Mark My Words

Do you like your health plan?

2009-12-23T20:52:00.001-06:00

Too bad, you won’t be able to keep it. Many of you may be thinking but Obama has said if we like our current health plan it will not be taken away, and the administration along with its allies have criticized anyone who has tried to say otherwise.

Unfortunately, Obama’s promises always have expiration dates.

Both the Senate and the House health bills slash a significant part of my employer’s health plan — the Health Flexible Spending Account — restricting them to $2500 and restricting what they can used for.

That single change in my health plan (and my wife’s) will cause our family to pay a couple thousand dollars more each year in income taxes, and yet my FSA might still cause my employer’s plan to trigger the 40% Senate tax on Cadillac plans (I don’t know enough about the full cost of our plans to know).

[…] (source)

Anyone brave enough to trust Obama to veto a healthcare bill that still retains these features?

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- Healthcare_reform

Mark My Words online store

Are we no longer a nation of laws?

2009-12-21T22:07:00.001-06:00

For those of us who have been paying attention, that question may have been answered with a “no we are not” some time ago. How could it get any worse than the racial and political games of Eric Holder’s reign at the Dept. of Justice, to point out just one aspect of the Obama administration? Unfortunately, it can get worse. If the following is true, the loss of liberties and prosperity threatened by Obama’s version of health care “reform” will be much more difficult to overturn, and the manner in which this is being attempted cares little for precedent or parliamentary procedure.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

That’s right, take over one sixth of the American economy, do so by hyper partisan votes, buying votes with favors inserted into the bill, and then require a super majority to overturn it.

The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medical Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels. (source)

Get that? One of the worst aspects of the bill is being made more difficult to rescind. Be sure to read the entire post at Redstate.com, there is more, including a transcript wherein it is noted that this rule/procedure change that requires a super majority will not itself require that to be passed.

Before this was noticed there was talk of State nullification of this mess. It has happened before in our history, this disaster provides another reason for States to move forward on such legislation. You can learn more here, which includes a map of the current state of play.

States nullifying the most damaging elements of the law would be a better step to take than jumping to seceding or worse yet, revolution by arms rather than votes. But with this administration, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on the side of increasing government control of our lives, and doing so with questionable methods (to put it politely), there is no telling where all this may end.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Healthcare_reform – Crime

Technorati tags: Harry Reid -- Nancy Pelosi -- Eric Holder -- Obama -- Obamacare -- Healthcare reform -- Senate -- tyranny

Mark My Words online store

Climategate, from Russia with love edition

2009-12-17T01:40:00.001-06:00

If the following is true, it may be more explosive than the already damaging email and data leak that has shown manipulation of data, buggy and “fudged” programming and partisan distortion of the peer review process. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has leveled charges that the Hadley Centre manipulated temperature data from Russia.

The following is alleged:

Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included…

[…]

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

[…]

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

[…]

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

See here for more details and links to other commentary.

A guest post at Watts Up With That? notes how serious the claim of tampering could be:

This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets. (source)

The IEA study used all the stations available and the results were 1.4 degrees Celsius of warming since 1870 rather than the larger 2.0 degrees Celsius warming used in official reports by the IPCC. While that is a significant difference, if one were to adjust for the urban heat island affect, or leave out urban stations all together, the level of warming would be even less.

The state of these claims is rather up in the air at the moment because we do not have the raw, unadjusted data to compare to what is presented by the IEA. And that is part of the problem. The leading scientists have for some time resisted releasing data, programs and methods and yet have expected us to just trust them. But then how many people were informed of their hiding data and refusing to respond to FOI requests? If you only received your news from the MSM, you probably heard nothing of these long simmering controversies.

We have long had enough reason to distrust the science. With this new series of allegations, even if eventually proven to be in error, it is demonstrated again that there is a need for full disclosure. Without it a breeding ground for conspiracies and speculation is created. With trillions in economic activity being toyed with, we must be certain of what the truths are regarding the global temperature trend and the actual extent of man’s impact on it. It is far past time for these scientists to expect anyone to accept what they say merely because they say “trust us”.

---

Previous posts:

CRU Climategate continues
More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies
More on that CRU email and data hack
Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!
Mark My Words – Global Warming archive

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News -- Global_warming

Technorati tags: CRU -- AGW -- climate change -- global warming -- hadley Climate Research Centre -- philip Jones -- michael mann -- james hansen -- RICO -- climategate -- crugate

Mark My Words online store

CRU Climategate continues

2009-11-25T19:11:00.001-06:00

The first thing everyone discussed was the content of the emails. It turns out that may not be the worst aspect of what has been discovered.

To review, we have enough from the emails to see that FOI requests were resisted to the point of rather destroying data than comply, emails related to FOI requests were deleted, scientific journals that did not follow the dogma were threatened and the overall claim that the science is settled is far from true. These actions are bad enough for the scientific method, where independent replication and falsification are central to the process. However, the zip file released to the internet contained more than just those emails.

While the emails revealed a great deal, the data that was freed also included programming code that was used to process the various temperature and proxy databases. Within that code were comments left by a programmer who worked for about three years attempting to fix the program.

Bishop Hill has a continuously updated list of the comments and summarizes them.

The code

Watts Up With That? has a post with all the comments in raw fashion.

Climategate: hide the decline – codified

One reason is quite clear as to why this climate team did not want to release its code. It is incredibly buggy as can be seen from the programmer’s frustration and confusion. The temperature databases being used are also very problematic.

With regard to the scientific process, the program used to create the temperature plots is needed by others to ensure that the methodology produces dependable and accurate results. It is sad enough that the program is so clearly sub par, but it appears this was well known, hence the hapless programmer having to try and fix it. Yet despite the known problems, the world at large was kept unaware of the issues and new temperature reconstructions were produced.

If this climate team had always been open with it’s data and programs, as it should have been, these problems could have been taken care of quite early. That is the scientific method after all.

Also hidden from the world were some of the scientists noting concerns with the data and some doubts in the certainty of the AGW conclusions in their emails. In fact, some of what they said echoed criticisms from ClimateAudit and other skeptics. But all we heard from the lamestream media and these climate study groups and various AGW proponents and evangelizers was that the science was settled.

Sadly, despite the many criticisms from global warming skeptics being affirmed, there may be too much pride and prestige at stake on the “science” side and too much political power at stake on the political side for the AGW proponents to stop themselves. With trillions of dollars of economic activity in numerous countries threatened because of the view that AGW is settled science, will they ever admit publicly that AGW can not be considered settled when it is based on such shoddy programming work and incomplete, undocumented databases?

That question remains to be answered. While we are waiting, another story is breaking about how AGW proponents/scientists may have treated the raw temperature data in New Zealand, conveniently showing rising temperatures where hardly any existed.

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.
[…] (source, be sure to read it all for graphs and further commentary)

The AGW proponents and evangelizers claim skeptics are only pseudo or non-science. With more proof being revealed of improper methods, corrupt data, undermining of peer-review and other actions that completely ignore and contradict the scientific method, such critics would do well to pull the log out of their own eyes before imagining splinters in eyes of everyone that disagrees with them.

*Update*

NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] has responded to the accusation of altering data. Unfortunately the explanation brings up more questions. They are still refusing to release data on all the stations, including only one with their justification for altering temperature data.

Reeling from claims that it has massaged data to show a 150 year warming trend where there isn't one, NIWA's chief climate scientist David Wratt, an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report, issued a news release stating adjustments had been made to compensate for changes in sensor locations over the years.

While such an adjustment is valid, it needs to be fully explained so other scientists can test the reasonableness of the adjustment.

Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.

[…] (source, thanks to Ace’s blog)

Be sure to read it all to understand why the explanation leads to more questions.

A small snippet from Ace’s blog summarizes the NIWA’s response.

“I'm seeing a pattern here, and it's not so much a pattern of climate as of obfuscation”

---

Previous posts:

More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies
More on that CRU email and data hack
Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!
Mark My Words – Global Warming archive

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News -- Global_warming

Technorati tags: CRU -- AGW -- climate change -- global warming -- hadley Climate Research Centre -- philip Jones -- michael mann -- james hansen -- RICO -- climategate -- crugate

Mark My Words online store

More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies

2009-11-22T22:45:00.001-06:00

The Climate Research Unit emails number around 1000. As people search the online archive or their own copy of the released data, more detail on the inner workings of this group come to light.

I’m going to first direct readers to the Ace of Spades blog. Gabriel brings together several PowerLine posts about this matter with brief summaries. a brief intro:

John Hinderaker at PowerLine have been doing a great job digging through the emails leaked from the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

[…] (source, be sure to follow the links to Powerline for the full details.)

The other climate warming goodies are several online resources covering the overall debate on AGW. Some I have mentioned or linked to before but I thought readers would be helped by mentioning them again. Of course you can find even more by perusing their blogrolls.

Bishop Hill – This blog covers other issues as well but the author is recognized as being quite adept at writing on the global warming issues under debate in a way that is accessible to the average person. He now has a book coming out called The Hockey Stick Illusion.

Finally, I recently ran across climate skeptic which brings up some good points about the global warming controversy.

[…] I often make a wager with my audiences. I will bet them that unless they are regular readers of the science-based climate sites, I can tell them something absolutely fundamental about global warming theory they have never heard. What I tell them is this:

Man-made global warming theory is not one theory but in fact two totally separate theories chained together. These two theories are:

Man-made greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, acting alone will warm the planet [between] 1.0 and 1.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

The Earth’s climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks, such that the warming from Greenhouse gasses alone is amplified 3-5 or more times. Most of the warming in catastrophic forecasts comes from this second effect, not directly from greenhouse gas warming.

This is not some Iird skeptic’s fantasy. This two-part description of catastrophic global warming theory is right out of the latest IPCC report. Most of the warming in the report’s forecasts actually results from the theory of positive feedback in #2, not from greenhouse gasses directly.

One of the most confusing issues for average people watching the climate debate is how one side can argue so adamantly that the science is “settled” and the other can argue just the opposite. The explanation lies in large part with this two-part theory. There is a high degree of consensus around proposition1, even among skeptics. I may disagree that the warming is 0.8C or 1.2C, but few on the science end of the debate would argue that CO2 has no effect on warming. When people say “the science is settled” they generally want to talk about proposition 1 and avoid discussion of proposition 2.

That is because proposition 2 is far from settled. […] (source)

It may be that good and honest people currently on opposite sides of the debate are actually talking past each other due to confusion over these two points.

I’ll end this post by asking a question of those who are following this story. Do you know people who do not follow blogs and/or only watch Lamestream Media? Hopefully you will be talking to them about this unfolding story, emailing the various blog posts you find with good information and/or posting on whatever social website you and they use.

The point being, we obviously cannot rely on the Lamestream Media to inform people. With Cap and Trade still a possibility in the Senate, we need to maintain pressure and ensure that important information such as this is not ignored.

---

Previous posts:

More on that CRU email and data hack

2009-11-21T16:05:00.001-06:00

I covered the server hack of the Climate Research Unit in my previous post. There are some issues that have been raised since then and a resource that is now available on the internet for those wanting to dig into this more.

The (slim?) prospects of a RICO investigation are discussed in preliminary form at BigGovernment.com.

For some time. several individuals have asked why we don’t just initiate suit against the obviously dishonest tactics and claims by the global warming industry under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). This law commissions “private attorneys general” to pursue violations on their own, in essence as proxies for the state.

I have explained with intermittent impatience that just serially lying or exaggerating to deceive are not on their face RICO “predicate” offenses. There must be three instances of a certain type of enumerated behavior over ten years to constitute a pattern in violation of RICO.

I have received an email from someone who has much appropriate training and experience and which causes me to revisit the issue. […] (source)

Along with that, Michelle Malkin makes the important point:

First things first: The alleged hackers need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That said: The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home. (source)

But it may be that the outrageous actions of some of the more extreme in the environmental movement may have the unintended consequences of protecting the hacker(s). A comment at Michelle Malkin’s blog makes that connection.

I say turnabout is fair play. James Hansen flew to England to help get six Greenpeace climate change activists cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station. “It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a ‘lawful excuse’ defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.”

[…]

If a “lawful excuse” defence can work for climate change hooligans, why not for these hackers/whisleblowers? The only damage they did was to expose the truth and reveal data paid for by public funds (assuming the files were not doctored, of course.) (full comment text here)

There is a searchable database of the over 1000 alleged emails online now.

Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable (thanks to What’s Up With That?)

The Bishop Hill blog has a readable summary of some of the emails.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number. (source)

How many of the usual suspect media outlets have covered this?

*crickets*

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News -- MSM -- Global_warming

Technorati tags: CRU -- AGW -- climate change -- global warming -- hadley Climate Research Centre -- philip Jones -- michael mann -- james hansen -- RICO

Mark My Words online store

Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!

2009-11-20T11:26:00.001-06:00

It appears that a leading climate sciences research center had its servers hacked and numerous emails and files released to the internet. This could be very embarrassing for proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

A good summary here that also links to the various blogs that are discussing this in depth.

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

[…]

Be sure to read it all and peruse the other blogs mentioned for even more as this story continues to unfold.

If these emails are true, we have a number of troubling issues thus far.

Collusion to change the peer review criteria to keep out an author and study that did not tow the line.
A request to delete emails. If this was in response to a FOIA request it most definitely runs afoul of the law. It may also be problematic due to the work and correspondence being supported by public funds.
The claim of independence and transparency is clearly a lie.
Philip Jones (Director of the CRU) stating that the death of an anthropogenic global warming skeptic was good news.

One of the emails that is getting a lot of attention, and has been verified as accurate by Philip Jones contains this statement by Jones:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Jones has responded to questions about this. The site ClimateAudit.org puts the email into context and explains what this is really about.

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions "diverge" from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to "pad" the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann's solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC's figure (violet original, green without "Mike's Nature trick"). (source, *Update* ClimateAudit.org is overloaded, their post is mirrored here, if you are having trouble getting to the ClimateAudit.org site)

This story is going to take time to unfold. Let’s keep in mind that while Jones has said that the data released appears to be genuine, and Steve McIntyre has verified that his email correspondence in the hacked data is accurate, and others have pointed that the data is much too large (62mb) and detailed to have been the result of a hoax, caution is still warranted.

It is possible that much is accurate but that some of the exchanges were spiked to increase the embarrassment of those targeted. We do know their system was hacked and that some of the emails are accurate but careful study and time is still needed to determine the accuracy of all questionable correspondence and data.

Considering the government expansion and control proposed by AGW proponents and that this is supported by our tax dollars, it is not too much to ask that this data be thoroughly studied to determine the truth of what has been released.

That is, if one is concerned with the truth here.

*Update*

Of course RealClimate.org has responded. The astute reader will notice the response does nothing to address the actual issues regarding adding in temperature data as covered at climateaudit.org and already referenced in this post. Even worse is the obfuscation Gavin offers in his response to a reasonable question asked in the comments.

KTB says:

20 November 2009 at 12:57 PM

It would be nice to get comments from the authors for lines like this. This can of course be understood in many ways…
I hope that posting of this small snippet doesn’t violate copyright, and I left the name out:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Xxx and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”

[Response: Bad papers clutter up assessment reports and if they don't stand up as science, they shouldn't be included. No-one can 'redefine' what the peer-reviewed literature is. - gavin]

If it was really bad science then the current definition of peer-review literature would not have to be changed. The person who wrote that thought it was proper to go so far as to change the definition to keep the report/papers out, thought they and others had the ability to do so, and worst of all believed this was an appropriate thing to do.

With attempted defenses such as this, it is time to buy more popcorn and sit back and enjoy the show as much lulz is to be expected at the expense of the AGW faithful.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News -- Global_warming

Technorati tags: CRU -- AGW -- climate change -- Michael Mann -- Philip Jones -- Hadley Climate Research Centre -- global warming

Mark My Words online store

The ACORN story continues

2009-11-12T21:42:00.001-06:00

ACORN staged a protest in Los Angeles. Andrew Breitbart decided to show up to ask and also answer questions.

In short, the ACORN story is far from over. There are more videos to come next week. You’ve seen the Baltimore story, the Philadelphia story, the New York story.

Now you will know about the LA story. (source)

Be sure to read the entire account and keep an eye on BigGovernment.com for the coming videos.

It is hardly surprising that an organization that is corrupt from top to bottom, so much so, that good people have been fired when they tried to do the right thing, has protests with rent-a-thugs.

While there has been some progress in diminishing our tax dollars supporting ACORN, it is only temporary at this time. We need to maintain pressure so this corrupt and partisan organization cannot regroup, reorganize, or change its name while continuing it’s dirty business as usual and with public funds helping it.

