Congress states that over 31 million people are with out health care coverage, of that number congress also claims 70 people die each day or 25,550 per year die due to no Health care.
With those numbers lets look at the HC Reform bill in true numbers and costs:
Last year 2,424,000 people died in this country. With the given statistics given by congress, that means approx. 266,664 people had no health care, 25,550 of those died directly to no health care. The present cost for the HC Bill is $900 Billion over 10 years. this is $35,225,048 or $3,522,548 per person per year of tax payer money to save the 25,550 people who die each year due directly to no health care.
Keep in mind, 2,157,336 of the deaths in this country had HC and still died.
Here are a few more stats and reform suggestions to consider:
Car Crash Reform: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. Most of those victims had car and health insurance, remember health insurance may not cover car crash injuries. So HC bill will not save those lives.
FLU REFORM:The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 35 to 50 million Americans come down with the flu during each flu season.The CDC estimates that in the US more than 100,000 people are hospitalized and more than 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year. HC Bill will not save those lives.
Be smart, this is NOT HC reform just another Government entitlement.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
The constitution is being trampled
by: John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior economist with H.C. Wainwright Economics and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.
The U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment is arguably the most important of all the amendments in the brilliant document that helped shape the United States. The 10th amendment made plain that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What the 10th amendment tells us is that the powers of the federal government are quite limited, and that any powers not enumerated to Washington in the first nine amendments automatically revert to the states. This was the founders' way of keeping the federal government small so that individuals could choose the kind of government they wanted based on the state in which they chose to live.
Of course, with politicians on both sides of the aisle driven by incentives that have told them to ignore the 10th amendment, Americans suffer under laws and bureaucracies created in Washington that would not exist had politicians adhered to the Constitution's limiting ways. Simply put, nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA.
Throughout this decade, under Presidents Bush and Obama, economic "stimulus" packages have similarly been foisted on the U.S. economy by a federal government possessing nothing not already taxed or borrowed from the private sector. Nothing in the Constitution mentions "economic growth" as one of the federal government's powers--the founders knew that with freedom came economic growth--but politicians being politicians, they've never let economic crises of their own making go to waste--Constitution be damned.
Where simple spending is considered, Washington's disdain for the Constitution becomes even more unsettling. As the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl recently noted in the Washington Times, federal spending includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
Clearly none of this wasteful spending was needed for the federal government to handle the very limited powers enumerated to it by the Constitution, and that was the whole point of the 10th amendment. Washington's powers would be limited so that citizens could choose their governments locally while keeping an eye on their activities.
That there were no federal income taxes until early in the 20th century was a certain offshoot of the meaning of the 10th amendment. The Founders' knew well that governments only grow, so in explicitly limiting the role of the federal government in our lives, citizens could wisely choose the government regime (and the level of taxation) they would live under. If lots of services and powerful politicians floated their boats, they could live in New York, while if they wanted to live in a state that spent and taxed much less, they could, for instance, move to Texas.
With government activities and spending based locally, Americans were essentially free to choose how much or how little power they would hand over. The federal tax burden was meant to be the smallest of all, precisely because the Constitution made plain that Washington's powers would once again be limited to what the first nine amendments allowed.
At present, the vision of the founders has been turned on its head. Rather than being able to choose the government of their liking on a state-by-state or city-by-city basis, Americans are captives of a federal government that has blatantly ignored the Constitution on the way to ascribing itself myriad powers and a taxing authority meant to pay for activities that, at best, should be left to cities and states.
This should be remembered the next time there's a discussion of federal taxation in the U.S. Indeed, while the freedom-loving may long for a simplified federal flat tax, in ascribing the power of taxation to the federal government to pay for all sorts of unconstitutional programs, we are blindly handing Washington powers never intended for it.
The better path at this point would be for all of us to demand more from our elected leadership. Specifically, we should demand that they cease talking of reduced federal spending and taxes in favor of a real discussion of the proper role of the federal government itself. Politicians need to be reminded that the Constitution is real, and that as opposed to reducing various programs that are unconstitutional, those programs should be abolished.
So while the level of federal taxation is important when it comes to economic growth, it to some degree misses the point. Federal spending is an equally huge burden on the economy for Washington taxing and borrowing from the private sector in order to fund initiatives that a proper reading of the Constitution would not allow.
In short, if we truly desire a greatly reduced tax burden, it's well past time we force politicians to consider the constitutionality of the various spending programs and bureaucracies that burden us. Only then will we see power returned to the cities and states such that levels of taxation actually decline.
