter.

I like what Pat Buchanan has to say. I like his comparison to the 1933 assassination and the swift justice. But that’s not the political reality of today, is it?

I’d like to mention one other aspect of this story. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion. In fact, it might even get me tossed from this blog. Big Dog, it’s your blog, and if you feel my views are too far out there, feel free to let me know. But I have been thinking about this since yesterday, and I think it needs to be pointed out, even if it’s only to the four or five readers of this blog.

First, I want to point out, I’m not in favor of violence to achieve political ends. I don’t believe it can work in this country. I don’t like violence at all. I think defensive violence is justified. But I do not think that this shooter should have shot the Congresswoman. I don’t support him, or anyone using violence against the system. In fact, as I have pointed out numerous times on this very blog, I don’t support using force against people to get them to make any decisions. I think using force to achieve political goals is wrong. But know who doesn’t? Do you know who believes in hiring mercenaries and using violence to reach political goals? I hate to say it, but Gabby Giffords does.

When she supported the Obamacare bill, she supported legislation that will force people to spend money the way she wants them to spend money. And that legislation hires policemen to make people pay. And if you don’t pay, that very legislation will send police to your house to jail or kill you if you do not do as Mrs. Giffords says. That’s not my opinion, that’s a fact.

So again, I do not support using violence to get my way. I don’t think Mrs. Giffords, or anyone else, should be shot for disagreeing with my political views. I’m not blaming Mrs. Giffords, I only blame the person who pulled the trigger. I pray for Mrs. Giffords and everyone else shot, and I hope she recovers. But I don’t see how people can be too surprised at violence used here — because the government supports using violence against people to achieve their political ends every single day.

Barack Obama was on TV last evening discussing the oil spill in the Gulf and he used the crisis to push his agenda forward. He used his buzz words about this being the moment and the opportunity for this generation to end our dependence on fossil fuels. He spent the first part of the speech discussing the wonderful response of the federal government. He was basically trying to convince people that he was on top of things from the start. Then he went into the whole clean energy hard sell.

This fits right in with the never let a crisis go to waste and puts winds in the sails of John Kerry and Joe Lieberman who are putting forward the cap and tax bill. They were overjoyed to learn that the cost to families will be between $80 and $150 a year. They are giddy at this and Lieberman thinks it is great. What family would not be happy to spend less than a dollar a day to green up the country?

“There’ll be some people who will want to demagogue that politically, but that’s less than $1 a day,” Lieberman told reporters. “Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment? I think the answer is going to be yes.” Politico

I guess I am one to demagogue because I can think of plenty of families who will not want to pay this. Perhaps those who are in foreclosure or are struggling to make ends meet. Perhaps those who do not have a job, the supposed priority of the Obama regime, would have a problem paying the money.

I do not think the numbers add up because we have seen time and again government estimates that end up costing way more than advertised. The health care bill was touted as a savings measure as Democrats hid the true cost. Once the bill was signed into law the real numbers came out and this monster will cost a hell of a lot more than advertised.

The cap and tax will be no different as the politicians decide they need more and more of our money. THEY ALWAYS WANT MORE.

Obama is using the crisis in the Gulf to bash BP (the company Kerry was courting when writing his bill) and to push an agenda that will cost us a fortune. Yes, we will pay more than the amount Lieberman proudly proclaims and we will also pay the increased costs to companies because costs are passed on to consumers.

Remember, it was Barack Obama who said his cap and tax scheme would necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket.

Obama sounded flat last night as if he were giving a half hearted campaign speech.

Even his state run media was unimpressed.

You know he has jumped the shark when he has lost his cheer leading section in the state run media.

Yes, Obama is not letting this crisis go to waste. He is using the tragedy to push something he has wanted all along.

I noticed he mentioned Katrina a few times as if he was trying to say that he is not as bad as the last guy. Funny, the folks in Louisiana don’t see it that way.

Never surrender, never submit.

This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.

Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.

Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.

I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.

I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.

We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.

I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.

Source:
WSJ

Now that securing the nation’s airports is again on the front burner, after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, the Washington Examiner is reporting that one Senator introduced an amendment to reduce aviation security. The Examiner reports:

Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants — a notoriously inneffective[sic] program. In fact, the money was specifically “for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems.”