And despite Obama and his Kool-Aid drinking apologists doing all they can to distance him from the mess, Barack Obama has long and deep ties to ACORN.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- News -- Crime – ACORN

Technorati tags: Breibart -- ACORN -- Obama -- liberals -- crime

Mark My Words online store

Infidel woman stops jihadist’s murder rampage

2009-11-06T15:04:00.001-06:00

The death toll and injury could have been higher at Fort Hood if not for the actions of a police officer.

… the police officer who gunned him down, Kimberly Munley, a civilian Fort Hood police officer, is in stable condition. (source)

Her bravery and quick action should be commended. Fortunately, she had training in "active-response tactics", which teaches aggressive action against a threat.

As for this jihadist, there is already too much passing by of Nidal Malik Hasan’s developing Jihadi mindset.

Apparently the truth is at odds with the desired narrative. We must not upset CAIR after all.

---

Filed Under: Terrorism -- News – MSM

Technorati tags: Nidal Malik Hasan -- Kimberly Munley -- Jihadist -- Islamofacism -- terrorism

Mark My Words online store

Obama decides to escalate the war

2009-11-06T14:23:00.001-06:00

The war on Fox News that is, never mind our troops in harms way in Afghanistan, who are waiting for the support and resources they need in an important theater for the war on terror. Never mind that defeat is looming if we do not do what is necessary to achieve the victory that is still possible, Barack Obama has more important priorities.

The White House has taken the war on Fox News to a strange new level. Bitterly complaining that the news channel does not provide a balanced presentation of the issues, the Obama administration has now warned strategists from the Democratic Party that they won’t work with them any longer if the strategists appear on Fox’s programming as guests: (source)

Be sure to read it all.

I’m sure that saying something about Barack Obama’s skin will be construed as racist by some nitwit, but this guy sure is thin-skinned. Unfortunately this character flaw is expressing itself by suppressing a news agency for not towing the line like others. Clearly, this also intends to send a message to others in the media to keep sucking up.

Considering only a few data points, the lack of in depth investigation or coverage of the ongoing discovery of ACORN corruption, and the incredibly late and whitewashed reporting on Van Jones, do they really need the encouragement?

---

Filed Under: Obama -- NewsPolitics -- News – MSM -- Politics

Technorati tags: Obama -- FoxNews -- White House -- Democrats -- MSM

Mark My Words online store

ACORN Philadelphia video available

2009-10-21T12:09:00.001-05:00

ACORN had claimed that Hannah and O’Keefe had been thrown out of their Philadelphia office. The short video that has been released, with promise of the entire video and audio being available later, shows otherwise.

At Biggovernment.com – FYI it seems that traffic is slowing down the servers

Breitbart, Hannah and O’Keefe held a press conference earlier today. The reason for the dropped audio in the video was explained as addressing Pennsylvania record and consent laws.

Even with just this introductory video we can see that ACORN lied about the following:

1. Prostitution was not mentioned – YOU LIE!

2. Only talked to them for a few minutes – YOU LIE!

3. They caused a disturbance – YOU LIE!

As O’Keefe and Breitbart have noted, the media has repeated these lies. Will they correct their stories now?

ACORN has been revealed once again to be a criminal organization from top to bottom. While there can be no doubt that there are still some good people somewhere in the organization, they are constrained by the culture of corruption that is ACORN. This organization needs to be completely defunded at all levels of government and investigated thoroughly. Good people need to find other organizations that actually help the poor, rather than seek political power with liberal Democrats and using the poor as mere cannon fodder while people at the top benefit from the political corruption.

And let’s not forget that our Community Organizer in Chief has long and substantial ties to ACORN.

---

Filed Under: MSM -- Politics -- News -- ACORN

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- biggovernment -- Andrew Breitbart -- Okeefe -- Hannah Gills

Mark My Words online store

About those Rush Limbaugh quotes

2009-10-14T22:46:00.001-05:00

A youtube video has been made by BraveNewFilms that features some of the racist quotes by Rush Limbaugh. The only problem is that the most inflammatory quotes have been made up out of thin air.

Lee Doren has a video in response that addresses the outright dishonesty.

Rush has been targeted as racist for some time now. The sad fact of the matter is that the claims have been based on out of context quotes. Now we have liars making things up simply because they can.

While that is certainly evil, it is not much better to push the BraveNewFilms video and assume it must all be true because you don’t like Rush, Conservatives or Republicans. Unfortunately, being as stupid, willfully ignorant and biased as some myspacetards is not limited to that social website. Mainstream media outlets and others in the sports world have perpetuated the lies. Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton have also encouraged these lies but informed people are not surprised at their behavior. If anything, they are simply being consistent with their past racial demagoguery.

It has become quite clear that electing a black President, rather than healing the racial divide, has only encouraged some to call anyone they disagree with a racist. While it may be a convenient weapon, throwing the charge of racism around so often, carelessly and lying to do so, only destroys the power of the word.

We have come a long way but the fact is that we still have racism in this country. Those who seek to accuse everyone who disagrees with this or that policy as being racist only make it more difficult to confront real racists. They may win some battles on policy or who can purchase a sports team, but what they do to the country should concern everyone regardless of what side one falls in politics.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- MSM -- News – Culture

Technorati tags: BraveNewFilms -- Robert Greenwald -- Lies -- Rush Limbaugh -- Racist -- Lee Doren -- HowTheWorldWorks

Mark My Words online store

Global warming hockey stick dead?

2009-09-28T14:29:00.001-05:00

An interesting development regarding the well known global temperature graph with the twentieth century hockey stick like uptick has possibly added another reason for rejecting the accuracy of the graph and with it the alarmism concerning global warming.

To summarize, tree rings have been used as proxies for historical temperature data. What has now been shown by Steve McIntyre is that when a larger pool of tree ring data is included, the hockey stick disappears. Barring reasonable explanations, if this does not kill the hockey stick, then actual science in climates studies is dead.

An important context to all of this is that the data had, until now, not been publicly available. This is contrary to standard scientific journal requirement for the archiving of data. It is rather difficult to peer-review in a meaningful manner when the underlying data or even the program code that assembled the data is unavailable. It took much fighting to achieve this public disclosure, which now allows others to see how much of tree ring data was rejected and the result of including this in the temperature plot.

As CA readers also know, until recently, CRU staunchly refused to provide the measurement data used in Briffa's Yamal reconstruction. Science(mag) acquiesced in this refusal in connection with Osborn and Briffa 2006. While the Yamal chronology was used in a Science article, it originated with Briffa 2000 and Science(mag) took the position that the previous journal (which had a different data policy) had jurisdiction. Briffa used the chronology Briffa et al (Phil Trans B, 2008) and the Phil Trans editors finally seized the nettle, requiring Briffa to archive the data. As noted before, Briffa asked for an extension and, when I checked earlier this year, the Yamal measurement data remained unarchived. A few days ago, I noticed that the Yamal data was finally placed online. With the information finally available, this analysis has only taken a few days.

If the non-robustness observed here prove out (and I've provided a generating script), this will have an important impact on many multiproxy studies that have relied on this study. (source and more here about this, Thanks to AoSHQ)

Be sure to read it all. It is quite technical but the graphs make the situation very clear.

Unfortunately, it seems this unwillingness to allow open examination of methods and data sources is rather common for some in the climate studies field. Despite that, we still have those who claim the science is settled and that we need to do whatever it takes to avoid climate catastrophe.

That we don’t have catastrophic climate change that we must attempt to avoid does not mean that the environment is a free fire zone. Portraying all skeptics of man made global warming/climate change as motivated only by a desire to wantonly rape and destroy the environment is as dishonest as it is mistaken. Instead of attacking skeptics in such fashion, how about the various agencies and scientists have open and honest discussion about the data and methodologies used before we rush into destroying economies and limiting freedoms? Once we’ve gained certainty about the process and data, and determined what really is necessary, there would still be left many discussions about what is actually achievable and what are reasonable tradeoffs to accomplish the goals.

With this additional demonstration of less than professional and sound scientific work underlying the hysteria, what’s the hurry?

*Update:

A less technical summary of this story for the layman is available at the Bishop Hill blog.

The story of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. McIntyre's research into the other reconstructions has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that. (source)

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News -- Global_warming

Technorati tags: Steve McIntyre -- climate change -- tree rings proxies -- hockey stick

Mark My Words online store

ACORN sues activist journalists

2009-09-23T20:09:00.001-05:00

We shall see if they actually go all the way to court, but for now, ACORN is suing Giles, O’Keefe and Breitbart.

Community activist group ACORN is suing the makers of a hidden-camera video that showed employees of its Baltimore office giving tax advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman posing as a prostitute.

The liberal group contends that the audio portion of the video was obtained illegally because Maryland requires two-party consent to create sound recordings. […]

So the game is on. How much discovery will be allowed by the judge? Was there really any expectation of privacy? Two parties involved obviously offered their consent, that being Giles and O’Keefe. Is that enough to satisfy the law? According to one online resource, with Maryland law:

To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410. (source)

ACORN must be trying to win an irony award or something with this:

The two employees seen in the video were fired after it was posted online. The lawsuit says the employees, Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams, suffered "extreme emotional distress." […] (source)

Yes, that happens when you get fired for offering help with tax and mortgage fraud, money laundering and the trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation. The fired employees should be suing ACORN, by rolling them into this it could complicate legal matters for that criminal enterprise.

ACORN has now talked out of one side of its mouth about cleaning up but now out of the other side sues the very people that demonstrated so clearly that serious cleansing was necessary. With such actions is there any wonder that Congress and an ever increasing number of states are moving to defund ACORN? The IRS has severed its relationship with the organization as well.

ACORN of course runs the risk losing but even more important, that discovery will go much further than they currently expect. There is also the risk that Breitbart will release more videos as a first volley in reply to this.

---

Filed under: Politics -- Obama -- News -- Crime – ACORN

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Hannah Giles -- James O'Keefe -- Maryland ACORN -- Tonja Thompson -- Shera Williams

Mark My Words online store

National Endowment for the Arts links to partisan grant recipients

2009-09-22T12:59:00.001-05:00

This story follows on the audio showing that the NEA had lied about the nature of the conference call. The links and pages will probably soon be scrubbed but Big Hollywood tells the story with pictures of the web pages.

Are we to believe that mobilizing artists to contact Congress and demand “affordable guarantee-issue insurance” is “unbiased” and not an attempt to “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities”?

And why is the NEA funneling artists ONLY to this single “resource?” Where are the links to sites calling for tort reform? Why not a link to the cheapest private carriers of health insurance or information on affordable catastrophic plans that are perfect for young, healthy artists?

The NEA is essentially saying to those looking for help regarding health insurance: Lobby!

The lawyers can decide how ethical or legal that is, but it doesn’t take a law degree to understand that the NEA couldn’t be any less helpful if it tried. (source)

Needless to say, if President Bush had tried this the past tense media would be all over it. There would be panels featuring media and Hollywood celebrities discussing the chilling affect this would have had on the arts and our culture. Certain Democrats would call for investigation into the waste of tax dollars and to determine if any laws were broken.

An interesting aspect of this is that the artists had already helped on the campaign, why see the need to encourage them to do so through a government agency that distributes our tax money via grants to artists? Are they really that stupid to miss the legal implications or merely that arrogant?

This President and his cronies might have the gift of combining both flaws in large proportion.

Those of us who paid attention during the election and did not rely on the past tense media for information are not surprised. We considered Obama’s actions when it came to his legislative record and his associations. His actions during the campaign consisted merely of words that deflected or distorted the truth on those matters. In other words, actions really do speak louder than mere words. Perhaps more people will realize that is the case even when certain media sycophants continue to leg tingling, lavish praise or despite those words being read from a teleprompter, while the reader is backed up by Styrofoam Greek columns.

This is only the second day of Breitbart’s addressing the NEA matter. Is there more? Time will tell.

An update before I post:

The White House is trying to get in front of this now:

White House officials say they are enacting specific steps to make sure such a call never happens again.

Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best practices in this area, a conversation during which they will be told that that while White House lawyers do not believe that the NEA call violated the law, “the appearance issues troubled some participants,” Burton said. “It is the policy of the administration that grant decisions should be on the merits and that government officials should avoid even creating the incorrect appearance that politics has anything to do with these decisions.” (source, Thanks to Big Hollywood)

---

Filed Under: Obama -- Politics -- News -- NEA – Culture

Technorati tags: Artists Unite -- 501(c)(3) -- health insurance -- IRS -- NEA -- White House -- Obama -- liberals

Mark My Words online store

NEA conference call is propaganda for Obama with your tax dollars?

2009-09-21T12:18:00.001-05:00

Audio and transcript of this call are available and seem to undercut the NEA’s original claims that this was not about political campaigning. As they say, the cover up can be worse than the crime.

Big Hollywood introduces the new audio and transcript here.

The context of the NEA conference call is laid out in another very detailed article that follows at Big Hollywood.

All evidence points to the fact that the conference call was a ruse, a front for a White House using Skolnik as a kind of beard in order to put an innocent spin on their abuse of the NEA and two non-partisan volunteer organizations (United We Serve – an initiative overseen by The Corporation for National and Community Service – a federal agency, and the White House’ Office of Public Engagement).

The goal: To motivate a group of hand-picked pro-Obama artists (grant recipients or those wanting grants) to push the President’s flagging agenda, especially health care — and to funnel this promotion through the ACORN related- Serve.gov website. (source)

Be sure to read it all.

It seems the crime may be using federal funds, the granting or threat of withholding NEA grants to artists based on how politically useful they have been. It will be interesting to see what else Breitbart has due to his drip, drip, drip release of the ACORN videos. At the very least is the implication of reward followed by the NEA covering up the purpose of the call.

drip, drip, drip…

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- News -- NEA – ACORN

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Buffy Wicks -- health care -- Michael Skolnik -- national endowment for the arts

Mark My Words online store

NEA conference call next for Breitbart?

2009-09-20T22:49:00.001-05:00

It would appear that’s the case based on Andrew Breitbart’s hint and the follow up “Pre-game” post.

First an excerpt from his article that offers a hint:

At the very least, filmmaker James O’Keefe and actress Hannah Giles deserve a Pulitzer Prize for their expose of deep corruption and unspeakable immorality at the ACORN housing division. But more important, I won’t rest until they receive a grant to continue their partisan artistry from the National Endowment for the Arts.

That’s this week’s mission. (source)

Be sure to read it all for an explanation of the ACORN video roll out strategy.

His post is then followed by, “Pregame Report: The NEA Conference Call”.

So what did happen on that call? Was the NEA coordinating with the White House to push their agenda on a group of artists eager for and reliant upon the NEA for grants, or is the NEA telling the truth that this call “was not a means to promote any legislative agenda”?

Tomorrow at noon ET, explosive new information will answer that question and raise many others. (source)

Again, be sure to read it all to get all the background about that conference call. The information we already have is disturbing enough, it will be interesting to see what more Breitbart has.

Usually I hate Mondays, but this one looks like it could be better than normal.

---

Filed Under: Culture -- Obama -- Politics -- News – NEA

Technorati tags: NEA -- Obama -- ACORN -- James O'Keefe -- Hannah Giles -- propoganda -- Arts -- politics

Mark My Words online store

Mayor encourages criminals to run

2009-09-19T13:45:00.001-05:00

Of course that is not the intent, but Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake seems not to have thought through the necessary implications of her policy proclamation very well. (Thanks to HotAir Headlines)

Video source

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis has since chimed in by stating that Mayor Sallie Peake was simply playing along with the racist reporter because Peake was scared and that asking a minority Mayor a question about making it easier for criminals is also racist.

I might have added that last part. (Thanks to AoSHQ for that literary device)

BTW, I don’t have any Hannah Giles in a bikini photos although there is a rumor of photos existing of Hannah Giles in a bikini and wearing a lace wig.

---

Filed Under: News – Crime -- 4GrinsNGiggles -- ACORN

Technorati tags: Mayor Sallie Peake -- criminals -- Wellford -- Bertha Lewis -- ACORN -- Hannah Giles -- bikini

Mark My Words online store

Another State shuts down ACORN funding

2009-09-17T21:14:00.001-05:00

This snowball is getting bigger and moving faster.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal today cut off state funding for the community activist group ACORN.

Jindal has also blocked any state agency for entering into contracts with the organization.

The executive order also cuts off any future state funding of ACORN, on the heels of a series of embarrassing incidents for the organization.

The governor's action follows a subpoena of documents from the group's national headquarter office in New Orleans. […] (source, thanks to Michelle Malkin)

Let’s take the opportunity of reinforcing a point I made in a previous post:

This new scandal is only on top of the former scandals of embezzlement and cover up, voter registration fraud convictions in multiple states, shaking down businesses, campaign finance illegalities, to name a few off the top of my head.