The U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment is arguably the most important of all the amendments in the brilliant document that helped shape the United States. The 10th amendment made plain that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What the 10th amendment tells us is that the powers of the federal government are quite limited, and that any powers not enumerated to Washington in the first nine amendments automatically revert to the states. This was the founders' way of keeping the federal government small so that individuals could choose the kind of government they wanted based on the state in which they chose to live.
Of course, with politicians on both sides of the aisle driven by incentives that have told them to ignore the 10th amendment, Americans suffer under laws and bureaucracies created in Washington that would not exist had politicians adhered to the Constitution's limiting ways. Simply put, nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA.
Throughout this decade, under Presidents Bush and Obama, economic "stimulus" packages have similarly been foisted on the U.S. economy by a federal government possessing nothing not already taxed or borrowed from the private sector. Nothing in the Constitution mentions "economic growth" as one of the federal government's powers--the founders knew that with freedom came economic growth--but politicians being politicians, they've never let economic crises of their own making go to waste--Constitution be damned.
Where simple spending is considered, Washington's disdain for the Constitution becomes even more unsettling. As the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl recently noted in the Washington Times, federal spending includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
Clearly none of this wasteful spending was needed for the federal government to handle the very limited powers enumerated to it by the Constitution, and that was the whole point of the 10th amendment. Washington's powers would be limited so that citizens could choose their governments locally while keeping an eye on their activities.
That there were no federal income taxes until early in the 20th century was a certain offshoot of the meaning of the 10th amendment. The Founders' knew well that governments only grow, so in explicitly limiting the role of the federal government in our lives, citizens could wisely choose the government regime (and the level of taxation) they would live under. If lots of services and powerful politicians floated their boats, they could live in New York, while if they wanted to live in a state that spent and taxed much less, they could, for instance, move to Texas.
With government activities and spending based locally, Americans were essentially free to choose how much or how little power they would hand over. The federal tax burden was meant to be the smallest of all, precisely because the Constitution made plain that Washington's powers would once again be limited to what the first nine amendments allowed.
At present, the vision of the founders has been turned on its head. Rather than being able to choose the government of their liking on a state-by-state or city-by-city basis, Americans are captives of a federal government that has blatantly ignored the Constitution on the way to ascribing itself myriad powers and a taxing authority meant to pay for activities that, at best, should be left to cities and states.
This should be remembered the next time there's a discussion of federal taxation in the U.S. Indeed, while the freedom-loving may long for a simplified federal flat tax, in ascribing the power of taxation to the federal government to pay for all sorts of unconstitutional programs, we are blindly handing Washington powers never intended for it.
The better path at this point would be for all of us to demand more from our elected leadership. Specifically, we should demand that they cease talking of reduced federal spending and taxes in favor of a real discussion of the proper role of the federal government itself. Politicians need to be reminded that the Constitution is real, and that as opposed to reducing various programs that are unconstitutional, those programs should be abolished.
So while the level of federal taxation is important when it comes to economic growth, it to some degree misses the point. Federal spending is an equally huge burden on the economy for Washington taxing and borrowing from the private sector in order to fund initiatives that a proper reading of the Constitution would not allow.
In short, if we truly desire a greatly reduced tax burden, it's well past time we force politicians to consider the constitutionality of the various spending programs and bureaucracies that burden us. Only then will we see power returned to the cities and states such that levels of taxation actually decline.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Nazi Party?
Thank You Newsmax.com
The mainstream media were quick to jump all over conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh when he likened President Barack Obama's healthcare logo to a swastika and compared the Democrats to the Nazis.
They were much quieter about Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reference to a swastika when she claimed that hecklers at a pro-Obamacare town hall meeting were carrying swastikas.
During her recent visit to a San Francisco hospital, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked her whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' healthcare plan.
"I think they are Astroturf," she responded.
Then she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
See the video here.
The Chronicle report on the hospital visit did not report the swastika comment.
Fox News and Newsmax were among the media that did report Pelosi's comment.
But when Limbaugh made similar comments Thursday, he set off a media firestorm.
Limbaugh told his radio audience: "Obama's got a healthcare logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook.
"Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business . . . They were insanely, irrationally against pollution . . . They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working . . . They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare."
Limbaugh's remarks got such wide play that, for a time on Thursday, "Obama's healthcare logo" was the No. 1 search term on Google, according to Newsweek. The magazine pointed out that the logo for Obama's Organizing for Healthcare effort incorporates the caduceus, the ancient Greek symbol for medicine.