According to the report, Dodd reduced aviation security by $4.5 million to give the money “to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.”

Politics over security, yep that sounds like a Democrat.

Obviously this had no impact on what took place on Christmas but one has to wonder what affect it is having now that security has been stepped up. Would that money have been used to buy more x-ray screeners that airports are now begging for? Would explosives detectors now be in place so that dogs would not have to do the job?

Senator Dodd is not likely to win reelection next year. His constituency is unhappy with his illegal sweetheart mortgage deal and his role in the collapse of the housing market.

The fact that he played politics with our security cannot sit too well with them either.

Barack Obama was the “surprise” winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As my co-writer Blake points out, he has not done anything to earn it. I have to agree, what has Obama done to earn the award? He has been in office for only nine months and nothing he has done has resulted in any kind of peace.

Even those except his most ardent supporters would have to ask what he has done to get this award.

As far as I am concerned the award means little. It has been given to people who have had little to do with peace including Al Gore (who received his for something that was supposed to be science) and Yasser Arafat (who was anything but peaceful). The award is basically a political award and is used to push an agenda, to give some credibility to the people who espouse the same views of the committee regardless of accomplishment.

The nomination of Obama was made just before the 1 February deadline and only 2 weeks after he took office. What was he nominated for? His acts up to that point certainly did not warrant the prize. If the nomination is for past deeds then he certainly did not qualify.

If it was for the deeds of the past nine months then one has to ask what he has done to earn it. What did he do that made him more deserving than the other nominees who actually have accomplishments in the area of peace? Obama has not brought peace to the Middle East. His relationship with Israel is strained and he has coddled terrorists as well as others who wish to do us harm. He has talked a good game but that is not worthy of the award.

This was purely a political move designed to bolster a man who was hurt by the IOCC and by his continual missteps on the world stage.

I am not saying that Obama would not have a term in office (or work after he is out of office) that eventually led to him actually deserving the award, that is something we cannot know. However, it is clear that he has done nothing, up to this point, to deserve it.

The award has always meant little as far as I am concerned because of some of the folks who received it and more importantly, those who did not. Reagan never received one and he certainly had more to do with peace than Carter, Gore or Obama. But the award has been made political and that tarnishes it, in my view.

If Obama has done anything to earn this award it was his appeasement of our enemies and the rogues around the world who would do us harm.

Perhaps the committee thought they were voting on an Appease Prize*…

*Thanks to my friend Doug Ross for this term.

Others:
Absurd Decision (Times UK)
Mixed Reviews, Embarrassing Joke (al-Reuters)

A great deal of attention has been given to the newest outbreak of the flu mostly because this is a strain that is not commonly associated with transmission among humans and there is no vaccine. While it is well and good to pay some attention to it one must wonder why all the CDC warnings and the elevations of threat levels. I certainly understand the travel restrictions but the reality is that there are only 40 confirmed US cases and no one in the US has died (as of this writing). Mexico has handled the issue fairly well and there have been just over 140 deaths in that country.

In the US each year about 36,000 people die from the flu and about 200,000 require hospitalization.

I think that the fervor over the flu is designed to take our attention away from the bad news that has come out lately. GM is getting rid of Pontiac (if you have a low mileage one put it away) and that will result in the loss of 21,000 manufacturing jobs. GM and Chrysler are preparing to file for bankruptcy and this will cause a lot of turmoil in the automotive industry. Ironically, Ford, the only one of the big three not to take bailout money, is doing OK, not great, but better than the others.

The Swine Flu scare is also a great cover for Congress who can work on passing more and more spending packages and enact things designed to give us universal health care coverage without the public debate. They can take advantage of this emergency to pass even more items to drive us ever closer to Socialism.

The Obama Administration has shown that it is a smoke and mirrors operation. They manufacture one crisis after another in order to tire people and wear them down. Then they can keep passing stuff unnoticed and before you know it, BAM, we have all these expensive things and even greater tax burdens. The economy was a crisis that we had to act upon immediately or we might not recover. Then it was not as bad as he thought. Of course, he came to that conclusion after spending a couple of TRILLION dollars to fix the spiraling economy. The stimulus will not kick in for some time. We are seeing some signs of working out of the economic downturn now. This means that things are turning around before the stimulus has had a chance to affect things. If we had done very little or nothing we would be turning around and we would have saved a couple of TRILLION dollars.