Anita Moncrief adds more detail to ACORN’s long-standing corruption with her post ACORN: The Roots of a Scandal, be sure to go through earlier posts at her personal blog as well. She makes an interesting point with:

Some may find it disturbing that ACORN Housing is a landlord after watching the videos on the ACORN scandal at BigGovernment.com …

I can’t tell from what is presented if ACORN or one of the subsidiaries in its web actually has ownership or management of any housing. If they do own or are involved in managing such properties, perhaps there should be an investigation into the conditions at those locations? It’s not like there has never been a housing or real estate scandal in Chicago or other cities. ACORN has shown from top to bottom that it cares little for ethical standards. Even if just involved in development and not as landlords, their ever worsening reputation gives reason for concern. If the line is not drawn at covering up embezzlement at the top, or the trafficking of minors for sex at the bottom, is there really any reason for giving ACORN the benefit of the doubt in any project?

It seems the more one looks, the more thorough the corruption shows itself to be. Sadly, while there are undoubtedly sincere people within ACORN simply trying to help the poor, the organization over all appears to be far less concerned with its stated mission and more focused on gaining power and money no matter the cost, even if it hurts those it is supposedly trying to help.

---

Filed Under: Obama -- Crime – ACORN

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- liberals -- crime -- Louisiana -- Bobby Jindal -- Anita Moncrief

Mark My Words online store

ACORN kicked in the nuts by House vote

2009-09-17T17:30:00.001-05:00

Despite the pathetic attempts by some to deflect from ACORN’s corruption, the message is getting around. We now have the House following the Senate and voting to defund ACORN.

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs has details, including the names of those who voted to continue funding an organization that is so corrupt that it’s front line employees, without hesitation, offered advice to help with the sexual exploitation and trafficking of minors, mortgage fraud, money laundering, tax fraud etc. Their ease with and certainty of the steps needed for such illegal actions naturally leads to the question of, how many times have they done something like this before?

Ace has information about how certain and complete this de-funding really is and what is being attempted to ensure that it is thorough enough to stop funding this organization and it’s affiliates with our tax dollars.

The pressure needs to continue. It is obvious that ACORN is hoping for this to blow over with it’s talk of suspending operations and being audited. And about that audit, which anyone with a brain would be skeptical of, we now have data to confirm our skepticism. Allahpundit at HotAir begins his post with a good bit of snark:

I can’t do better than Karl’s summary so I’m going to steal it: “A Soros hack, an SEIU thug, someone who pleaded to lying to the FBI, and a Kennedy.” All that’s missing are a few pimps and prostitutes for “technical expertise.” Hardest-hitting internal investigation evah: […] (source)

We now have California and New York looking into investigating the matter.

Now that the supreme community organizer himself, via his spokesdork Gibbs, has distanced himself from the organization, perhaps certain individuals will stop with the distractions.

Don’t hold your breath though, some people just can’t stop themselves. It’s almost as if they like punching themselves in the nads or something.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- News -- Crime – ACORN

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- liberals -- biggovernment.com -- Hannah Giles -- James O'Keefe -- sex trade

Mark My Words online store

An embarrassing attempt at defending ACORN

2009-09-17T12:01:00.001-05:00

I would feel a little sorry for this individual if I had not been exposed to his intellectual dishonesty so many times before.

In an update to a previous post I had linked to a Myspace thread Shawn Wilkinson created when he saw that I had encouraged people to catch a new ACORN video on Glenn Beck. Of course there was no substantive rebuttal to the videos released thus far which resulted in my criticizing his comment. The following would be his idea of a reply that has substance.

Shawn in bold font

My replies in regular font

---

Markie mark,

I made fun of you and your postering of Glenn Beck as an informative source.

He still offers nothing to show the information is not accurate. ACORN has suspended operations, and fired employees, such actions indicate they know things went bad, the videos are true and they need to delay so this blows over. My words “as if that would matter anyway” were clearly broad enough to cover any ad hominem fallacy, but of course Shawn has nothing to criticize the actual information so has to resort to it again. As for ACORN threatening to sue, the people involved had said, bring it on. A number of us are looking forward to the discovery phase of such an action.

Concerning the conent of your post...

Why not the content of the videos? *chirp* *chirp*

These two "journalists" managed to successfully catch several bad apples in a large pile. Have they disucssed their Philadelphia trip? Of course not.

I was already aware of ACORN’s claim regarding Philadelphia. What will be interesting is to see what actually happened. Considering that ACORN has been wrong about it being only one incident with Baltimore, wrong about being turned away in New York and San Diego thus far, and it’s up to five offices, at this point, leaves Hannah and O’Keefe with far more credibility than ACORN. They also have the videos.

But since you are an avid FOX News watcher, surely you saw Hannity’s show today?

As if this is relevant to the truth or falsity of the videos which do not require having cable or watching FOX News, but only an internet connection to Big Government, youtube and various blogs.

You know, the one with Giles and Breitbart discussing how EVVVIL ACORN is, but it was Hannity (of all people) who pushed Giles into admitting that they had failed to fact check their story before coming out with it. No? Perhaps you should catch the podcast.

Then show where the facts are wrong. Shawn is desperately trying to stomp out the chirping crickets now.

More and more we see the duo as amateurs,

No one has argued otherwise. The Jon Stewart video criticizes the press for being scooped by amateurs and yet Shawn thinks their being amateurs is the negative point.

who when pressed to divulge all their video, refuse to.

So? They have their schedule. Notice Shawn still offers no evidence to counter what has been presented, just tries to imply something nefarious.

There’s a term for this type of behavior...

Hilarious, Shawn’s link has a five point definition for yellow journalism and this reporting doesn’t match up at all with any of it.

1. This fails as it is clearly not a minor story, unless one does not mind the under-age sex trade.

2. Would apply to any investigative undercover journalism with video if he foolishly wants to apply it to this case.

3. Is decimated by the fact that we have video and the very words of the ACORN workers and ACORN higher ups early statements showing they are not about being truthful about any of this.

4. Not really applicable in this case.

5. With this matter we have the supposed champions of underdogs and who they use as a shield and cannon fodder defrauding the system, this point fails as well.

But on a more serious note.

I guess he got tired of the the ad hominem fallacies and attempts at deflection.

I guess FOX news is a child porn mill and supportive of sexual harrassment if we make the charge that a few bad apples spoil the enitre bunch.

I was wrong, he is going for more deflection, doubling down even. Let’s first review what Shawn has tried thus far. One, go after Glenn Beck, as if that actually addresses the content of the videos. Two, attack Hannah and O’Keefe despite the five point definition of yellow journalism failing and the Philadelphia claim, which currently lacks details, already being overwhelmed by the five ACORN locations and ACORNS initial lies, with perhaps more videos in the future. And again, the actual content of the videos is not.rebutted.at.all.

Now he tries for deflecting with a ridiculous attempt at moral equivalence. He first has to distort the charge against ACORN to have a chance at this, in other words, a straw man fallacy. Once the actual complaint is taken into account the rest just falls away. There has been evidence for some time that ACORN is a corrupt organization from the top. This new scandal is only on top of the former scandals of embezzlement and cover up, voter registration fraud convictions in multiple states, shaking down businesses, campaign finance illegalities, to name a few off the top of my head.

That it takes this to wake up Congress, with the media still asleep, shows that we have additional problems with uprooting corruption in this country when it comes to liberal institutions. The charge is clearly not that a few bad apples spoil the entire bunch, but rather, that an organization that has long been corrupt at the top demonstrates this all the way to the bottom and that government and the media would rather look the other way until forced to act.

Best of luck in your parallel universe!

This coming from someone who can only respond with fallacies, deflections, distortion of the actual charge against ACORN and a pathetic attempt at moral equivalence.

Apparently Shawn did not watch the end of the Jon Stewart video or he refused to comprehend the criticism of shallow responses to this serious matter.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- News -- MSM -- Crime – ACORN

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- liberals -- biggovernment.com -- Hannah Giles -- James O'Keefe -- sex trade

Mark My Words online store

ACORN suspends services, orders audit

2009-09-16T14:41:00.001-05:00

With the uncertainty of whether or not there are more videos and revelations forthcoming, ACORN has tried another tactic in response to the shocking undercover videos that have been released thus far. ACORN is obviously trying to get in front of the growing scandal.

ACORN says workers conduct 'indefensible'

ACORN, calling the actions of some of its employees "indefensible," has suspended advising new clients as part of its service programs and is setting up an independent review to see what happened.

ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis said in a written statement that she was "ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN's service programs until completion of an independent review."

[…] (Thanks to HotAir Headlines)

What needs to be remembered is how their response progressed.

This was just one office, it was tried at a number of others and failed

The video is doctored and doesn’t show the true story. Despite that claim, they fired the employees.

This is a racist attack.

We are just community organizers like the President was.

Considering, as noted in that story, ACORN already had an advisory panel in place to deal with previous management problems, much skepticism is warranted towards their latest reaction. It is more likely that they are trying to create time to buy more paper shredders and to find out if any other offices were tagged so they can preemptively fire those employees.

Considering how far this could go, with serious criminal indictments, convictions and federal money already in danger of being denied, admitting to some failures now is certainly much less damaging.

Let’s also not forget that President Obama was very involved with ACORN, including during his campaign for President. Jill Stanek recounts some connections that really do make one wonder if that scandal could reach the White House.

[…] Now it turns out ACORN, the SEIU, Obama, and even Blagojevich are all somehow connected. There is a reason why both IL senators - Burris and Durbin - were among the 7 voting to retain funding of ACORN yesterday. I knew it before I scanned the roll call. Many State of IL officials are in bed with the SEIU, even AG Lisa Madigan. […] (source)

But of course for some, it is only about hating Glenn Beck, or this is all about being racist. Illegal activities, aiding child prostitution/slavery, etc. are minor matters that just need to be put aside. Such a position is so pathetic and morally bankrupt that even liberal Jon Stewart awakens slightly to say Are you f*** kidding me!?! as he chides the mainstream media for being scooped on such an explosive and important story. The Beck haters linked to earlier should stick around for the end of that Stewart video. It might be hoping for too much but maybe the correct lesson will sink in this time.

**Update:

More about the SEIU and ACORN relationship here at Big Government.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News -- Obama -- MSM -- Illinois -- Crime -- ACORN -- Blagojevich

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- politics -- liberals -- Illinios -- Blagoevich -- biggovernment.com -- Hannah Giles -- James O'Keefe -- sex trade

Mark My Words online store

Obama’s nuts getting dipped in hot grease

2009-09-15T14:04:00.001-05:00

And then it gets worse. Let’s get some important information out of the way first. Be sure to tune in to Glenn Beck’s show at 5pm and check out the Big Government site today at 4pm (both Eastern) as a new ACORN video is going to be released. Per Ed Morrissey:

According to Twitter chatter, this one has some politicians named, as well as a surprising admission from the ACORN staffer on tape. (source)

Yep, that would be the getting worse part, now back to the hot grease for Obama’s buddies. As previously noted, the Senate passed an amendment to removed funding for ACORN. Republicans in the house are also pushing to add this amendment to their version of the bill. There is also pressure for a full investigation of the organization.

All of this is covered in the HotAir post linked to above. Be sure to read it all as there is at least one update since I’ve been typing.

Another matter that adds to ACORN’s woes is that they may be operating illegally in Maryland. I’ll link to another HotAir post as Ed Morrissey has experience with State compliance issues.

I can’t think of a state with tougher compliance laws, with the possible exception of Virginia. We practically built our compliance group just for those two states.

With that in mind, ACORN’s ability to maintain its operations without valid registration — if indeed that’s what happened here — should get considerable scrutiny. Were their operations merely overlooked, or was there something more deliberate in keeping compliance enforcement off of their backs? Could it be because partisan hacks like Jessamy are more interested in protecting their political allies than actually enforcing the law? (source)

One has to marvel that all of this has come about despite the overall see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil attitude of the mainstream press. Primarily because of the initial work of Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, we are now finally moving to dismantling this criminal enterprise.

We are now up to four videos. Are there any more? Whatever the case may be I’m sure much paper shredding and deletion of electronic records is well under way at ACORN offices. I’m sure much overtime is required so those who have helped with this exposure of ACORN’s criminality should be congratulated for their efforts at helping stimulate the economy.

**Update:

An embed of the video from BigGovernment.com. Note, “This is a Part I of the ACORN San Bernardino exposé.”

**Update:

HotAir has full, unedited video from Fox News here.

**Update:

See how some on the left respond in this myspace thread. Notice there are no refutations or even discussion about what is presented in the videos along with the assumption that because Glenn Beck is mentioned in this post, that is who this information was initially derived from, as if that would matter anyway. But then Shawn Wilkinson has shown he is intellectually dishonest a number of times already, see here, here and here.

Not that the typical non-conservative in that thread will bother to read this. They obviously don’t care that ACORN is a criminal enterprise and are probably too lazy to scroll this far on top of it. The evidence showing support of under-age sex/slave trade, laundering money, mortgage fraud, etc. are just not important enough to them.

And here is the previous post about the videos that preceded these for those who are interested in what is being exposed about ACORN.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- MSM -- News -- Obama – Crime

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- biggovernment.com -- Hannah Giles -- James O'Keefe -- sex trade -- liberals

Mark My Words online store

Obama’s nuts are getting squashed

2009-09-14T19:04:00.001-05:00

Those nuts being his ACORN buddies. If you’ve been watching only ABCCBSNBCCNN then you are probably unaware of what has been happening to ACORN due to the work of two activist journalists, a new website by Andrew Breitbart, various blogs, Fox News and Glenn Beck. This is what we have thus far.

Andrew Breitbart started a new website Big Government that features a video of ACORN employees helping a prostitute and her pimp/boyfriend figure out how to commit mortgage fraud, tax fraud and money laundering for a political campaign. It only gets worse. These same employees then offer advice on how to hide the fact the the prostitute is bringing in under age girls from El Salvador to turn tricks. They go so far as to say declare three as dependants but no more as that would look suspicious. Video of all this is here.

ACORN responds by saying this only happened at one office, these people tried it a number of places and were turned away. One problem with that, there is another video of the same thing happening at a different office. ACORN still claims it is an isolated incident and begins throwing the race card and threatening to sue. You can see how this has progressed by going to the ACORN category at Big Government. There is now a third video from another ACORN office. Here is the link, just click newer entries at the bottom to get the updates and then read from the bottom up to see how the story unfolds.

As of today the latest is that ACORN has been dropped from the census, and a Senate funding bill for HUD/Transportation has had an amendment added that prevents ACORN from receiving federal funds until this is investigated. Sadly, seven Senators voted against the amendment, six were Democrats and one is an Independent. HotAir has the names which includes little Dick Durbin and Roland Burris, hardly surprising in my opinion.

So can we assume that Illinois and Vermont are especially sympathetic to child-whoring pimp assistance? (source, which has the rest of the names and several updates)

Glenn Beck has been all over this story and has promised more to come. ACORN is a criminal enterprise that receives millions of our tax dollars. Besides what you can find at biggovernment these days you can also find some interesting background at Anita Moncrief’s blog under the ACORN category.

Let us not forget that Obama cut his teeth working with ACORN and paid them for services during his campaign. That money was “mislabeled” originally but of course Obama received a pass on that matter, as he has on others. More about ACORN during the election here.

Michelle Malkin covers other ways that ACORN receives support from our taxes.

If the Census Bureau no longer trusts ACORN to collect data as a result of these videotapes, why is Congress still allowing taxpayer money to be funneled to the ACORN Housing Corporation?

AHC has received an estimated $16 million in taxpayer funds between 1997-2007, according to the Employment Policies Institute.

Last week, I noted that ACORN is now managing apartments in Bedford-Stuyvesant for the newly completed Atlantic Avenue Apartments.

In April, I noted that the bone-headed Bush administration shoved another $1.6 million into AHC’s pockets to subsidize the left-wing mortgage counseling racket.

AHC has a long history of abusing federal housing funds and Americorps grants for political activities. Thanks to the Consumer Rights League and brave ACORN whistleblowers, we also know their shady practices include working to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens and relying on undocumented income, “under the table” money, that may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. (source, read it all as they say)

The pressure needs to not only be maintained but increased. This should only be the start. ACORN should long ago have been the target of a RICO investigation. It may be that the ingenuity and guts of two activist/journalists may be the spark that finally removes this race baiting, radicalizing, criminal enterprise, which treats the poor as throw away facemasks and cannon fodder from the position of power and influence it has held on to far too long.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- MSM -- News – Obama

Technorati tags: ACORN -- Obama -- biggovernment -- Andrew Breitbart -- Okeefe -- Hannah Gills -- Anita Moncrief

Mark My Words online store

Illegal immigrants not covered by ObamaCare?