The Chicago Tribune was among the media attacking Limbaugh for his comments, citing a report that Wednesday's program "couldn't have been angrier, more mendacious, or more venomous" and adding that Thursday's show "surpassed even that for pure divisive poison as Limbaugh played an entire deck of Hitler cards."
The Boston Globe said Limbaugh's remarks were part of "the increasingly vicious war over healthcare," and quoted a Democratic official who said his statement was "as disgusting as it is shocking." The article made no mention of Pelosi's earlier remark about swastikas.
A U.S. News & World Report article called Rush's remarks "mind-numbingly nonsensical," but did not mention Pelosi's comment.
Politico.com quoted a Democratic congressman who asserted that Limbaugh with his remarks has treated Holocaust survivors "with vile contempt."
The mainstream media were quick to jump all over conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh when he likened President Barack Obama's healthcare logo to a swastika and compared the Democrats to the Nazis.
They were much quieter about Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reference to a swastika when she claimed that hecklers at a pro-Obamacare town hall meeting were carrying swastikas.
During her recent visit to a San Francisco hospital, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked her whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' healthcare plan.
"I think they are Astroturf," she responded.
Then she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
See the video here.
The Chronicle report on the hospital visit did not report the swastika comment.
Fox News and Newsmax were among the media that did report Pelosi's comment.
But when Limbaugh made similar comments Thursday, he set off a media firestorm.
Limbaugh told his radio audience: "Obama's got a healthcare logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook.
"Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business . . . They were insanely, irrationally against pollution . . . They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working . . . They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare."
Limbaugh's remarks got such wide play that, for a time on Thursday, "Obama's healthcare logo" was the No. 1 search term on Google, according to Newsweek. The magazine pointed out that the logo for Obama's Organizing for Healthcare effort incorporates the caduceus, the ancient Greek symbol for medicine.
The Chicago Tribune was among the media attacking Limbaugh for his comments, citing a report that Wednesday's program "couldn't have been angrier, more mendacious, or more venomous" and adding that Thursday's show "surpassed even that for pure divisive poison as Limbaugh played an entire deck of Hitler cards."
The Boston Globe said Limbaugh's remarks were part of "the increasingly vicious war over healthcare," and quoted a Democratic official who said his statement was "as disgusting as it is shocking." The article made no mention of Pelosi's earlier remark about swastikas.
A U.S. News & World Report article called Rush's remarks "mind-numbingly nonsensical," but did not mention Pelosi's comment.
Politico.com quoted a Democratic congressman who asserted that Limbaugh with his remarks has treated Holocaust survivors "with vile contempt."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Why a Bill of Rights?
Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others' insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. Those reservations weren't the result of a lack of concern for liberty. To the contrary, they were concerned about the loss of liberties.
Alexander Hamilton expressed his reservation in Federalist Paper No. 84, "(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of examining Hamilton's concern: Why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to picnic on our back porch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon that right in the first place?
Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more (powers) than were granted. ... (it) would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our picnic example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our right to have a picnic. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to have a picnic.
To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others' insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. Those reservations weren't the result of a lack of concern for liberty. To the contrary, they were concerned about the loss of liberties.
Alexander Hamilton expressed his reservation in Federalist Paper No. 84, "(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of examining Hamilton's concern: Why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to picnic on our back porch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon that right in the first place?
Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more (powers) than were granted. ... (it) would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our picnic example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our right to have a picnic. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to have a picnic.
To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.
Obama Repeal the 22nd for a third term?
You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016,” “I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment.”
Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.
Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.
"We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.
"With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"
Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.
“He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”
Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.
“I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”
Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”
Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.
“[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”
During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.
“You're going to find I tend to get it mixed up with House Joint Resolution Four and Six,” Gibbs said, to laughter from the press corps.
“I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he's given that awesome responsibility by the American people.”
“Anybody who thinks [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think given ACORN money and fraudulent voter registration — whatever it's going to take — these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.”
Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.
Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.
"We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.
"With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"
Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.
“He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”
Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.
“I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”
Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”
Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.
“[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”
During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.
“You're going to find I tend to get it mixed up with House Joint Resolution Four and Six,” Gibbs said, to laughter from the press corps.
“I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he's given that awesome responsibility by the American people.”
“Anybody who thinks [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think given ACORN money and fraudulent voter registration — whatever it's going to take — these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.”
Monday, June 22, 2009
Apology Tour part 3 Slavery and reparations
The Senate unanimously passed a resolution yesterday apologizing for slavery, making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery.
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.
Tashington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to "move on," saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.