But Democrats had an “emergency” to exploit. Let us not forget that George Bush helped put this in motion. I did not agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now. I think the difference is Bush was making an honest attempt to fix things and not taking advantage of the situation. Obama is taking advantage of the problem to nationalize the banks and take over companies.

The Swine Flu, as of right now, is not a cause for alarm (just as Obama said). It is something we should keep an eye on and we should take the basic steps to prevent transmission of the disease. The number one way to do that is to wash your hands. Wash them frequently and the transmission of disease will be drastically reduced. Your mother told you to wash your hands for a reason.

The flu comes each year and makes a lot of people sick and it kills quite a few. These Swine flu reports might be sentinel events indicating a larger problem ahead. We need to keep track but we also need not lose sight of what is going on around us with regard to our politicians.

They will use this “emergency” to their advantage as long as we let them get away with it.

The CDC is tracking the outbreak and has a sign up for Swine Flu updates. There is also good information about the disease and what you can do to reduce your risk. Take the time to read it but don’t let the flu take your focus away. We can worry when it looks like this will become more widespread. Let’s keep an eye on it but let’s keep in mind that thousands get sick from the flu at any one time during flu season and they don’t go bananas like they are right now. This could certainly get worse but as it stands right now, it is a minor outbreak.

The sleight of hand artist The Amazing Obama wants you to look away.

How do the open borders folks feel now? ILLEGALS with swine flu could walk into this country at anytime undetected and spread the disease. This is what you get when you don’t uphold the law.

I have never been one to sugar coat an answer to a question and I don’t tell the person asking what they want to hear if I feel that is not correct. Of course, like everyone, there are questions I prefer not to answer or that I answer tactfully in order to spare one’s feelings. Does this make me look fat is one such question…

I have always been of a mind that you should not ask a question unless you are prepared for the answer even if it is not what you wanted to hear. Not every answer will be the one you want and some will not be tactful.

During the Miss America Pageant Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by Perez Hilton, a gay man, if she believed in gay marriage (he actually asked her if 46 states should follow the lead of the four that allow gay marriage). Miss California answered in a strange way but she ended up saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that is how she was raised:

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” Fox News

We don’t live in a land where you can choose to marry same sex. There are a few states that allow it but nearly all define marriage as between a man and a woman. But Miss California committed a sin because she did not affirm to the world that homosexuals should be able to marry. I think she could have answered it a little better but I am happy she stood for her beliefs.

Hilton’s response was rendered on his blog (today) when he said that Miss California was a “dumb b*tch.” Well, he should not have asked the question if he was not prepared to hear this kind of response. He indicated he would have preferred a politically correct response.

The gays in the audience were livid indicating that she should have never been runner up with that kind of belief. Who knows, maybe she would have won if she had given the answer that they wanted rather than the one that honestly depicted her belief though Hilton contends she lost because she is dumb. My understanding is that she was clearly in the lead prior to that question.

The guy who runs the Miss California competition, Keith Lewis, was saddened by her response. Why? Did he not expect her to say what she believed? Perhaps he thought that since she is from California she would be in favor of same sex marriage. One audience member said that her answer was different than 95% of the people in attendance. Perhaps (though there is no way of really knowing), but she comes from a state where voters rejected same sex marriage on several ballot initiatives. Here is what Lewis said:

“As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” said Lewis in a statement. “I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family.”

If politics do not belong in this then why did they allow Hilton to ask a question that has been the topic of a political battle for quite some time?

If the gay men in the audience (and according to the 95% guy, there were many) want to hear a different answer to that question then they should have their own pageant.

They could call it The Siss America Pageant.

Once again, the tolerant homosexual community is intolerant of someone who disagrees with its agenda. Nowhere is that any clearer than in the response from Hilton.

Let me start off by saying that George Bush was well within his right to fire US attorneys and replace them with whom he wanted. They serve at his discretion. I know there are people who claim he fired them for political reasons and that might be true but Clinton fired all of them to get one out who was investigating a Democratic friend. That is as political as it gets. The key point is that the attorneys serve at the discretion of the president, no matter who that president is.

