Trust Him, He's Doing God's Work!

I've been converted. We should all support ObamaCare. Why? Because God says so. Just ask these people.

Death Panels? What Death Panels? Oh, You Mean THOSE Death Panels

Want a glimpse into the wonderful, candy-coated world of Obamacare? Look no further than Oregon's health care priorities. Maybe Sarah Palin wasn't so far off, after all.

That's right, folks. The state of Oregon decides who is worth keeping around, and who should just be put down. I mean, the lady in the video really has outlived her usefulness. Kind of like when a race horse breaks her leg. Think Oregon is callous? Wait until it's the federal government that runs things.

What Ever Happened to Public Health Care Negotiations?

Naked Emperor News has done yet another fantastic job of demonstrating Big O's hypocrisy. Enjoy...if you can stomach it.

Muse - The Uprising

Muse has been one of my favorite bands for quite some time now. I just listened to their new hit singe, The Uprising (thanks, GB). Take a listen below, and pay special attention to the lyrics (I've posted them below the clip in case you can't make them out). Fantastic.

The paranoia is in bloom, the PR
The transmissions will resume
They'll try to push drugs
Keep us all dumbed down and hope that
We will never see the truth around

Another promise, another scene, another
A package not to keep us trapped in greed
With all the green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined

They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious

Interchanging mind control
Come let the revolution take its toll if you could
Flick the switch and open your third eye, you'd see that
We should never be afraid to die

Rise up and take the power back, it's time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend

Faça Xixi no Banho!

This one's for you, Lak. Now we can all be a little greener by...peeing in the shower. That's right. In the shower. I mean, the water is already running, right? And besides, one flush of the toilet can use 12 liters of water, which equates to about 4380 liters of water a year. So by relieving yourself while lathering up, you're cleansing both your inner and outer bad-self at the same time. Let's call this "eco-hygene." Wait, didn't the hippies already try that?

h/t: Jawa

We are NOT a Democracy!

I was talking with a friend the other day about the differences between the various forms of government, particularly the distinction between a democracy and a republic. Later that day I saw this video, which does a good job of explaining the basic components of each form of government and their benefits and failures. It's pretty simplistic in it's explanation, but hey, sometimes we just need to keep it simple, right?

Issa to Emanuel: Back Off!

Last month I blogged about the Obamanation's scare tactics against Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) because he questioned the efficacy of the stimulus package. Now Darrell Issa (R-CA) strikes back. Via the Committe on Oversight and Government Reform:

Following reports that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been orchestrating an effort to intimidate members of Congress and Governors who raise legitimate concerns regarding the effectiveness of the stimulus, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to Emanuel saying "While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other Members of the United States Congress."

"I and others have dared to bring these facts to the attention of President Obama, the Congress and the American people," Issa wrote. "You’ve unfortunately reacted by once again resorting to the playbook of the Chicago political machine."

Last month, Politico reported that Emanuel had "launched a coordinated effort to jam" Senator Kyl and other Administration critics… "[A]fter seeing Kyl and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to [Governor] Brewer, according to two administration officials."

Issa noted, "The fact that the letters were coordinated by you to maximize the level of intimidation is supported by the timing, structure, and content of each letter. Not only were the four letters all sent the day following Senator Kyl’s remarks, but they were also remarkably similar in tone and sentence structure."

It is admirable that Issa is willing to stand up to the Chicago/DC political thuggery, but we need more representatives willing to resist these kinds of tactics and stand up for what is right, even when popularity polls are not in their favor.

Specter's and Sebelius' Call to Arms

Courtesy of IowaHawk

Guest Opinion
By Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA)
and Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Over two hundred years ago, America's founding fathers established a constitutional republic based on the audacious notion that the interests of its citizens would be best served by a wise body of their democratically-elected representatives. In the two centuries that have since transpired, that bold experiment has largely been a success. But we should also realize our system only works when the interests of voters and their government are in harmony. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that America's hard-working hometown legislators are feeling the pinch from a fickle and increasingly out-of-touch voter class who no longer serves our needs.