On June 18, senators unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a "confession" that will aid the process of acquiring reparations. Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying "That battle will be prolonged."
Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): "I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress."
Brooks continued, "I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery."
Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on."
Bob Parks (Athol, MA): "Why the need to do this now? Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?"
Parks added, "The problem is that, when you apologize, it's important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it. It wasn't the entire Senate whose former party slogan was 'the White Man's Party' or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage. But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me."
Randall Robinson, author of "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," said he sees the Senate's apology as a "confession" that should lead to a next step of reparations. "Much is owed, and it is very quantifiable," he said. "It is owed as one would owe for any labor that one has not paid for, and until steps are taken in that direction we haven't accomplished anything."
Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said.
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.
Tashington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to "move on," saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.
On June 18, senators unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a "confession" that will aid the process of acquiring reparations. Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying "That battle will be prolonged."
Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): "I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress."
Brooks continued, "I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery."
Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on."
Bob Parks (Athol, MA): "Why the need to do this now? Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?"
Parks added, "The problem is that, when you apologize, it's important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it. It wasn't the entire Senate whose former party slogan was 'the White Man's Party' or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage. But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me."
Randall Robinson, author of "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," said he sees the Senate's apology as a "confession" that should lead to a next step of reparations. "Much is owed, and it is very quantifiable," he said. "It is owed as one would owe for any labor that one has not paid for, and until steps are taken in that direction we haven't accomplished anything."
Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
“The Emperor Has No Clothes!”
“The Emperor Has No Clothes!” – Ominous Poll Numbers for Obama
Cataloguing Barack Obama’s mendacity is like attempting to isolate individual pellets during a driving hailstorm.
Each of his fabrications is astonishing in its sheer audacity, but quickly fades into anonymity amid the endless barrage. And because he issues them with such rapidity, the effect is a contagion of mass amnesia that soothes the fawning “watchdog” media and induces stupor among the public.
Obama’s preposterous “jobs saved or created” artifice is merely the latest vivid example.
In January, while advocating its proposed “stimulus” legislation, the White House issued a report warning that unless the bill was passed, unemployment could reach 8.5% by this month on its way to a peak of 8.8% in 2010. If the legislation was passed, on the other hand, the White House promised that unemployment would top out at 7.8% before steadily declining.
Obama also issued his absurd promise to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, even though neither the Department of Labor nor any other governmental agency has any idea how to measure “jobs saved.”
Well. Congress passed Obama’s stimulus bill, but something has gone awry along the way. Since the date of passage, the American economy has lost approximately 1.6 million more jobs. And this month, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate has reached 9.4%, some 1.6% higher than Obama’s expected peak.
So how did Obama respond?
By brazenly contending that he had somehow “saved or created” 150,000 new jobs, with 600,000 more coming this summer. Even the New York Times acknowledged that Obama’s concoction is “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.”
That makes sense, of course, since “an actual counting of jobs” would reveal that Obama’s promise was demonstrably false.
It appears, however, that we’re beginning to hear the steadily-increasing murmur that “the emperor has no clothes!”
That adage, of course, derives from the classic 1837 fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen. In the story, the leader of a prosperous city habitually places greater emphasis upon his fashionability and popularity than upon sound leadership or effective governance.
Sound familiar?
Consumed by his frivolity, the emperor unwittingly hires two swindlers who convince him that they can produce the finest suit from the most exquisite fabric. The swindlers tell the emperor that the cloth is so elegant that it is invisible to stupid and incompetent people. When the emperor finally receives word that his new suit is finished and goes to try it on, however, he cannot see anything. Afraid of exposing themselves as stupid or incompetent by being unable to see it, the emperor and his ministers simply pretend to be awestricken by the non-existent new suit.
Oblivious to the swindle, the emperor proudly proceeds to exhibit his new “clothes” to the town. Afraid to speak up, the town’s citizens similarly pretend to see the wonderful suit, until an undaunted child exclaims, “the emperor has nothing on!” Although the crowd realizes that the child is correct, the emperor continues in his vain oblivion.
Andersen’s tale about exposing the emptiness and pretensions of the ruling class is obviously instructive today. From his “jobs saved or created” fiction to his assertion that he has no interest in running an automobile company while he does precisely that, the sycophantic media imitates the timid townspeople.
Accordingly, we await the collective realization that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But the murmur appears to be getting steadily more audible.
After Obama delivered his latest “American Apology Tour ‘09” address in Cairo, for instance, an observer in the United Arab Emirates noted, “he seems to say everything without actually promising anything.”