2009-09-11T18:11:00.001-05:00

I noted in a previous post about Obama’s healthcare speech that he did lie when he said illegal immigrants would not be covered. Shawn’s attempt at a rebuttal is below, with my reply interspersed throughout.

Shawn in bold font

My reply regular font

---

The claim concerning illegal immigrants is half-true. The House bill prevents access to tax credits for the impoverished. This system could easily be policed by the IRS, which would be nearly impossible to game by illegal immigrants.

Though it is true that there is no citizenship verification to enter the public option, this is also true for private insurance. Thus, it is the status quo. Secondly, the public option is designed to be funded only by premium holders, and therefore no taxpayer funding.

There are a number of things wrong with this attempt. Notice that he tries to diminish my point in his first paragraph before admitting that I was correct in the next. He then adds several errors to his rather lame argument.

The claim is not half-true, as his second paragraph admits. What he has to conveniently ignore to support his half-true claim is that attempts to include a verification method were rejected. Furthermore, we already have evidence of what government run healthcare programs result in when it comes to illegal immigrants.

When it comes to the question of whether government-run health-care programs will be used to subsidize illegal aliens, we need not confine ourselves to the realm of the hypothetical and the speculative. Helpfully, the government itself has taken a look at the issue from time to time. […] (source)

So, yeah, Wilson's right to believe that the Democrats are not telling the truth when they say the programs they want to establish aren't going to shunt money into the pockets of illegal immigrants. (source)

Since Shawn’s reply, the Senate has taken up the task of trying to include such verification in their version of healthcare reform.

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouting out “You Lie!” at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn’t benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. “We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again,” said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left. (source, thanks to HotAir which has additional commentary)

An odd action if what Joe Wilson said was not true or if it was only half-true.

Now let’s focus on the additional errors. Shawn had said:

Though it is true that there is no citizenship verification to enter the public option, this is also true for private insurance.

Because private insurance and government subsidized insurance are the exact same thing. /sarcasm

Thus, it is the status quo.

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether or not illegal immigrants will be covered by ObamaCare.

Secondly, the public option is designed to be funded only by premium holders, and therefore no taxpayer funding.

Right. Because government projections on the cost of government run programs always come in under budget, entitlements never grow larger and larger, and paying less than market value for services never has negative affects on the availability of the services. Furthermore, the government option cannot be separated from all else contained in the bill(s) because a number of the proponents have stated the government option is intended to be a step to eliminating private health insurance and creating a single payer system. This is why there are various revenue schemes floating around including burdensome fines on employers who do not provide enough health insurance, and for individuals who choose not to get insured and adding a tax to high wage earners.

Let’s also keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid are facing massive revenue shortfalls. The private health insurance industry is not. Obama and his allies want to eliminate the one system out of the three that is not failing and roll everyone into the two that are. (That is paraphrased from a comment at Ace’s blog)

You should fact check better.

That is hilarious considering the source.

You mentioned me not getting the number of uninsured correctly several times now, so here is the defense of the figure. Though I used 2007 census data, the economy was much stronger then. Recall that a DHH survey placed 57.7 million uninsured during the first half of 2008, which is when the economy began receding. Since then, unemployment has risen several percentage points, and so any mathematics done to remove overcounting of illegal immigrants is offset by the undercounting of current economic conditions. Click for more details.

All of which completely ignores the studies already presented that show how many of the “uninsured” can afford health insurance or already qualify for existing welfare and that many are uninsured for only 4 months or so. That fact check admonition is looking even more silly now. But let’s look at analysis of the latest Census Bureau numbers. Once one goes through the exercise again of removing those who can afford it or qualify for existing programs we have:

The general scope of the problem is between 17 and 20 million uninsured at worst, not 46 million or 30 million, as Obama tried to argue on Wednesday. (source)

Keep in mind this is based on the less reliable Census Bureau data and that a previous study used the less unreliable Congressional Budget Office data and resulted in smaller numbers for the year studied.

Finally, Shawn noted that I criticized his uninsured number several times. Since he admitted to that, it is revealing that he didn’t also address the breakdown that I included in a previous post.

But this debate shouldn't also be concerned with the number of uninsured, but other aspects of heathcare in this country, such as costs.

Yes, because we all know that the number of people who will be/need to be covered has no affect on the overall cost that will be spread to everyone else. /sarcasm

If I recall, the President did mention removing interstate barriers to allow private insurers to compete in markets that are currently monopolized.

No, Obama mentioned that some states have few or only one company dominating the market and that was justification for creating his version of competition, i.e. the government option. What did Shawn say earlier about fact checking?

This would be why Wolf Biltzer did not get a straight answer from David Axelrod on the matter of removing interstate barriers. Video and transcript here.

But that alone wouldn't cut the costs associated with health care.

I don’t know anyone that’s offering that as the only thing that needs to be done. I’ve covered some of these other reforms before and/or linked to articles that have. Since Shawn has read some of those previous posts, I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide about his intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, with his insinuation that this is being presented as the only thing to do.

Other forms of reform will be needed to curb the current rate of increasing cost before it becomes twice the rate of growth of our GDP.

Duh! I’ve noted some in other posts. Off the top of my head we need to include tort reform, reduce/eliminate mandated benefits, eliminate tax preference for employer provided insurance, allow for health status insurance, reform Medicare and Medicaid so that there can be competition with fee for service payment methods and to reduce waste and fraud. Moving to a voucher or HSA system that the government contributes to would cover a lot of that for the poor. In addition to that, the FDA needs to be reformed as it is been more about protecting pharmaceutical company profit rather than protecting health. Medical professionals need to also stop being so biased against OTC products. When you can get vitamin D3, fish oil and niacin for 10 to 20 times less at Walgreens than for what the prescription versions cost, there are vast amounts to be saved, including the improvement in health that those supplements would encourage.

I think Shawn should be complimented for his consistency. He still ignores points already made, uses incomplete data and deflects from the actual arguments being made.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- Healthcare_reform

Technorati tags: Obama -- healthcare reform -- democrats -- illegal immigrants -- liberals -- single payer system

Mark My Words online store

About Obama’s healthcare speech

2009-09-09T22:17:00.001-05:00

It would seem that President Obama thinks endless repetition of his already debunked talking points is all that Americans need to fall in line with his healthcare reform. After all, he said some time ago that time for talking is over and made that point again in his speech tonight. Yes, shocking isn’t it?

A good way for someone to get informed about some of the new and repeated inaccuracies in the speech is to go to the Cato Institute website and replay their live blogging of the speech. Be sure to follow their links for more in depth analysis.

The live blogging is available here, just click on replay.

To summarize just a couple of points they address.

Obama was very wrong about private insurance being more expensive than employer provided insurance.
30 million “cannot get” coverage? The number is much, much lower.

Be sure to read it all and as I said, follow their links for further information.

Let’s also address his claim that the Democrat healthcare bill(s) in Congress will not cover illegal immigrants. Yes, the house bill says the funds are not to be used for those who are not legally in the country. There is an incredibly huge problem with that little sentiment. There is no mechanism in the bill to enable that and that is by design.

President Obama assures the American people that illegal immigrants will not be covered; however, recently the House Ways and Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the government to verify that those enrolling in the "public plan" are not illegal immigrants.

Without a system in place to verify an individual’s immigration status, how will we identify those here illegally? We can’t, that may just be the point. […] (source)

The President said he would call out anyone making inaccurate claims about his healthcare plan. Judging from the multiple distortions he threw at us tonight, Obama apparently plans to call himself out in the near future. He probably is narcissistic enough to do that if the mirror were splendid enough and the lighting just so, but I’m sure his BFF Rahm Emanuel would put a stop to that. Maybe Joe Biden will do it, no one messes with Joe!

One final point from Thomas Sowell, made a day before Obama’s speech.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess— for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years— more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? (source)

As they say, read it all.

It used to be that actions speak louder than words. Sadly, many people have thrown that aside simply because this man has given a couple of decent speeches.

---

Filed under: Politics -- Obama -- Healthcare_reform

Technorati tags: Obama -- healthcare reform -- medicare -- medicaid -- free market -- health insurance -- democrats -- liberals

Mark My Words online store

Did you bwake your widdle wed wagon?

2009-09-07T16:46:00.001-05:00

The reaction from some on the extreme left to Van Jones shooting himself in the foot multiple times, reminds me of a child crying over a broken toy.

Just a taste:

Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11. Well, that and calling Republicans "assholes." I'm pretty sure that if you search through the histories of every single liberal leader at the CAF dinner that night, they have publicly said that and worse.

So where are all the statements defending Van Jones by those who were willing to exploit him when it served their purpose? Why aren't they standing up and defending one of their own, who has done nothing that probably the majority of people in the Democratic party haven't done at one time or another? Is he no longer "one of their own?" (source)

The comments serve up additional treats, this one standing out for obvious reasons:

Sadly, the picture that Jane paints emanates from Obama himself. Campaigning on a fuzzy platform of “Change and Hope” allowed him to capture the goodwill of millions. Having achieved the objective, those millions are no longer necessary, and have been dispensed with.

Now we are left with the Obama who craves universal approval from his counselors, teachers, editors, peers. Unfortunately, that group now includes irrational actors called Republicans. And in negotiating with them, he’s negotiating with terrorists. …

Thanks to RightWingSparkle who also makes the following observation:

And as much as people on that side are angry that the Democrats get into bed with big money in D.C., they know that they themselves are still the base of the party. They are just a bit angry with their daddy. Because taking over the banks, the car companies and our healthcare isn't enough for these guys. It isn't 'liberal' enough. … (source)

More, more, more. Just like a child who has little discretion or understanding of what their desires can bring forth. All this, despite having history and current experience to inform and guide us. Even worse are those who understand what must be the results and still push those views. But of course they are the non-terrorists in these discussions. Heaven forbid they provide arguments and data to support taking over industry and healthcare. But then they don’t do very well when they make that attempt. It is so much easier and more satisfying to just call names, deflect to other subjects, use flawed data, etc., though it is hardly very mature.

Normally I would help a child fix a broken toy. In this case, pointing and laughing is much more appropriate.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: progressives -- Van Jones -- liberals -- Democrat party -- George Bush -- Obama

Mark My Words online store

Healthcare reform – empower the consumer

2009-08-22T22:08:00.001-05:00

Health savings accounts and high deductible health insurance can provide benefits to the consumer without increasing government control that inevitably leads to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats rationing your healthcare. This isn’t speculation but the conclusion of research into 10 years of consumer driven healthcare in the United States.

The benefits include cost reduction, cost containment and at least equal or greater use of preventative care than the current system.

Cost-savings in the first year of instituting a CDH plan relative to a traditional plan ranged from 12% to 21%, remarkably large figures. Moreover, costs appear to grow more slowly under CDH plans than under traditional plans.

The knock on CDH plans has always been that they could cause people to avoid preventative case. Not only does this appear to be false it's the opposite of the truth […] (source)

Thanks to Patient Power which makes a necessary point:

And no, I am not saying that high-deductible insurance plans are right for everyone. Government should not punish people for buying them by enforcing a tax code that encourages people to buy excess insurance. Nor should government make high-deductible plans illegal, as Massachusetts has. (source)

And Marginal Revolutions concludes it’s post with:

It's remarkable that in the current debate over how to control health care costs so little attention is being given to the important results of our 10-year experiment with consumer driven health plans.

Well yes, it’s rather hard to discuss anything when one is being called a political terrorist or racist because of disagreeing with Obamacare, and we are being told to quit talking and just get out of the way.

Obama likes to talk about increasing competition with health insurance companies, yet no plan the Democrats have offered works to remove barriers to competing across state lines, or reduce mandated benefits which eliminate high deductible insurance from markets. That this 10-year experiment is also not being mentioned is hardly surprising.

All of that and the initial rush for passage of a bill with such far reaching effects, stopped (so far) only by citizen participation in the public square, makes one wonder if improving our health care is really the goal.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- Healthcare_reform

Technorati tags: healthcare reform -- obamaCare -- health insurance -- consumer driven healthcare -- HSA -- ObamaCare -- democrats

Mark My Words online store

Free economic theory lessons

2009-08-21T14:50:00.001-05:00

It will take some time to read the literature but if one is wondering why the economic plans of the Obama administration are failing, or would simply like to gain a better understanding of free markets, the effort will be rewarded.

“Vox Day” has a post with numerous PDF downloads concerning Austrian economic theory. This would be counter to the Keynesian like economic philosophy so in vogue within our government and the media today.

His post and recommendations were in response to an inquiry by a reader:

My reason for writing today is related to your views on economics. I have been sceptical of Keynesian economics ever since I went to university (at the LSE, no less- one of the chief incubators of both Keynesian and Austrian thinking), and my move to America for graduate school, along with recent events, have only contributed to my growing distrust and dislike of an over-mighty and overly large public sector. After doing some reading, it appears to me that only Austrian economics seems capable of predicting, understanding, and- crucially- solving financial crises, panics, manias, and bubbles. As such, I would like to explore a more rigourous and thorough analysis of Austrian economic theory. Therefore, would you be able to recommend a list of 5-10 books that you believe all prospective Austrian economists should read? The universe of Austrian economic literature is vast; a starting point would be useful.

Here is his post with links to the PDF downloads.

And since I’m sure that someone might claim that Austrian economic philosophy is dead, since they’ve dismissed it before, it will be instructive to read Vox Day’s reply to Paul Krugman’s criticism of the Austrian model as Krugman has dismissed the Austrian theory in similar fashion. It does have an entertaining start:

A Keynesian who rejects the Austrian theory of the business cycle is no more credible than an alcoholic who doesn't believe in hangovers or a rocket scientist who doesn't believe in gravity. (source)

As Vox Day points out in scathing fashion, it’s rather pathetic that a Nobel Prize winner would so misunderstand what he is trying to criticize.

In what may be dangerous for this country, such misunderstanding of economic matters seems endemic to the Obama administration. But then a question comes to mind. Is it really just an intellectual failure and therefore correctable, or rather, a deep-seated animosity to free markets and a natural inclination towards more control and government that is more intrusive, facts and evidence be damned?

---

Filed Under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- economics -- Krugman -- Kenyesian -- Austrian economic theory -- business cycles

Mark My Words online store

Reverend Wright represents the best of what the black church has to offer

2009-08-20T23:28:00.001-05:00

Thus saith Barack Obama in 1995. That’s not the only OMG! WHAT DID HE SAY?!! comment one will find in the video below. What’s especially interesting is how some of this plays now against Obama’s allies constantly claiming criticism of Obama is racist.

So, was Obama just young and foolish, young and radical, or willing to pander to and work with anyone to get ahead? Considering that his method of campaigning and governance thus far still consists of foolishness, radicalism, and kissing up to the likes of Chavez, his stooges and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, youthful naivety is simply not an option. But hey, at least Barack Obama has remained consistent throughout the years. Got to give him props for that.

Swiped from HotAir:

---

Filed Under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- Wright -- racism -- 1995 -- Barack Obama -- Dreams of My Father -- liberal -- radical -- Chavez -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mark My Words online store

A glimpse of Obamacare, except it will be worse

2009-08-20T17:03:00.001-05:00

A critic of this blog recently stated we should look at proven healthcare systems around the world and model our reform after those. It was rather hilarious that he included Canada and Britain in that list of successful systems while ignoring that a lot of our problems are due to current government interference, not the free market. However, looking at relevant past performance on a matter can give us insight into future performance.

Barack Obama is proposing spending at least $1 trillion over 10 years to reform healthcare, which accounts for 16% or so of spending in our economy.

Let’s look at how he’s done when he has spent significantly less.

The “stimulus” at $787 Billion

More unemployment after passing stimulus then they had predicted we would have if it was not passed. (graph)

The money has been released even more slowly, after Obama said it would speed up. (source)

In summary, our debt dramatically increased on top of the lack of positive effect on the economy.

Cash for clunkers at $3 Billion

Ran out of money early and may be out of money again. (total of $3 billion promised thus far)

One locale has had only 2% of rebates approved. (source)

Dealers opting out because they've had to wait so long for the refunds. (source)

“But it’s in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency,” he added. “If they don’t get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure.”

The needless destruction of property that will reduce supply in the used car market and thereby raise costs. (source)

Clearly, Obama and the Democrat’s programs have faired very poorly while drastically increasing our debt and helped raise the costs of products for those who can’t afford brand new cars.

---

How can there be any doubt that the performance of Obamacare will be much worse?

The amount of money to be spent is greater. At least $1 trillion over 10 years.

A further government takeover of healthcare in this country is the takeover of $2.2 trillion in spending for 2007.

Some of our states are larger than European countries that already have failing Obamacare type systems. That, combined with the diversity of our country adds a complexity that practically ensures massive failure.