Nowhere has this disturbing trend been more evident than in the recent debate over health care reform. Like hundreds of our fellow legislators and government officials, we recently traveled to a town hall meeting to distribute a grassroots press release explaining why this critical legislation is a done deal. Our advance staffs said that should anticipate a respectful, positive hearing from local media and bused-in union members. Instead we were greeted by a rude howling mob of idiot "voters" who refused to listen to reason, and ruined what should have been a killer photo op for our re-election ad campaign.

Have these arrogant ivory tower armchair quarterbacks ever had to live with the pressures of being a working stiff Senator or Cabinet Secretary in Washington DC? Have they ever had to juggle markup language on a supplemental appropriations bill, or deal with an incompetent Chief of Staff who constantly double-books fund raising dinners? Apparently not, if their whiny obnoxious chants are any indication. "Read the Bill! Read the Bill!" blah, blah, blah, as if we weren't already exhausted from writing and voting for the damned thing...

Sadly, that brief shining Camelot in Washington has suddenly been replaced by a new Dark Ages, with hordes of placard- and plague-carrying voter vermin pouring up from the sewers of our home districts, threatening us and our very re-elections. Across Washington, hundreds of everyday legislators and consultants are paralyzed by fear, wondering where these these intrusive bubonic boobs will strike next.

The reasons for this are difficult to understand, but the results are clear: we have come face-to-face with a national crisis of confidence, as America's struggling government increasingly loses faith with its electing class. A recent Rasmussen tracking poll showed American Voters getting a paltry 23% approval rating from members of Congress and the Executive branch, and only 17% from members of the media...

Enough is enough. It's time for us to get out our pitchforks and tell the Outside-the-Beltway gang that we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more. We are the little guy, the junior senator from some godforsaken Nebraskansaw, just looking to make that subcommittee with the big contributor action. That fresh young regulatory agency head who only wants to test that bank nationalization idea from her Harvard term paper. We are the people who get up every day, work hard, and play inside the rules. Most of the time. And if one of us accidentally plays outside one of those rules, then, by golly, the rest of us will make sure to modify that rule so he's still playing inside the rules. And we're tired of getting pushed around the town hall by the likes of you, Big Voter.

Will our call-to-arms spark a grassroots movement among Government-Americans to take our town halls back? Call us irrepressible optimists, but we have high hopes. Because we still believe in the American ideal that one man, with a staff of 83, and a chair on an $800 billion subcommittee, and an iPhone full of contact numbers, can still make a difference.

In the end, democracy means that voters get the government they deserve. In fairness, shouldn't we get the voters we deserve?

Obama vs Obama on Health Care

Just in case you need any more evidence that Obama is trying to orchestrate a government takeover of health care and introduce a single payer system, here you go.

You know, I'm so sick of arguing this point, that I can't even find the stomach to comment on the video. Not that it needs any commentating...it should be pretty straight forward.

h/t: Breitbart

Cops are RAAAAAACIST!

Check out the posts by Lak over at Passing Time (here, here, and here) for an echo of my sentiments about the whole Crowley/Gates incident in Cambridge. And then watch this press conference by Sgt. Dennis O'Connor of the Cambridge Police Department. (BTW, maybe if I had that sweet Boston accent more people would respect me and take me seriously. Or maybe not, but it's still wicked good). I absolutely think that Obama and Patrick should apologize, but they won't. Gibbs has already explained it away by saying, in response to the question of whether Obama regretted saying what he did during his press conference, "I think he would regret if he realized how much of a [sic] overall distraction and obsession it would be, I think he probably would regret distracting you guys with obsessions." Don't you love how the Obamanation deflects any criticism by saying it was someone else's fault? And don't you love how the MSM lets them get away with it?