And here in the United States, scientific surveys provide ominous news for Obama. For the first time, a June 5, 2009 Rasmussen poll revealed that Obama’s “strong disapproval” percentage has equaled his “strong approval” rating at 34% apiece. To provide perspective, Obama enjoyed a +28% margin the day after entering office, with 44% strongly approving and only 16% strongly disapproving.
And in Europe, voters this week overwhelmingly rejected left-leaning and socialist candidates. It appears that people who have actually seen socialism in practice have developed a distaste for it. Foreign leaders such as Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have already begun to criticize Obama’s directives, and this week’s election results portend even greater friction.
The chorus of people pointing out the emptiness and pretensions of Obama’s agenda is growing larger, and the consensus that the emperor has no clothes draws nearer.
Cataloguing Barack Obama’s mendacity is like attempting to isolate individual pellets during a driving hailstorm.
Each of his fabrications is astonishing in its sheer audacity, but quickly fades into anonymity amid the endless barrage. And because he issues them with such rapidity, the effect is a contagion of mass amnesia that soothes the fawning “watchdog” media and induces stupor among the public.
Obama’s preposterous “jobs saved or created” artifice is merely the latest vivid example.
In January, while advocating its proposed “stimulus” legislation, the White House issued a report warning that unless the bill was passed, unemployment could reach 8.5% by this month on its way to a peak of 8.8% in 2010. If the legislation was passed, on the other hand, the White House promised that unemployment would top out at 7.8% before steadily declining.
Obama also issued his absurd promise to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, even though neither the Department of Labor nor any other governmental agency has any idea how to measure “jobs saved.”
Well. Congress passed Obama’s stimulus bill, but something has gone awry along the way. Since the date of passage, the American economy has lost approximately 1.6 million more jobs. And this month, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate has reached 9.4%, some 1.6% higher than Obama’s expected peak.
So how did Obama respond?
By brazenly contending that he had somehow “saved or created” 150,000 new jobs, with 600,000 more coming this summer. Even the New York Times acknowledged that Obama’s concoction is “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.”
That makes sense, of course, since “an actual counting of jobs” would reveal that Obama’s promise was demonstrably false.
It appears, however, that we’re beginning to hear the steadily-increasing murmur that “the emperor has no clothes!”
That adage, of course, derives from the classic 1837 fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen. In the story, the leader of a prosperous city habitually places greater emphasis upon his fashionability and popularity than upon sound leadership or effective governance.
Sound familiar?
Consumed by his frivolity, the emperor unwittingly hires two swindlers who convince him that they can produce the finest suit from the most exquisite fabric. The swindlers tell the emperor that the cloth is so elegant that it is invisible to stupid and incompetent people. When the emperor finally receives word that his new suit is finished and goes to try it on, however, he cannot see anything. Afraid of exposing themselves as stupid or incompetent by being unable to see it, the emperor and his ministers simply pretend to be awestricken by the non-existent new suit.
Oblivious to the swindle, the emperor proudly proceeds to exhibit his new “clothes” to the town. Afraid to speak up, the town’s citizens similarly pretend to see the wonderful suit, until an undaunted child exclaims, “the emperor has nothing on!” Although the crowd realizes that the child is correct, the emperor continues in his vain oblivion.
Andersen’s tale about exposing the emptiness and pretensions of the ruling class is obviously instructive today. From his “jobs saved or created” fiction to his assertion that he has no interest in running an automobile company while he does precisely that, the sycophantic media imitates the timid townspeople.
Accordingly, we await the collective realization that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But the murmur appears to be getting steadily more audible.
After Obama delivered his latest “American Apology Tour ‘09” address in Cairo, for instance, an observer in the United Arab Emirates noted, “he seems to say everything without actually promising anything.”
And here in the United States, scientific surveys provide ominous news for Obama. For the first time, a June 5, 2009 Rasmussen poll revealed that Obama’s “strong disapproval” percentage has equaled his “strong approval” rating at 34% apiece. To provide perspective, Obama enjoyed a +28% margin the day after entering office, with 44% strongly approving and only 16% strongly disapproving.
And in Europe, voters this week overwhelmingly rejected left-leaning and socialist candidates. It appears that people who have actually seen socialism in practice have developed a distaste for it. Foreign leaders such as Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have already begun to criticize Obama’s directives, and this week’s election results portend even greater friction.
The chorus of people pointing out the emptiness and pretensions of Obama’s agenda is growing larger, and the consensus that the emperor has no clothes draws nearer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)