The Massachusetts model has failed.

Oregon rations healthcare, resulting in odd priorities, to put politely.

*update* I forgot this about Oregon government healthcare. The Oregon Health Plan funds assisted suicide rather than chemotherapy.

As previously noted, the language of the bill is so complex that unconstrained regulators are about the only certain guarantee.

With Obama and the Democrat’s recent history on the economy is there any reason to suspect they will do any better grabbing control of 16% of the economy consisting of 80,000 doctors and 5,700 hospitals, let alone every consumer of healthcare, with a scheme that intentionally creates a larger bureaucracy and unaccountable regulatory minefield?

For those who inexplicably think the answer is yes they will do better despite their recent history on other smaller and less complex intervention in economic matters, I have some “lovely riverside property in Brooklyn” to sell. I can guarantee that Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and Barney Frank have demonstrated the intellect to buy this property so you had better hurry.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- Healthcare_reform

Technorati tags: ObamaCare -- Healthcare reform -- Reid -- Pelosi -- Barney Frank -- Massachusetts -- Oregon -- Democrats -- Liberals -- Cash for clunkers -- Stimulus

Mark My Words online store

MSNBC trying to start a race war?

2009-08-19T21:33:00.001-05:00

One has to wonder when they go through the hassle to edit video that contradicts their narrative that white people carry firearms to events when a black man is President.*

I’m going to direct everyone to Ace’s site for the complete story. He has all sorts of contact info so we can light up the phones and write letters. They can not be allowed to get away with this.

It will be interesting to see how Obama tries to one up the news station over this. After all, considering his racial agitation regarding Gates and Crowley it’s hard to imagine his narcissistic self enjoying second place in the trying to stir up racial animosity category.

Your move Barry!

*putting aside the fact that in some places this is perfectly legal.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- MSM -- Obama – News

Technorati tags: MSNBC -- NBC -- race -- obama -- firearms -- Open carry -- MSM -- propoganda -- lies

Mark My Words online store

Sarah Palin says Obama is wasting your tax dollars

2009-08-19T14:12:00.001-05:00

Not that this is really news, but Palin notes that there is a new item that Barack Obama is now throwing our money at while we are facing ever increasing debt and a crap economy.

For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects. (source)

The why, besides Obama being an idiot or worse, is possibly explained in a post at HotAir which goes into more detail about this deal. Ed Morrissey at HotAir makes a good point before the reveal/update:

Here’s a proposal: Let American companies do what Obama is paying Brazilian companies to do — drill offshore. We won’t have to pay them money or float them any loans to do it, either. In fact, we will make money off of the leases, while the effort creates hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the US, creating more tax revenue rather than emptying out the Treasury. (source)

Aside from the incredible ~~foolishness~~ corruption of throwing several billion dollars at a foreign company in which a solid supporter of yours has also just conveniently improved his stake in, there is the problem of that little ole thing called the deficit. Apparently several billion going outside the country is no bigee right? With that kind of thinking it’s no wonder we have unsustainable deficits projected into the future and that’s before Crap and Tax and Obamacare have been passed. Good job Barry!

Exit question: What would Barack Obama be doing differently if he really did want to undermine the United States?

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Palin – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- Petrobras -- Brazil -- Palin -- Oil -- enviromentalists -- Soros

Mark My Words online store

The government option = single payer

2009-08-19T12:18:00.001-05:00

This is the only conclusion one can reach when we listen to Democrats speak about their intent. The following video has a few more Democrats than the one I posted previously.

Swiped from HotAir:

Ed Morrissey drives the point home:

…they really do want a complete government takeover of the health-care system. ObamaCare is just the means by which they plan to accomplish it.

That being the case, there is no reason to use their focus group tested formulation or trust them when they try another friendly term such as co-ops. More information here about co-ops as envisioned by Democrats/liberals.

Besides their ultimate objective with a government option, the intentionally convoluted language of the current bills will create an explosion in regulation and a nightmare of paperwork that everyone will have to navigate as explained by DrRich (be sure to read it all):

It is complexity for complexity’s sake. When one parses out all the legalese, cross-references, and unnecessarily tortuous syntax, one is often (if not in each and every case) left with nothing concrete. To a great extent, the meanings of large sections of HR 3200 are not merely difficult to ascertain, but are fundamentally indeterminate. It has no definite meaning. It is designed for ambiguity.

This is legislation designed to create a legal framework under which huge cadres of unelected, politically-appointed policy mavens and bureaucrats will determine - by publishing hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, rules, and guidelines - what our new healthcare system will look like. And until those regulations and guidelines are actually created - and this “creation” will be a never-ending process rather than an act - anybody claiming to know the precise nature of our new healthcare system under HR 3200 is engaging in one of the following: lying, projecting one’s own wishful thinking, or extrapolating on the perceived behaviors and beliefs of those who (one surmises) will finally get to make up all the rules. (source)

Nat Hentoff references a similar take in his editorial I am finally scared of a White House administration (thanks to HotAir headlines):

excerpt:

As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

It has become clear why Obama wanted this rushed through before the August recess. For someone who claims to desire talking and bipartisanship, he sure doesn’t like giving enough time to do so in an informed manner. Now that we’ve had the opportunity to see what was actually being shoved down our throats, it is no wonder Obama was a bit miffed and said the time for talking is through.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- Obama -- Healthcare_reform

Technorati tags: Obama -- democrats -- republicans -- healthcare -- single payer system -- free market -- libertarians -- pre-existing -- health insurance -- ObamaCare -- Nat Hentoff

Mark My Words online store

Free market healthcare reform – additional objections

2009-08-18T18:03:00.001-05:00

Some people just don’t learn. Unfortunately the continued objections of one reader bring up the question of whether this person is dishonest and/or stupid.

The debate began here and continued with my last reply to Shawn Wilkinson being a new blog post here. What is interesting is that Shawn acts as if I did not make certain points. I am quite sure he read that last post as he’s been to my front page on the same day, after I posted it. Perhaps this explains why his latest reply is in comments to the first post, rather than the new one. Wouldn’t want other readers to so easily see that issues raised were already addressed.

Shawn in bold font

My replies in regular font

---

Mark is the only person I know who in one breath can state that credit default swaps were bad because they weren't regulated, and then prop up an individual who desires to deregulate the health insurance market to create an entity very simlar to credit default swaps.

Shawn is the only person I know who in one breath can combine dishonesty and stupidity to avoid having his narrative demolished. First of all, I have never said I am against all regulations, therefore there is no internal contradiction on my part. As he well knows, I am not an anarchist, but of course he has to imply something like that to shore up his clumsy ad hom. Additionally, I have already noted the several facts that would make health status insurance different from the credit swaps, one of which would be that health status insurance would be under the insurance regulations which credit swaps avoided. Pretending I never made those points only emphasizes his intellectual dishonesty.

It should also be pointed out that the CATO Institute analysis did not say to deregulate the health insurance market in the way Shawn is implying. I’ve addressed what regulations were being referred to here in reply to Chris, who thought dishonestly changing his argument would be clever.

It’s pretty obvious that Wilkinson is working from the narrative that deregulation and credit swaps were the major cause of the financial collapse and he is desperately trying to frame this proposal in the same manner, so much so that he ignores facts. What originally appeared to be a reasonable question has shown itself to merely be rhetoric in an attempt to deceive others.

One has to wonder if Shawn Wilkinson was this intellectually dishonest at some point in his academic career.

But the thing that escapes free market analysts here is that the insurance business itself is not a good model for the free market, not just healthcare but other forms as well. The whole concept of insurance is risk-pooling of resources so that fortunate individuals cover the costs of the misfortunate. The system unravels when profit is considered a motivation. Instead of competing in terms of services, the insurance industry competes for enrollees.

Part of that competition for customers would necessitate providing services better matched to the customers needs/desires along with acceptable cost that the market will bear. The fact is that such competition is limited by various states that mandate insurance must include various benefits which makes high deductible and cheaper, catastrophic insurance impossible in that market, despite consumers who would very much like that choice. Other barriers created by states make entering the market more costly and of course insurers already in those markets encourage that to avoid competition. Profit is obviously a motive in closing markets to competitors and thereby raises costs.

This is one reason the administrative costs associated with private insurers is roughly 20-30% of the premium versus the ~5% costs associated with state-sponsored programs. Another con of the current structure is the inflated compensation of executives and CEOs, furthering the income division.

Several links here that show his claim is based on faulty data. To summarize, Shawn’s numbers require ignoring the many significant differences between Medicare and private insurance. Once those are taken into account, private insurance, managing private insurance products, fares better than state-sponsored programs.

Instead of proposing an insurance on one's insurance to only see it eventually fail,

It is insuring against the possibility that one’s health status will change. Hardly surprising he doesn’t get this as he can’t get past the faulty, and now dishonest, credit swap comparison.

it would be better to adopt a program which we already know is successful and have empirical data to show for it. We can pick any industrialized European country (Britain, France, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.) or our next door neighbor (Canada) and implement a similar system.

Recent news out of Canada is that they know their system is broke. The man who helped institute it years ago has said it is failing. Britain already has government forced rationing and incredibly long waiting lines. Funny that he would include them a list in what is successful. Our system does need some reform, but it first needs to be realized that current government regulations are part of the problem. We are not in a free market now as noted here.

Hell, the VA is much like Britain's socialized medicine and it continuously outranks private insurance in terms of quality and costs.

Funny, the news reports seem to consistently point out problems with the VA

The current reform bill is very Swiss-esque in regulating private insurers with the addition of creating a not-for-profit public option to compete in the current market.

The actual language of the House bill necessarily destroys the private health insurance market. Several Democrats, including Obama and a liberal consultant have said single payer is the/their goal.

And I think you're confusing Medicaire with Medicaid in terms of poor handling. Medicaid is significantly underfunded and is poorly mismanaged by local state officials. Medicaire has shown to be a relaltively successful social engineering program since it's conception in 1965.

Medicare is facing a huge budget shortfall in the not too distant future.

As the recession cuts into tax receipts, Medicare's giant hospital trust fund is running out of cash more rapidly and could become insolvent as early as 2016, the report said. That is three years sooner than was previously forecast. At the same time, the government's already large share of the nation's health care bill will keep growing. (source)

Medicare is also reducing available care as it pays below market for services, resulting in more doctors refusing Medicare patients or even causing a hospital service to close.

Boulder Community Hospital, which owned and operated the practice, made the decision to close the specialty branch because of the rising costs of rent and the low reimbursement rates of its Medicare patients, hospital spokesman Rich Sheehan said. (source, emphasis in bold added)

More about Medicare problems here and here.

There is up to 20% fraud in Medicare. Medicare and Medicaid are such large buyers of healthcare that they ensure fee for service has little competition. Fee for service encourages duplication and waste. Other payment methods have their own weaknesses but if they were allowed to compete they would all have to improve.

The observant reader will notice that Shawn has not conceded that his earlier 45 million uninsured claim is a bogus number nor has he defended it when I briefly noted why it is incorrect. Apparently it’s just more convenient to continue waving one’s hands and hope no one noticed. However, in anticipation that he will blather that I didn’t back up what I said the following is provided:

"It is true that the 46 million figure is based on unreliable Census Bureau data. But even the less unreliable Congressional Budget Office puts the number at about 31 million. And even that number, former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin claims, is an “incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the uninsured population.

Turns out that 8.4 million uninsured Americans are making $50,000 to $74,999, and 9.1 million more are making more than $75,000. Health insurance is just incompatible with their lifestyles, I guess." (source)

Out of what is left, some already qualify for medical programs but haven't signed up for various reasons. Another study here that goes into more detail.

And let’s not forget that The One himself has compared his plan to the post office. Sometimes the truth comes out even when a politician would rather continue to play shell games.

---

Filed Under: Healthcare_reform – Obama – Politics

Technorati tags: Healthcare reform -- Obama -- democrats -- republicans -- healthcare -- single payer system -- free market -- libertarians -- pre-existing -- health insurance

Mark My Words online store

Global warming consensus and other matters

2009-08-17T12:25:00.001-05:00

BWHAAHAHAA!! That would be my reaction to the “consensus” claim made by true believers which is covered in an interview with Ian Wishart, the author of Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming as conducted by “Vox Day” at the Vox Popoli blog.

There are more issues covered and it is very much worth reading in it’s entirety so I’ll provide only one excerpt:

…The UN lobbyists pushing for a comprehensive emissions cap and trade scheme ….

[…]

If you look at the economic prize at stake, consider this. We currently have gold markets, but you are not forced to buy and sell gold and only a tiny percentage of the community are active in the gold markets. The financial markets are larger, but even then most of us are not forced to buy and sell shares or trade forex, and only a minority of us actually do so. But if carbon trading becomes compulsory worldwide, effectively every single one of us will be forced to buy and sell through this scheme. No one will be able to go through their daily lives without being represented directly or indirectly in the carbon markets. Those who control the carbon markets will effectively control the world.

If we are going to cede that kind of control, and money, for a claimed crisis of planetary proportions, shouldn’t we first be absolutely certain that the crisis is real?

[…]

As they say, read it all.

This book is certainly going on my wishlist.

I await the typical ad homs, deflections and cries of CONSENSUS! DEBATE IS OVER!! from those who have made anthropogenic global warming their new religion.

---

Filed Under: Misc. -- Religion – Politics

Technorati tags: global warming -- AGW -- Hansen -- climate change -- UN IPCC -- UN -- kyoto -- cophenhagen 09

Mark My Words online store

Simply admitting defeat would be less embarrassing

2009-08-14T17:21:00.001-05:00

Unfortunately, some people just don’t give up and their egos get in the way, but on a positive note they provide us some entertainment along the way.

Chris has been criticizing me for my post on health status insurance on my blog and in the comments at RightWingSparkle’s blog.

Poor little Chris only got around to seeing my follow-up post on health status insurance, after I told him to go look. Sadly, he continued with his claim that the CATO Institute analysis was lying. Several requests by me for him to back this up with a quote from the analysis were ignored, until I gave him this ultimatum.

For all that, he replies with this at RightWingSparkle’s blog:

Mark. In a continuing effort on my part to encourage mutually respectful dialogue (hi, Big Dog), I'm hopeful that this what you asked me to cut n paste from your site.

"The individual health insurance market is already moving in the direction of health-status insurance. To let health-status insurance emerge fully, we must remove the legal and regulatory pressure to provide employer-based group insurance over individual insurance and remove regulations limiting risk-based pricing and competition among health insurers"

Now, it's your to cut n paste from a Federal government site of your choosing all the language that proves that statement above

My reply:

That's what you were referring to??

And it took you this long to reference it?? LOL

Let’s first note that Chris’s first large mistake is not realizing the analysis did not say all of that was Federal regulations. Now on to each point of that quote and a demonstration of his ignorance.

legal and regulatory pressure to provide employer-based group insurance over individual insurance

Fact: Because of Federal regulations employer based group insurance has a tax advantage that individual health insurance does not. This means individual health insurance is at a mandated disadvantage when it comes to competing with employer provided insurance.

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, gross income of an employee does not include employer-provided coverage under an accident or health plan." source

And before you complain that it is from Cornell University, the IRS itself sends people to it.

"Cornell's version is reported to be generated from the most recent version made available by the U.S. House of Representatives; see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives prepares and publishes the Code; information is available at http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.php, which refers you to "Classification Tables" that show where recently enacted laws will appear in the United States Code and which sections of the Code have been amended by those laws." source

regulations limiting risk-based pricing

A list of states here

Take time to note that the list about states having community rating is a publication by the United States General Accounting Office. A PDF download is available here.

The table is on page 42

regulations limiting … competition among health insurers

According to a U.S. DOJ public hearing topic:

In health care, market entry is influenced by a number of factors, including the necessity of meeting state regulatory requirements such as licensure and certificate of need. Professional associations and individual providers have used a variety of strategies to limit entry by potential competitors and prevent unbundling and de-skilling of the services that they provide. Thus, in many states, there are significant limitations on market entry by new competitors, and opposition to the efforts of existing competitors to expand the range of services they provide. (source)

And for good measure, states help increase costs by mandating minimum benefits. From the Congressional Budget Office:

Another way in which state regulations may have boosted premiums for small
firms is by mandating the inclusion of certain benefits in all health insurance plans.
(In a number of states, those mandates cover treatment for alcoholism, drug abuse,
and mental illness as well as chiropractic care and bone marrow transplants.) If such
regulations force insurers in the small-group market to provide benefits that firms
would not otherwise purchase, the mandates will, in effect, push up premiums by
more than the additional coverage’s value to employees. Mandates may also
discourage some small employers from offering coverage, particularly firms with
employees who are relatively healthy and who—given the choice—would probably
forgo at least some of the mandated benefits to obtain lower premiums. (source – PDF download)

More about mandates increasing cost from Patient Power here.