UPDATE: CNN's Tony Harris (hack) called the press conference you just watched "incendiary." Really? Did we watch the same thing? You can watch his comments here if you are so inclined, but I can sum them up for you. "Wah wah wah racism wah wah wah."

UPDATE 2: The One himself graced reporters with his presence at the WH briefing today, and said, "In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically." Gee, it's hard to imagine where that "wrong" impression came from. I mean, "acting stupidly" has so many positive connotations, how could one possibly assume he actually meant that the PD "acted stupidly." Obama then said, "Race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Because of our history, African Americans are sensitive to these issues." Enough with the race card! What an enabler! This guy would sell every non-black person in America into slavery as part of reparations if he could! Race obviously had nothing to do with this issue, but they just can't waste a good opportunity to trash law enforcement or whites.

More Military Budget Cuts

First, the Senate killed the F22 as a result of pressure from Obama. Now this. Tell me, dear reader, where does it end?

Who Says Politicians Don't Have a Sense of Humor?

Rep. Russ Carnahan held a townhall-like meeting the other day to "explain" Obamacare. Part of his "explanation" included the usual party regurgitation that Obamacare would not only save Americans money, it would give them more options and better coverage, etc. He also claimed that Obamacare would create "efficiencies", and then he had the nerve to flat out lie and claim that the CBO issued a report stating that the proposed health care plan would actually produce a $600 billion surplus over ten years. Pretty sure that the CBO said that Obamacare was unsustainable. But I really shouldn't be such a hatemonger. Anyway, enjoy the video, especially Kevin Jackson's question, "If it's so good, why doesn't Congress have to be on it?"

h/t: MM

Science Czar Holdren's Population Control Proposals

I've been meaning to blog about this for awhile, but I've been too lazy. :) John Holdren was recently appointed as Obama's Science Czar (I'm sure I'm the only one that finds it disturbing that all these czars answer directly and exclusively to the White House). As if everything that the One has done hasn't warned you about what's coming, this should help clarify it.

In 1977, Holdren co-authored a book titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In the book, Holdren sets forth his plans to help save the environment, and humanity in general. Here are some of his proposals, complete with page references and translations, just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up, and that you understand exactly what he's saying.

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. [p. 837]

TRANSLATION: I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. [p. 786]

TRANSLATION: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government, or they could be forced to have abortions.

Are we having fun yet? Well, the ride's just starting, kids.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. [p. 787-8]

TRANSLATION: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is ok as long as it doesn't harm pets or livestock.

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. [p. 786-7]

TRANSLATION: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control. (NOTE: This is under the section titled, "Involuntary Fertility Control").

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. [p. 838]

TRANSLATION: Anyone whom we deem causes "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children. (I'll admit, this one's tempting).

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? [p. 838]

TRANSLATION: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. [p. 942-3]

TRANSLATION: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born. (NOTE: This is found under the section titled, "Toward a Planetary Regime").

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. [p. 917]

TRANSLATION: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.

Well, that all sounds lovely, doesn't it? Oh, and by the way, we need to do all of this by 2000, or we will face a global population "catastrophe." Nice foresight, John. And this is the man who will help the determine the direction of technology and science research. I know I'll sleep better at night knowing he's on the job. Trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does someone this radical even get a legitimate job, let alone a powerful government position (and no, I'm not claiming that the czars are legitimate jobs...they don't even have to be approved by Congress!). If the above snippets aren't enough for you, check out the in-depth analysis of Ecoscience performed by Zombie.

Conservative Bob Dylan

Even Bob Dylan says it's time we start changin'. Yeah, the video is kind of creepy, but the song and voice are great.

h/t: 912

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Health Care

Pretty straight forward.

CNN Hack "Journalist" Out

Apparently Susan Roesgen was too blatantly biased during her coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties, even for CNN (and that's saying something). Now it looks like her contract won't be renewed. How tragic. It's amazing how these hacks even get jobs as "journalists." Most "journalists" these days are nothing more than the media equivalent of ambulance chasers, or are simply lapdogs for big government.