The left went bonkers over the firing of the attorneys by Bush. They are still fighting that battle and calling witnesses in order to determine if the firings were illegal. I imagine there are some instances where firing them would be illegal like if they were homosexual or because of color but lacking very defined things such as those, I can’t imagine that it was illegal to fire people who served at his discretion. That has not stopped the howling from the moonbats. How much howling will they do now?

Barack Obama wanted to replace Catherine Hanaway, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, and replace her with St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch. Hanaway is a Republican and McCulloch is a Democrat.

McCulloch turned down the job offer from Obama because he wants to stay where he is. However, this begs the question; will the moonbats investigate Obama over this? Hanaway has done nothing wrong but Obama wanted to fire her and replace her with McCulloch who just happens to be one of the Nazis who wanted to prosecute anyone who spoke out negatively about Obama.

This was obviously politically motivated. It is obvious that this is payback for McCulloch’s support and SS tactics on behalf of The Won. Poor Hanaway is a civil servant trying to do the best job she can and is not accused of any wrong doing. Why would they get rid of her?

I say it is because she serves at the discretion of the president and I will bet the liberals will say the same thing.

But that is not how they felt when it was Bush doing the firing.

Karl Rove is going to testify over the Bush firings. Obama could not have given him a better gift.

SENATOR: Mr. Rove, what gave President Bush the authority to fire these attorneys? Don’t you think that was wrong and what part did you play?

ROVE: I don’t think it was wrong because they serve at his discretion. It was no more wrong than Obama trying to fire Hanaway and replace her with McCulloch which recently happened and I want to thank Barack Obama for doing that. She serves at his discretion and he can replace her if he wants. As for what I had to do with it, I gave my opinion when asked.

Source:
KSDK St. Louis
Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU

Change is on the way. You are the change we need. We need hope and change. This is our time and the time for change is now. With this mantra Barack Obama waltzed into the national scene. He portrayed himself as a regular guy, an outsider to DC politics as usual. The unfortunate reality is that Obama is a typical politician and there is no change in the future.

This guy touts the public education system and is beholden to the teacher’s union. However, he sends his daughters to private school and he did this long before he was elected on 4 November. Then he tapped the leader of public schools in Chicago (a basketball buddy) to be his head of education. The leader of the same school system he would not send his own children to.

Obama made sure he parlayed his Senate seat into a job for his wife where her salary more than doubled. He used questionable methods to have opponents removed from ballots so that he faced no opposition and he has nuanced his answers so that there would be no gotcha moment. Even people who cover for him have learned the Obama nuance as did Hawaii’s director of health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” KITV-ABC

Notice he never said Obama was born here, or that he is a citizen. He only states that the birth certificate is on file in accordance with state policies and procedures. This could mean that it is filed properly but more likely means that it is there in accordance with Hawaii policies that allowed foreign births to be registered in that state. This is nuance that the left has used as official word that Obama is indeed a citizen. Nowhere in that sentence does Dr. Fukina say that he affirms Obama is a citizen. Smart move because if it is discovered later that he is not, well that could mean jail time.

In any event, the average guy Obama and his change from the norm is on vacation in Hawaii. He is staying at a place that costs more to rent for one night than the monthly mortgage of most people (well most responsible people. Those who benefited from the Community Reinvestment Act might have mortgages that high).

The place where Obama is staying rents for $2500-$3500 a night and features 5 bedrooms, 5.5 baths, a pool and a spa. Now this might not seem like much. I mean, he is going to be the president of the US and he needs his Kennebunkport. Or, as his followers might suggest, a fortress of solitude.

What makes this a situation of politics as usual is that the listing for the place has been removed after the AP reported the details of it. Now it might be a matter of security but one would assume that if this were the case it would have been removed before he got there. Also, Oahu is an island and it is not too terribly difficult to guard a man who is staying on a private estate.

It is more likely that Obama did not want the unwashed masses who are losing their jobs because of Democratic failure to see him living the life of luxury. It would not be proper to have the people see The One living high on the hog in such bad economic times.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing but typical political maneuvering. There is no change in that and this is nothing more than politics as usual.

But hey, they got a great shot of of Obama with his shirt off. That should give the left something to fawn over for a while. I can see Chris Matthews’ leg getting all tingly over this.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.