So, will Chris admit defeat or continue putting egg on his face?

---

Filed Under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- democrats -- republicans -- healthcare -- single payer system -- free market -- libertarians -- pre-existing -- health insurance

Mark My Words online store

Free market solution to pre-existing conditions – some objections

2009-08-12T00:01:00.001-05:00

An individual has left some comments to my post on a free market health care solution to pre-existing conditions. Rather than continue that dialogue in the comments, I thought it would be interesting to bring it up front as a post.

In response to that person saying, “If such an option is deemed profitable, then why hasn't the "free" market opted for it?” I had noted that the policy analysis had this to say:

"The individual health insurance market is already moving in the direction of health-status insurance. To let health-status insurance emerge fully, we must remove the legal and regulatory pressure to provide employer-based group insurance over individual insurance and remove regulations limiting risk-based pricing and competition among health insurers"

His reply is as follows in bold font, my reply in normal font.

You wouldn't need to shy away from group rates for this option. It can be just as easily implemented in the group rate or union benefits, or a stand-alone package to supplement your current insurance (since you are free to purchase your own insurance outside of your current employer's plan). It doesn't matter who pays for it, as indicated by the last paragraph of your post, so long as someone does.

The above is really a shallow reading or misunderstanding of what the policy analysis actually said, as we shall see.

I just finished reading the original policy analysis.

This seems to indicate the earlier comments were rather uninformed, but as we can see, he still didn’t understand the points made.

And since this individual might complain that I didn’t provide a link to that analysis, I’ll explain why that would be a rather silly retort. In my post, I noted a link to that analysis was available at the Patient Power blogs. As I had already quoted their post, I felt it was not appropriate to also have the link to that analysis in my post and I wanted to drive traffic to them so their entire commentary could also be read. Apparently, this critic is too knee-jerk in character to click a couple times, read, and then comment.

What sounded like a good idea, this professor applied it very horribly. Remove all employee group plans and government options?

No, simply equalize the playing field so there can be competition. This would be the shallow reading or misunderstanding I alluded to earlier. Right now, as noted in the policy analysis that he claims to have finally read, employer provided health insurance has a tax advantage. This advantage works to keep consumers captive to employer provided health insurance which leaves them vulnerable to being uninsured when they lose a job. This does not eliminate employer insurance but enables more competition and choice for the consumer.

The analysis also said government could provide money for purchasing health status insurance for those who already had pre-existing conditions and had no opportunity to purchase it themselves. Obviously “all government options” have not been removed. One really has to wonder what this person was actually reading to miss that.

For someone who obviously thinks highly of their own intellect, one has to wonder what the problem is with understanding what was proposed. There is the possibility of blind partisanship, or even intellectual dishonesty. Then again, maybe he just doesn’t have the discipline to get past his animosity towards yours truly in order to think clearly. Really, it’s been quite a while, time to grow up kid.

Have people buy insurance on their health insurance? What's the difference between this and the credit default swap that tanked our economy?

Credit default swaps (CDS) are different in several important ways. For one, they skirted insurance regulations by not being structured as insurance. Another difference is that one did not have to actually have a stake in what they purchased the CDS for. That would be like someone purchasing fire insurance on some one else’s home. There is also some argument that CDS themselves were not the entire problem but what was also involved was the creation of moral hazard by the potential of government bailing out some companies thereby encouraging risky behavior. This doesn’t mitigate the bad decisions that some investors and executives made, but it is not as simple as CDS caused it all by themselves. As it is, the health status insurance has the features of real insurance that CDS were lacking.

Amazing the tripe free market analysts can develop. And you lap it up like it's the holy grail of free market ideology.

This is quite funny, considering his comments indicated he was rather clueless as to what the analysis actually said. The reverse may be much more applicable. It’s tempting to think he tends to reflexively reject any free market proposal offered by conservatives or libertarians. Though he tries to portray himself as open to a free market solution in a comment to another post, his blather above indicates it’s only window dressing and similar to his claiming to be non-partisan on another matter some time ago.

You should really be more educated on the economics of health and welfare. (PDF download)

The PDF he linked to doesn’t address the health status insurance proposal. It would be nice if someone would stick to the issue at hand and actually understand it before broadening the discussion. Unlike this critic, I did read it before making my comments.

I will agree that healthcare does not respond to market pressures in all aspects like other commodities or services. However, where it does and can provide an equal or better result for the consumer, we should work to provide that. To complain about our current system and using that as a sledgehammer to say it proves the free market can’t work at all is to do so while being ignorant of all the current regulations distorting the market that increase cost, and reduce choice for the consumer.

It would be nice if the government would at least demonstrate competence with Medicare before trying to do the same to our entire health care system.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- democrats -- republicans -- healthcare -- single payer system -- free market -- libertarians -- pre-existing -- health insurance

Mark My Words online store

A free market solution to pre-existing conditions

2009-08-08T17:56:00.001-05:00

I’ve noticed a focus on the problem of pre-existing conditions in various discussion on health insurance reform. It seems both Republicans and Democrats in Congress favor mandating that health insurance must not reject covering patients with pre-existing conditions. Is there a better way?

I know President Obama has said talking time is over and he wants us to get out of the way, but some of us prefer open and free discussion before turning over a large segment of the economy to the government. It also doesn’t help that what is being proposed would necessarily reduce our freedoms even if many of the proponents do not intend this.

So back to the issue at hand. If government does not mandate this, does it mean that the market will not respond to provide a service of some sort? The general view seems to be that of course a free market will not as there is no profit in this. But not so fast, according to an analysis by the Cato Institute, the free market can meet the need and government involvement can be much less intrusive and avoid the damage contained in current proposals.

Patient Power has it’s own commentary on the Cato Institute policy analysis as well as a link to the original report.

An excerpt from that commentary which you can find here:

In short, health-status insurance addresses what worries people most about health insurance: What if I get sick and become uninsurable?

Health status insurance protects people against the risk that their insurance premiums will increase should their health status change. In addition to buying medical insurance each year, you could also buy health status insurance. Should your premiums increase the next year because you get sick, the health-status insurance will deposit money into an account that can only be used to buy insurance. The amount would make up the difference between what you were paying and the now increased premiums.

Be sure to read it all, as well as the the actual paper under discussion. One excerpt from the Cato Institute paper, as I’m sure this question will immediately come to mind for most readers.

What about People Who Are Already Sick?

Private insurance cannot cover events that have already happened. You can’t tell an insurance company, “My house just burned down. How about some insurance?” Many people feel that government should insure events that have already happened, especially when no insurance was available and the unfortunate are in some sense blameless. Health-status insurance accounts offer a good way to help people who are already sick. The government could simply deposit money in an individual’s health-status insurance account and then get out of the way. Private charities could help people in the same way. This is much more straightforward, flexible, and less distortionary of markets than directly running a government-sponsored health insurance plan, or forcing private insurers to take such patients and treat them well. […] (Health-Status Insurance How Markets Can Provide Health Security, pg. 5)

Unfortunately some will not like this proposal as it requires less regulation and government interference or control. When one claims, in complete contradiction to experience or common sense, that we will cover more people, do so through expanded government bureaucracy and mandates and have it cost less, without reducing the service you currently have, they are rather immune to facts. While utopian fantasies are comforting, they tend to fall apart in the harshness of the real world. That may be hard to explain to children, it’s rather sad and dangerous when it is impossible to explain to the President of the United States because he tells us we should just stop talking and get out of the way.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- democrats -- republicans -- healthcare -- single payer system -- free market -- libertarians -- pre-existing -- health insurance

Mark My Words online store

What Obama really wants for your healthcare

2009-08-03T13:36:00.001-05:00

Many are claiming that Barack Obama and his allies in the Democrat party want to eliminate private health insurance and move us to a single payer healthcare system. Due to the lack of quality care, rationing and other negatives of such a system that other countries experience, many people recoil at the prospect. This unease at the belief of all that we could lose and suffer under such a system has been reflected in recent polls with the healthcare plan taking shape in Congress losing much support. However, Barack Obama and Democrats have stated quite clearly what they want. Shouldn’t we just take them at their word?

Snagged from Ace

Let’s all do what we can to make sure our friends and family know what Obama really has planned for us.

And btw, that promise of never raising taxes on the middle class? That’s gone bye bye now. Some of us are not surprised. I wonder about those who are surprised though. Do you feel betrayed? Will you vote for Obama and your Democrat congress critter again?

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- democrats -- healthcare -- single payer system -- barney Frank

Mark My Words online store

Sarah Palin – the other shoe drops

2009-07-05T13:02:00.001-05:00

Unfortunately for her rabid detractors, Palin’s fashionable footwear only dropped after having been wedged up their backsides.

No doubt some have heard or spread rumors that Sarah Palin only resigned because a major scandal has been brewing. In fact, some on the right have wondered if that was a possibility.

Turns out the speculation was about corruption and quid pro quo concerning the construction of her house and the Wasilla Sports Complex. One Democrat blogger in Alaska was certain this was the case.

So whence cometh the footwear wedging?

Let’s start with the response from Palin’s attorney, available here at Conservatives4Palin:

On July 3rd, 2009, Governor Sarah Palin announced her intent to resign her gubernatorial duties and transfer the powers of Governor to Lt. Governor Sean Parnell.

Almost immediately afterwards, several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the “real” reasons for Governor Palin’s resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. This canard was first floated by Democrat operatives in September 2008 during the national campaign and followed up by sympathetic Democratic writers.1. It was easily rebutted then as one of many fabrications about Sarah Palin. Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact.

[…]

Be sure to read it all, the last paragraph is the best part. Sarah Palin may not have huge feet, but I get the sense she now has the time and lack of official encumbrances to make her idiot critics and slanders wonder how such tiny feet can feel so painful once applied to what they’ve been thinking with.

This claim that she is being investigated takes a further hit from the FBI office in Alaska. From the LA Times:

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry. (Thanks to HotAir Headlines)

It really would be satisfying it Sarah Palin ended up owning several liberal media outlets or at least pushed them into bankruptcy over all this. It’s doubtful that will happen but one can still dream. At the very least the unfolding story that Sarah Palin has begun should be fun and exciting to watch.

---

Filed under: News -- Politics – Palin

Technorati tags: Palin -- Alaska -- scandal -- politics -- democrats -- wasilla sports complex

Mark My Words online store

Sarah Palin resigns

2009-07-03T22:00:00.001-05:00

And across the land emotions ranged from wailing and gnashing of teeth, to the gleeful satisfaction that the endless attacks had succeeded.

The Anchoress has an uber-roundup here that covers the various reactions.

I have little to say to her DailyKos, Andy Sullivan type critics, but to my conservative friends, look at this way. By leaving now, she frees up the administration from the endless cost and wasted time created by the frivolous ethics complaints. The person who will replace her now has that formerly wasted time and resources to accomplish more for Alaska and with his name on it, which puts him in a much better position for the next election. Sure, she could have just decided not to run for a second term, but that would not stop the attacks. In fact, they probably would have intensified due to speculation that she was aiming for a Senate run in 2010 or for President in 2012. It takes some lack of pride to do what will be seen as cowardly by so many, because one believes it is the best thing for Alaska and the country.

It's unrealistic to think she could have changed the ethics law that was being used against her so inappropriately. If she tried to support changing it, when she had previously supported the law, the charge would be that she has something to hide. If she offered the reasonable and truthful explanation that it was being abused for partisan means, she would be criticized for constantly whining about the attacks and biased coverage from the media. She can now campaign for others as she sees fit, unencumbered by that mess. It wouldn't do her much good to win the presidency if Congress is even more in the hands of the Democrats, even if she decides to run later than 2012. She also now has time to burnish her image without that also piling up ridiculous ethics complaints and burdening her administration even more.

Unorthodox? yep! Shocking? yep! End of the world!!? nah!

Of course all the above goes splat if some legitimate scandal comes out. But if it does, she's already shown she has more balls than ethics deficient Democrats and Governor Mark Sanford, who can't seem to get away from a microphone and think about his family, the GOP, or his administration.

Hopefully this is not health related. If it is, her hyper-partisan critics should feel a great deal of shame for the glee they have right now. Don't worry I wont hold my breath expecting them to have any.

So to my conservative friends, take a deep breath, enjoy the holiday with family and friends and let’s wait to see what happens next.

---

Filed under: News -- Politics – Palin

Technorati tags: Palin -- Alaska -- politics -- conservative -- energy -- ethics -- dailyKos -- andrew sullivan

Mark My Words online store

Abuse of power, where is the outrage?

2009-06-18T18:49:00.001-05:00

Obama sacks an Inspector General and breaks a law that he cosponsored by doing so, and that’s just for starters.

Of course some might say that’s nothing because Bush fired a bunch of attorneys! Needer needer nyah nyah!

Yes he did, but another fact often overlooked, due to the conveniently manufactured outrage, is that those attorneys served at the pleasure of the President. While the matter was handled clumsily, that does not mean it was illegal.

Now, let’s get to what we know thus far regarding Obama’s hope and change actions (words are less important after all) as applied to Inspector Generals.

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir:

The firing of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General was not an isolated incident, as the Chicago Tribune reports today. Two more IGs have been dismissed in the past two weeks, and Senator Charles Grassley has started demanding answers.

[…]

The third incident came last week at the International Trade Commission, where Judith Gwynne worked independent of the White House, and which will be a critical position as Obama reshapes trade arrangements around the world. An ITC employee earlier this year “forcibly removed” paperwork from Gwynne. Rather than back the IG after Grassley wrote a letter demanding answers, the political appointees at the ITC dumped her.

Be sure to read all of Ed’s post for more info.

As Ed says:

We are seeing a pattern, no longer just a single data point.

The silence from the usual suspects is deafening. Well, except for their nyah nyah apples to oranges attempt to deflect that issues forth from some.

---

Filed under: Politics -- News – Obama

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Gerald Walpin -- Judith Gwynne -- Obama

Mark My Words online store

Does God Exist? More info on tomorrow’s debate

2009-04-03T19:14:00.001-05:00

For those who can not make it to the debate or afford the 98$ fee for viewing the debate live and online, there is another option.

As I mentioned in a previous post here:

Christopher Hitchens will be on the side of Atheism and Dr. William Lane Craig will be arguing that God does exist.

[…]

Considering the background of both participants this debate should be quite interesting.

[…]

Even if you can’t make it, spread the word. Reasoned debate between two adversaries, with no quarter drawn, and concerning such an important matter, is a shame to miss simply because one wasn’t aware of the event.

While you won’t be able to see the debate directly, you can follow a live blog of the debate at DoesGodExistDebate.blogspot.com

The debate begins at 7:30 pm (Pacific) on Saturday, April 4, 2009.

You can register for more information and updates at DoesGodExistDebate.com

---

Filed under: Religion -- Christianity – Apologetics

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Democrat=Socialist, Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, The World According to Carl, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: hitchens -- william Lane Craig -- God -- apologetics -- biola Unversity -- debate -- religion -- Chrisitianity

Mark My Words online store

U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky thinks you are stupid

2009-03-18T18:58:00.001-05:00

Or at least uniformed. Visclosky, in his recent newsletter expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses that have been all over the news.

I am furious that AIG is lavishing over $165 million in “job performance” bonuses on the very executives who ran that company into the ground. (source)

Only a few problems with that. He makes no mention that the Obama administration knew a month ago about the bonuses, which is obviously before Obama read his recent outrage off a teleprompter

[…] For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts.

It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

[…]

The bonus problem wasn't new, as many lawmakers and administration officials knew only too well. AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep prized employees. […] (source)

There is no outrage at Chris Dodd for saying he had nothing to do with language in the bail out that protected existing contracted bonuses, only now to admit he did insert that language.

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision. (Thanks to Michelle Malkin - be sure to follow her links)

I’m still waiting for Democrats, that includes you Visclosky, to actually show some outrage over the CRA, Frank, Dodd and at the time Senator Obama running interference against more tightly regulating Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or simply doing nothing to help overcome the resistance of their colleagues in the Democrat party. Let’s not forget ACORN or voting irregularities experienced during the Indiana Democrat primary at the hands of Obama’s campaign. How about some outrage at Chuckie Schumer for releasing his letter that set off a run on a bank?

Sorry Visclosky, I’m not as dumb or uninformed as your newsletter assumes. That would explain why I’ve never voted for you. Then again, I suppose you may be as stupid and uniformed as you assume your constituents must be when you approved that newsletter.

Maybe you’ll correct these oversights with the next one. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.