TVNewser has learned CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen's contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network.

Roesgen, you'll recall, was criticized for her coverage at the tax day tea parties in April, when she said the event she was covering in Chicago was, "anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox."

Roesgen took a break for a few weeks after that reporting...

When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen's comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, "I can't comment on personnel matters."

Obama's Wreckovery Plan

The GOP produced this ad highlighting the inconsistencies in O's statements regarding the wreckovery package. It's a pretty good ad. Check out Hot Air for more on this.

Goldman-Sachs Web of Deceit

Just in case the whole ObamaCare thing isn't enough to make your blood boil, watch this breakdown of the controversy surrounding the bailouts and AIG/Goldman-Sachs, courtesy of Glenn Beck. One thing Glenn doesn't mention is that Goldman-Sachs is also widely believed to own the Fed. Is it just me, or is it insane that we entrust a private business to control the supply of money in our country, and that we don't even know who actually runs the Fed??? Are you kidding me? Anyway, enjoy this video. DISCLAIMER: You may want to wrap your head in duct tape before watching it, just in case.

Government is sooooo...Efficient!

This is a chart developed by the House Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee, and illustrates the monstrous bureaucracy that will be created with ObamaCare. I mean, with a government that bloated and complex, what could possibly go wrong?

The CBO has issued an analysis of the reform bill, and has put the price tag at $1.5 trillion. TRILLION. 1,500,000,000,000.00. That's a lot of zeroes. And when was the last time the CBO's budget estimate was more than the actual cost of the program? Not only that, but the CBO acknowledged that the $1.5 trillion mark did not include all likely costs.

We have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies, nor have we accounted for all of the proposal’s likely effects on spending for other federal programs.

Basically, they're saying that health care will cost $1.5 trillion only if there are no costs associated with it's management and implementation. Right. But even without factoring in administrative costs, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf called the trajectory of the federal budget "unsustainable." That's right. Unsustainable.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.

Keeping deficits and debt from reaching these levels would require increasing revenues significantly as a share of GDP, decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.

Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

Here's what else you get from this bill:

- 31 new federal programs, agencies, and commissions to oversee the government-run health insurance regime (meaning 31 new czars).

- A "Health Choices Commissioner" would head the new "Health Choices Administration" (don't get that confused with the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Indian Health Service, all of which have done a bang-up job administering health care.

- A government-run "Public Health Investment Fund" and a "Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund." Social Security and Medicare should show us how competent government is at managing these trust funds.

- A "Bureau of Health Information" (not to be confused with the already existing National Center for Health Statistics). Michelle Malkin had this to say about the BHI:

New bureaucracies always have old special interests to appease. The Bureau of Health Information will house its own “Office of Civil Rights” and “Office of Minority Health.” The information czar will be required to collect health statistics in the “primary language” of ethnic minorities – and thus, the need for a new “language demonstration program” to showcase their efforts. Obamacare will also ensure “cultural and linguistics competence training” and establish “a youth public health program to expose and recruit high school students into public health careers.” The government health care juggernaut must be fed and staffed, after all.

Had enough yet? You haven't heard anything, yet. Investors Business Daily reviewed the bill, and it didn't take long for the red flags to go up. Page 16 of the proposed bill contained some language that seemed to provide a provision that would outlaw individual private medical insurance. IBD even sought the help of the House Ways and Means Committee to ensure that their interpretation of the provision was correct. Sadly, it was.

The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Scared yet? Read 1984 by George Orwell, and you really will be.

Barbara Boxer Plays the Race Card Against....Wait for it...the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Congress

Holy crap, this is priceless. Barbara "Please Call me Senator" Boxer gets positively, utterly, and unquestionably destroyed. What kind of self-absorbed, condescending WHITE person tries to play the race card against a BLACK man??? Especially someone as educated as Mr. Alford obviously is. All I have to say is, "California, you got exactly who you deserved." God love you, but this one's on you.

h/t: Jawa