If you would like to let U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky know that you are more informed than he assumes, here is his contact info:

Washington Office
2256 Rayburn
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
phone: (202) 225-2461
fax: (202) 225-2493

Northwest Indiana Office
7895 Broadway, Suite A
Merrillville, IN 46410
phone: (219) 795-1844
(888) 423-PETE (toll-free)
fax: (219) 795-1850

If you’re in Indiana’s 1st Congressional District you can use the online form here to correspond.

And yes, I sent him a link to this blog post.

---

Filed under: News – Politics

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Colorado Sports Desk, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Pete Visclosky -- Barney Frank -- Chris Dodd -- Waxman -- Fannie Mae -- Freddie Mac -- CRA -- Obama -- AIG -- TARP -- economics -- ACORN

Mark My Words online store

Straw is easy to burn

2009-03-15T19:31:00.001-05:00

Playing with fire is fun until you hurt yourself.

It has been noted by others that President Obama tends to caricature his opposition when he argues for support of his policies. Straw-man arguments are easy to burn, which is why they are so tempting to use against one's opponents. Karl Rove has chronicled President Obama's use of this tactic; though I'm sure there will be more examples in the future.

President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.

[…]

Mr. Obama portrays himself as a nonideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas. […] (source)

Yes it is disturbing but even more so when this is applied in other areas by way of foolishness. When it comes to negotiating with other nations, many of whom have interests that compete with ours and with liberal democracies in general, one needs to not have a misunderstanding of their counterpart when working diplomatic channels. It's bad enough to present their views dishonestly and then argue against that distortion. It is hardly any better to fundamentally misunderstand their motivations and work from such flawed presumptions. John Bolton called this problem “mirror imaging” in his discussion of the problems in the State Dept. bureaucracy.

“Mirror imaging” is related to moral equivalency, but is perhaps an even more widespread operational problem, involving the inability to see that representatives of other countries do not bargain on the same terms as our diplomats. […] If your “interlocutor” thinks you are a limp-wristed, weak-kneed, morally degenerate envoy of a decaying civilization, his priorities are likely to be very different from yours. In fact, if the person opposite is not your mirror image, your are poised to be taken advantage of, and will perhaps not even be aware of it. […] (Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations, John Bolton, pg 452)

So while the straw is not being placed intentionally, as Obama does for his American competition, it still piles up with our competitors and enemies. I'm sure they don't mind, it just makes it easier to set us afire when they decide to toss the match.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Political Byline, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- diplomacy -- straw-man -- fallacy -- Karl Rove -- John Bolton

Mark My Words online store

It’s Only A Joke

2009-03-11T18:50:00.001-05:00

There's nothing wrong with laughter right? The problem is that humor is too often used as a means to avoid personal responsibility with regard to being informed on important matters in the realm of politics.

It's not that making a joke about a politician is the problem. The error is when someone defines that individual by only the jokes and ignores the actual substance and/or record. It doesn't help that some comedians intentionally seek applause from the like minded, rather than be merely humorous.

A case in point, Bobby Jindal has recently been compared to Kenneth of 30 Rock. I actually think that's rather funny and worth a chuckle or two. But how many will allow their complete definition of Governor Jindal be determined by that? Do they have any idea of the substance of his speech and can respond with reasoned disagreement? Do they know he has a successful record of starting to reform the cesspool of Louisiana politics? Do they remember how competent his reaction to a hurricane was compared to the last Louisiana Governor? Have they bothered to see how successful he has been in other government positions or know that he is a Rhodes Scholar and has achieved quite a bit of success in politics by the age of thirty seven?

One may disagree with him on the issues; others choose to be informed only by comedians. That decision seems to be another expression of the lack of personal responsibility that has been a growing problem for some time and is now being encouraged by government bailouts to the irresponsible after having encouraged that behavior in the first place.

This is no different for those who can only express their disagreement with Hillary Clinton by her "cankles" or by falsely claiming that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Ignoring their arguments may work for the choir, but at some point substantive replies need to be offered to justify the opposition. To constantly shrink back from that duty is to cheapen the discourse and one should not be surprised, regardless of what side they are on, if they eventually find their views and statements looked at as no better than a cheap bumper sticker.

Perhaps many have the opinion that being informed about politicians and political issues is not important. Would they make a decision on what car or house to buy, which college to attend, what job offer to accept, based merely on who could tell the better joke about the competition? Yet, when it comes to deciding who will be in a position to tax us, determine how much government controls our lives and be responsible for defending the nation, it seems far too many rely on who gave them the best giggle. That wouldn't be so bad if they didn't vote. Unfortunately, it would seem too many of them do, judging from who won the last election.

People with this shallow level of thinking and lack of personal responsibility are themselves reduced to being a joke, but it is certainly no laughing matter when they can decide the fate of our nation.

---

Filed Under: Politics – Culture

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Investorblogger Dot Com, third world county, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Leaning Straight Up, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Bobby Jindal -- Hillary Clinton -- comedy -- politics -- 30 Rock

Mark My Words online store

Sarah Palin - pro-choice?

2009-03-07T12:08:00.001-06:00

I'm willing to bet that some usual idiots are jeering, or soon will be, at the fact that Sarah Palin just appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court. These types are probably getting a kick out of how social conservatives are going to be disheartened or hoping at least to stoke the flames of the imagined and hoped for disappointment. How should a pro-life, social conservative react?

Let's start by merely rolling our eyes at those who hope we will throw Sarah Palin under the bus. They're dream is based on ignoring information as to how a governor of Alaska is involved in the process. We need not be led by their dishonesty or their stupidity. The fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin had little power and could only choose from the candidates that were presented to her by a judicial council.

Gov. Palin's power to appoint judges is very limited in this process. Sure, she doesn't have to get her appointees approved by the legislature; but she can only choose names from a short list supplied to her by the Judicial Council. And in this instance, they sent her two names that she would never choose on her own, but she had no recourse to demand more names. No, this Alaskan system is not ideal. (source)

Be sure to read that entire post for more details and updates.

If there is anyone that should be disturbed, it would be those who try to portray Governor Sarah Palin as some sort of diabolical Christianist seeking to turn the country into a theocracy, if only given enough power. But then those types have never really bothered with the truth regarding Sarah Palin, so it's a rather slim chance they'll start at this late date. For those of us who actually care to be informed by facts, it has been clear for some time now that Governor Palin governs within the limits of the Alaska constitution and has not done much to force her personal social views on the state.

As a pro-life, social conservative, I have no problem with Governor Palin's decision considering how limited, by law, her role was in this matter. That my reaction only upsets or disappoints the usual idiots is just another reason that the sun shined a little more brightly for me today.

---

Filed under: Palin -- Politics – Abortion

Trackposted to: Nuke's, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Investorblogger Dot Com, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Palin -- Alaska Supreme Court -- Morgan Christen -- Planned Parenthood -- pro-choice -- pro-life

Mark My Words online store

I hope Obama fails = treason?

2009-03-06T19:37:00.002-06:00

According to at least one lefty Obama fan it is and should result in Rush Limbaugh being executed. The idea was expressed on Larry King's show and went by without comment. Is that the best way to react to such a provocative statement?

STEPHANIE MILLER, LIBERAL TALK RADIO HOST: I guess that is what Nancy and her friends want. As long as you have a place to listen Rush on the radio — if he fails we all fail.

KING: If his policies fail, he fails, right?

MILLER: Exactly. To me that seems treasonous

[…]

MILLER: … If I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?

Video here at HotAir.

Rather than address the outrageous statement, I think there is more to criticize with the tactic. In my opinion Stephanie Miller was attempting to play a game wherein she would respond to criticism by saying she's just doing what the right did when Bush was criticized. Of course her claim as to what the right was doing is largely just in her imagination and it requires one to also very much distort what Rush Limbaugh actually said. The shocking statement was merely an attempt to provide a moment for once again demonizing and discrediting the right by way of claiming hypocrisy. It matters little what rhetoric is used, or how such words may inflame others to actually consider equating disagreement with a president as being treasonous.

...standing in the middle of a grassy square, the crowd alert around me, each of them connected to me by a taut invisible wire so that my will is their will, my mouth speaks their words, their hearts beat to my rhythm. I have never felt this before, this kind of life, to be part of a group like this, and not just part of it, but the mind of it, the center, so that my self includes them all, hundreds of them, my rage is their rage, their hands are my hands, their eyes only what I show them.

In fact, stirring up the mob may be quite useful for suppressing those who are less courageous. It can have other effects as well, let's not forget the talk of riots in the streets if Obama was not elected. No doubt quite a few who helped start the French revolution felt likewise about the usefulness of exciting group passions. One wonders if they later realized their error before the guillotine interrupted their thoughts.

A momentary silence. A lull. An opportunity. Think of the right words. Think of something to bring them back, they're slipping away. They were part of my self, but now they're sliding away out from under me, one spasm and I've lost control, if I ever had control; what can I say in this split second of silence to bring them back to their senses?

Some people who have a large audience say horrendous things merely to get attention and advance a less ridiculous plan of action. They don't intend to take things as far as their heated words can be used by others, however, that does not absolve them of all responsibility, despite their wish for that to be the case. It also offers little to no protection for themselves when the mob they've unleashed gets beyond their control.

They almost killed him in their rush to leave him, almost trampled him into the grass.

They were his, though, all the same. He had created them, made a single mob of them, and even though they had misunderstood what he created them for*, they were still acting according to the rage he had provoked in them, and with the plan he had put in their minds. Their aim was bad, that's all--otherwise they were doing exactly what he had wanted them to do. Valentine was right. It was his responsibility. What they did now, he had done as surely as if he were still in front of them leading the way. (Xenocide, Orson Scott Card)

No matter one's ideology, placing it's success above all personal responsibility, combined with the ends justify the means, creates a path that will nearly certainly lead to disaster. The foolishness of such short sightedness is clear in history. Must we repeat the past several times over with escalating terror and suffering at each pass before we learn the error of our ways?

---

Filed Under: Politics – MSM

Trackposted to: Nuke's, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Stephanie Miller -- treason -- Larry King -- Rush Limbaugh -- Obama

Mark My Words online store

Does God Exist?

2009-02-23T19:11:00.001-06:00

A well known Atheist and a Christian apologist are scheduled to debate the question later this year.

Christopher Hitchens will be on the side of Atheism and Dr. William Lane Craig will be arguing that God does exist.

The debate will be hosted at Biola University Saturday, April 4 at 7:30 PM.

Christopher Hitchens vs. William Lane Craig, Ph.D., D.Theol.

Moderated by Hugh Hewitt and hosted by Craig Hazen
Cosponsored with Biola Associated Students
Book signing to follow

Considering the background of both participants this debate should be quite interesting. This debate has the potential for much more intellectual exercise than the Cameron/Comfort vs the (ir)rational response squad duo that had me merely yawning in anticipation. I would love to attend but unfortunately Southern California is too far a trip at this time. I’m sure transcripts, at the very least, will be available eventually, perhaps even video.

Even if you can’t make it, spread the word. Reasoned debate between two adversaries, with no quarter drawn, and concerning such an important matter, is a shame to miss simply because one wasn’t aware of the event.

---

Filed under: Religion -- Christianity – Apologetics

Trackposted to: Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Political Byline, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Nukes, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: William Lane Craig -- Christopher Hitchens -- God -- debate -- religion -- Christianity -- Atheism -- Biola Unversity

Mark My Words online store

Rush Limbaugh said something about Barack Obama

2009-01-03T17:52:00.001-06:00

And I agree.

There’s been much fretting and back biting about the “Magic Negro” parody song that Rush played on his show and that was distributed by a Republican. Paul Smith, a frequent guest host on Limbaugh’s program, managed to get Barack Obama on his show and ask him about the controversial song.

Paul Smith […] "I have to do this because Rush is on our radio station. We're going to see him tomorrow. You've heard the parody song 'Barack the "Magic Negro"'"?

OBAMA: (Laughing.) You know, I have not heard it but I've heard of it. I confess that I don't listen to Rush on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm not one of these people who -- who takes myself so seriously that I get offended by -- by every -- every comment made about me. You know, the -- you know, what Rush does is entertainment, and although it's probably not something that I listen to much, I don't --

PAUL W. SMITH: But you said not every day, so you do listen a little then, and why wouldn't you?

OBAMA: I don't mind. I don't mind -- I don't mind folks poking fun at me. That's part of the job.

Rush gives his view on Obama’s reaction.

RUSH: Barack Obama. That's right, Barack Obama laughed it off. He laughed it off. He said I'm an entertainer, and he doesn't mind being made fun of, poking fun at him. That's part of the job. Snerdley's looking at me with mouth wide open and agape. What do you not believe about this? (interruption) Yeah, look, we don't need to belabor this. But there's a reason he's laughing it off. A, it's funny. B, the roots of it is the Los Angeles Times. C, there's nothing to accomplish by doing something other than this. I don't want to go into it any further, but this is a classy way to deal with it. This is the way he should have dealt with it if anyone asked. It's the first time he's, probably, been asked about it, but this is the way for these guys to deal with it. Blow it off. Laugh it off. "No big deal." […] (source)

So yes, Obama deserves praise for not whining about it as so many others have.

I do wonder if some were so offended by the assumptions they made because of the title of this post; that they didn’t bother to find out it was actually complimenting our President Elect. Perhaps they could take a lesson from the man they probably helped vote into office.

---

Filed under: Politics

Trackposted to: Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Leaning Straight Up, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- Magic Negro -- Limbaugh

One word

2008-12-30T11:30:00.001-06:00

I wonder why they didn’t use it.

A year ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced it had demonstrated that a new way to pay for roads — via a mileage tax and satellite technology — could work.

[…]

When the task force’s study and test were in the news in 2006 and 2007, critics worried that the technology could be used to track where vehicles go, not just how far they travel, and that this information would somehow be stored by the government.

In more than one interview with the Democrat-Herald and others, James Whitty, the ODOT official in charge of the project, tried to assure the public that tracking people’s travels was not in the plans.

[…]

The final report detailed the technical aspects of the program. It also stressed the issue of privacy.

“The concept requires no transmission of vehicle travel locations, either in real time or of travel history,” the report said. “Accordingly, no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no ‘tracking’ of vehicle movements.”

Also, the report said, under the Oregon concept of the program, “ODOT would have no involvement in developing the on-vehicle devices, installing them in vehicles, maintaining them or having any other access to them except, perhaps, in situations involving tampering or similar fee evasion activities.” (source)

That word being – currently.

Using the words except and perhaps still illustrates the tendency for government to expand beyond original statements of intent. The camel’s nose in the tent saying comes to mind.

So, the government is planning to require you to add tracking technology to your personal transportation, that can be used to track your location, but they are not going to do that? Yes, nothing could possibly go wrong there.

I’m pretty sure Ohio didn’t set up it’s tax records, child support payments system and traffic ticket record keeping as means to harass people using their first amendment rights, though Joe the plumber might reasonably have some doubts about that now.

As at least one comment at the article noted, if you drop the tax on gasoline and use this method, it prevents out of state drivers from contributing to highway/road maintenance even though they still use the roads. It will be interesting to see how that objection is dealt with. Will they still try to go forward with this program and decide to keep the direct tax on gasoline, rather than just raise the gas tax? Or will they drop the gas tax and let that argument continue to be voiced louder so that eventually a federal program will need to be created to manage this interstate commerce? It’s not like the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t used a constitutional clause to do just that in other matters.

There seems to be a fetish like attraction to technology and it’s use by government to find as many ways to tax us as possible. While technology itself can be amoral, it’s obvious that how it is used can have serious moral implications. This is even true despite the stated intent of those who propose this or that program. There is such a thing as unintended consequences; it would be nice if the bureaucrats and technocrats would be farsighted enough to consider that. Then again, perhaps some of them do and have no problem with the immoral actions that will eventually result.

Not that they will currently admit to that.

---

Filed Under: Politics

Trackposted to: Is It Just Me?, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Leaning Straight Up, L.O.M.A., Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Oregon Department of Transportation -- mileage tax -- gas tax -- gps -- privacy

Insiders shorting NY Times stock?

2008-12-21T17:57:00.001-06:00

It’s hard to imagine the following article helping to raise the stock price, especially at this time of year.

“‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, of seeing your father driven to the grave before his time, of living among bitter, small-minded people. It is a story of being trapped, of compromising, of watching others move ahead and away, of becoming so filled with rage that you verbally abuse your children, their teacher and your oppressively perfect wife. It is also a nightmare account of an endless home renovation…

Not only is Pottersville cooler and more fun than Bedford Falls, it also would have had a much, much stronger future. Think about it: In one scene George helps bring manufacturing to Bedford Falls. But since the era of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ manufacturing in upstate New York has suffered terribly…

What a grim thought: Had George Bailey never been born, the people in his town might very well be better off today.” […] (source - Thanks to HotAir)

I suppose the outright stupidity of too many of today’s liberals, and one in particular still thinking like a 15 year old, might suffice as explanation though. Extra points for those who can find the question mark that indicates the author just does not get the film at.all.

Merry Christmas

---

Filed under: MSM -- Movies – Culture

Trackposted to: Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, DragonLady's World, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Rosemary's News and Ideas, CORSARI D'ITALIA, L.O.M.A., Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: NY Times -- WENDELL JAMIESON -- It's a Wonderful Life -- Christmas -- George Bailey -- Harry Potter -- Liberals

Sarah Palin in her own words

2008-11-05T23:57:00.001-06:00

The raw audio from an interview in July 2007 has been released.

Gov. Sarah Palin uncensored

Thanks to a comment left at Ace’s

The anonymous smears leaking from the McCain staff are clearly ridiculous, this uncensored interview providing even more evidence of that. Obviously there is an attempt by moderates/RINOs to avoid accepting blame for McCain’s loss. They may also be attempting to clear the field of any inspiring conservative for 2012, though simply being venal little twats would be sufficient explanation.

Ace and others have a plan for dealing with them and another post with possible names behind this crap.

These people need to be ostracized and figuratively tarred and feathered.

---

Filed under: Politics – Palin

Trackposted to: The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, nn&v, Conservative Cat, nn7v, , Allie is Wired, Political Byline, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, , CORSARI D'ITALIA, A Newt One, Stageleft, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Palin -- McCain -- RINO -- conservative -- politics

Mark My Words online store

Is it racist to make a joke now?

2008-11-05T18:29:00.001-06:00

Why Barack Obama won, an incredibly accurate analysis. (Thanks to Treacher)

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

I hope to be proven wrong and Barack Obama governs per his moderate/centrist rhetoric rather than his actual record. Unfortunately, there is no reason to think such will be the case. I don’t believe the better man won, but I do hope that I’m wrong regarding Obama’s character as revealed by his consistent pattern of associations over 20 years and the manner in which he ran his campaign.

At the very least, I’ll keep in mind how ugly the Bush derangement syndrome has been over the last 8 years, only to be exceeded in two weeks by what was done to Sarah Palin. We can disagree and stand for our principles without lowering ourselves to the depths that so many on the left gleefully descended.

Now they have the responsibility to govern. For those inclined to do so, pray that they govern well for the sake of the country.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- politics

Mark My Words online store

A Keith Olbermann documentary

2008-11-02T16:09:00.002-06:00

I rarely watch the man but this previously unseen footage of him is quite interesting.

Swiped from HotAir, go there for some funny SNL skits with John McCain.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- MSM – 4GrinsNGiggles

Trackposted to: The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, nn7v, , Faultline USA, Political Byline, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stageleft, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Keith Olbermann -- SNL -- politics -- MSM -- bias

Mark My Words online store

Barack Obama – why the rush?

2008-10-29T19:41:00.001-05:00

Considering the undeniably extreme liberal record that Barack Obama has, the well established pattern of chosen radical associates and the obvious need for any politician to court moderates in a general election, why run for President now, rather than set oneself up for an easier run later? It’s obviously too close to that record and those associates for Obama to convincingly distance himself in a manner that doesn’t speak of mere political opportunism, so why the hurry?

Long gone is the opportunity to even try saying this is where I came from, this was my journey and I’ve learned that extremes are not what I agree with and I’ve grown over the years. Even that would have been difficult to swallow with Barack attending Jeremiah Wright’s church until only recently and praising him in his book, or continuing to email and be in contact with Bill Ayers until at least 2005. This closeness to his extreme liberal record naturally results in unintended moments of honesty, such as “bitter, clinging”; unplanned pregnancy is a punishment, and “spread the wealth around”.

Perhaps it’s merely hubris that causes one with such a lack of experience to run before he’s had time to position himself better for appealing to the entire nation. Barack Obama may still win, but that would be in spite of his rushing for the prize, rather than taking time to prepare a more centrist record of legislation as well as personal associations.

Of course Barack Obama still tries to sound moderate, though his answer to Joe the plumber and the audio from 2001 reveal his tendency to socialist views quite clearly. Perhaps he could have avoided the damage if he had at least more distance from that 2001 radio program and well as the other data points of his current record. But then this is supposed to be a Democrat year. There are more Republican seats up for election than Democrat. This alone gives odds favorable for the Democrats to pick up seats in the Senate. Add to this the GOP foolishness in dealing with corruption, their deplorable lack of discipline with spending and a media that is reflexively liberal, and the Democrats even stand a chance to gain a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Let’s briefly not that this would also be an argument for electing John McCain and Sarah Palin, the only two in this race who actually have verifiable records or reform, even standing up to their own party to do so.

If one is not an extreme liberal, would Democrats having such power be so important that they would begin running only several years after saying they did not have enough experience to do so? Yes, arrogance could be a sufficient explanation. After all, that 2004 speech sure got a lot of attention and judging from the Greek columns, Barack Obama is not lacking in self-importance.

It seems the Democrats are swaggering lately in anticipation of gaining this control. Barney Frank says we should cut our military budget by 25% - while we are still at war. Nancy Pelosi thinks it would be good to not have to compromise with Republicans. Democrats are considering the elimination of 401k tax advantages and then mandating a government retirement plan. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was a major contribution to our current financial crisis. Joe Biden authored the assault weapons ban. Democrats want to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine and perhaps expand it to the internet. Democrats want to eliminate secret ballots when workers are deciding whether or not to unionize.

If one has become a moderate, yet has a recent record that is just as liberal as, or even more than the above, along with a self declared lack of experience, why choose to run for President when the party that is proposing all of that is the one that may have enough power to actually enact the entire wish list? Is there any comfort in saying that Barack Obama is just so arrogant and full of himself that he just couldn’t take his own good advice and wait?

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Trackposted to: The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Political Byline, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- Democrats -- GOP -- Congress -- Senate -- Fairness doctrine -- Fannie Mae -- Freddie Mac -- Dodd -- Barney Frank -- Pelosi -- 401k

Mark My Words online store

Obama and Ayers guilt by association only?

2008-10-26T21:19:00.001-05:00

That would be the talking point many respond with when Barack Obama’s relationship to William Ayers is brought up. Other strategies would include minimizing what Ayers, his wife Bernadine Dohrn and the Weatherman actually did and noting controversial figures who are connected to John McCain. Some will also complain that it is only a “scant” relationship that Obama had with Ayers. Let’s see how well these arguments hold up.

Let’s first deal with the actions of William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and the Weatherman over the years.

A brief summary of some of the information here, here, here and here.

William Ayers did not care about innocent people being killed by his bombs.

Dohrn refused to testify in regard to the crime in which “two Nyack police officers and a guard were killed”.

According to the FBI informant Dohrn planted a bomb that killed a police officer.

They discussed killing 25 million die-hard capitalists in re-education camps.

They tried to kill a judge and his family.

William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are unrepentant to this day.

Trying to declare these people were only doing property damage certainly does not cover the extent of what they wanted to accomplish. One also has to wonder at the desperation of approving of the use of two bombs, each with at least a dozen sticks of dynamite, as an appropriate means of committing vandalism to make a political point. Then again, it may just be a complete lack of morality or a personal confession to future action that accounts for someone sinking to such a level of argument.

As for the guilt by association or merely scant relationship replies, those do not square with even the currently known facts. Obama chose to begin his political career in Ayers living room. He served on several boards with Ayers and also helped direct money to Ayers “education” projects. Obama also listed a Williams Ayers book as one of his favorites. This is guilt by choosing to participate. Let’s make it clear that this does not mean Obama is a terrorist but it does mean he chose to not only associate with but to participate in work with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and small c communist/anarchist radical. William Ayers has never been quite about his past and his views. (see here and here)

The attempt at moral equivalence has already failed due to this side of the argument being so flawed due to outright deceit or complete ignorance of those trying to use it. But let’s consider that McCain has associated with controversial figures as well. One could list Keating, Kissinger and Oliver North to name a few. However, it’s pretty obvious that none of these individuals set bombs in the United States with no care for the potential loss of life and still hope they could have done more to violently overthrow the capitalist system. They also did not consider it a good thing that regions of the United States would be occupied by the Soviet Union or Cuba after they overthrew the current establishment. Neither did they talk of how to exterminate 25 million who would stubbornly remain capitalists. This side of the argument also fails due to the extreme dissimilarities already obvious with the attempted comparisons.

But even if the moral equivalency gambit were not apples to oranges, what goes unstated by those who try to save Barack Obama from his Ayers problem is that Obama and surrogates have repeatedly lied about the depth of this relationship.

First is was just a guy in the neighborhood and their kids went to the same school. But their kids could not go to the same school because Ayers’ children are adults. Then Obama says it was just a board they worked on, but we’ve seen that isn’t the case. The story has continued to morph from Obama didn’t know about Ayers’ past to he thought Bill Ayers was rehabilitated.

What Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn shows is that Barack Obama has no problem participating in radical causes with unrepentant domestic terrorists and that he lies about it. This has become a pattern of also participating with other radicals, race baiters and corrupt political fixers with the addition of Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, “Father” Michael Phleger, Rashid Khalidi, and Odinga in Kenya and being deceptive about those connections.

At best, Barack Obama has a serious and consistent inability to judge the character of individuals. Many, right and left politically, were dismayed at George Bush saying he had a sense of Putin’s soul; yet even now there are multiple radicals, domestic terrorists and corrupt politicians that Obama has actively worked with. If it’s simply a matter of these people not being who Obama thought they were, why should anyone believe Barack Obama will judge world leaders any better? There are still many countries that do not have the best interests of the United States or even liberal democracy in mind, and would have serious motives for being dishonest in their negotiations.

If Barack Obama, as President, should have to say that Hugo Chavez or some other leader is not the person he thought they were, the damage to this country will not be undone. Of course that’s working with the assumption that Obama is just the victim of his own poor judgment, that he was fooled by these corrupt and extreme individuals. Perhaps Obama was not deceived, but then this only confirms his dishonesty and extreme worldview. Should that be the case, the true picture of Barack Obama becomes ever more disturbing and is in fact even more dangerous for the United States, should he become President.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, , Political Byline, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Cao's Blog, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- Ayers -- Dohrn -- Weatherman -- Rezko -- Jeremiah Wright -- Phleger -- Rashid Khalidi -- Odinga -- Kenya

Mark My Words online store

Sarah Palin says VP is in charge of the Senate

2008-10-22T21:22:00.001-05:00

Some people seem to not care for the way Sarah Palin described the role of the Vice President in regard to the U.S. Senate.

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

And the outrage follows.

Indeed, while Palin suggests that questions about what the Vice President does is something only her daughter Piper would ask, Palin herself asked this very question on national television in July. Apparently, she still hasn’t learned the correct answer

This author is apparently one of the terminally stupid with the reference to what Palin said in July. That is more than adequately dealt with here.

Article I of the Constitution establishes an exceptionally limited role for the Vice President — giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is “equally divided” (source)

Oh my, she said the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate!

Several problems with this criticism. One, “in charge of” is much easier for a 3rd grader to understand than presides over, which is the role of the Vice President. But when you have an ax to grind, conveniently changing the level of linguistic precision required is par for the course. I wonder if these critics are aware that Joe Biden was wrong about Article I and the executive branch? If they are, I bet they don’t care near as much about that.

Two, Biden has said similar:

“I hope one of my roles as vice president will be as the person actually implementing Barack Obama’s policy. You gotta get the Congress to go along with it,” he said. “And it’s presumptuous to say, but I know it pretty well. And I think I am fairly respected on both sides of the aisle.” (via HotAir)

Let’s also consider that having only a vote when there is a tie is not the totality of the VP role in the Senate. This is covered well by JackM at Ace’s here

But Palin is actually right: The Constitution empowers the Vice President to Preside over the Senate. The majority party cannot prevent him/her from doing so.

And this matters. Why?

Because whoever sits in that chair has actual parliamentary power in a couple of areas.

For example, say you are watching C-Span and you hear two Senators shouting at the chair for the privilege of speaking, or to ask a procedural question. The only person who is recognized to legitimately take the floor, is, by Senate rules, the person who the Presiding Officer hears and acknowledges first.

If Palin were in that chair, she could make the call as to who is recognized to speak or to ask a parliamentary question. By using this ability, Palin could, in fact, structure the order of debate or to render a procedural inquiry moot.

In fact, procedurally the President of the Senate (or their designee) makes all the calls. The President of the Senate can be overturned by a vote of the Senate, but, absent that vote, the ruling of the Chair governs the action on the floor. It is not far fetched to say that on a controversial bill, a President of the Senate who wished to delay proceedings could in fact force repeated votes to overturn his or her rulings.

Be sure to read it all as he gives a real world and relatively recent example as to how that matters.

Considering this Palin critic starts with the stupidity of saying that Sarah Palin didn’t even know the role of the Vice President in July, it’s hardly surprising he sounds like some typical myspace tards. I’m quite sure the author is as impervious to being corrected as they are. Then again maybe he already posts his drivel in various groups on myspace.

Funny, that someone of such mental caliber *snort* is writing for a publication with “Think” in the title.

---

Filed under: Politics – Palin

Trackposted to: Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Faultline USA, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Palin -- U.S. Constitution -- U.S. Vice President -- Think Progress -- politics -- liberals -- Biden

Mark My Words online store

God love ya Joe Biden

2008-10-20T20:34:00.002-05:00

Joe Biden says what Barack Obama would probably not want too many to have on their minds while voting.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Ed Morrisey’s commentary in part (be sure to read it all):

Isn’t this an argument for electing someone with more experience? Why should we elect a man who will embolden our enemies and push us to the brink of disaster? Biden seems convinced that electing John McCain will make our enemies abroad much less sanguine about provoking us — which is one of the best arguments yet heard for electing McCain. (source)

Which brings up the following:

Does America, at this time, need someone who already has a record of “miscommunication”?

Bitter, clinging, xenophobic …
NAFTA will be unilaterally revised, nah, just campaign talk. *Oops* that was misunderstood.
Iraq please delay agreement for a new administration. Nah, just a misunderstanding.
Jerusalem to be undivided.

Or a record of outright foolishness?

American troops just bombing villages in Afghanistan.
Hey, let’s openly state we will invade a country with nuclear weapons and a large population of Islamic extremists.
- When someone has the need to talk tough due to insecurity, it can result in scuttling delicate and secret arrangements that are in place.
Georgia and Russia morally equivalent while Russia is attacking our ally. Oops uh uh, what John McCain said.
No free trade for an ally, which will benefit American companies/jobs.
- Accompanied by a falsehood. Uribe has actually drastically reduced the killing of unionists and increased the prosecution for such crimes.
Meet with terrorist supporting regimes without preconditions.
Odinga/Kenya

Or lack of honesty?

Bill Ayers just a guy in the neighborhood
Never worked for ACORN
Born Alive Infant Protection Act
They will remind you that I’m black

Or the inability to judge people accurately?

Rezko
Jeremiah Wright
- That being after nearly 500 sermons. Or did he lie about having not heard such things?
Bill Ayers
- Thought he was rehabilitated despite Ayers being very open and public about his lack of contrition. Or is this another lie and Obama just didn’t mind that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist?

That’s quite a record for just a campaign. Why should we believe it will only be wonderfully better when the stakes are much higher? Why should we expect the pattern to change when, as Joe Biden predicts, a crisis occurs?

Will Barack Obama cave in to demands from our enemies? Will allies be left to fend for themselves? Will Barack Obama overreact because he needs to prove how tough he is? There will be no do over, media spin or non-reporting that can bring back lost lives should Barack Obama be tested and he perform per his well established patterns.

Some have talked recently of Barack Obama being teachable. His own vice president has said he will be tested because of his inexperience. What price will America pay while this neophyte is stumbling and trying to learn?

---

Filed under: Terrorism -- Politics -- News – Obama

Trackposted to: A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- Biden -- McCain

Mark My Words online store

OTA Open Trackback 10.20.08

2008-10-20T06:27:00.001-05:00

As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

---

Filed under: OpenTrackback

^{Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words}

ACORN voter fraud

2008-10-17T07:11:00.001-05:00

There is now evidence that ACORN’s voter registration fraud has resulted in fraudulent votes.

Press release from the New Mexico GOP: (thanks to Ace)

Fraudulent Votes Cast in New Mexico

Obama’s ACORN Must Be Shut Down Before Election, All Activities Investigated

(Albuquerque, NM) – Public records released in New Mexico today confirm that fraudulent voter registrations are in fact turning into fraudulent votes. ACORN, currently under investigation by the FBI, is now confirmed to be responsible for producing fraudulent voter registrations and illegal votes in New Mexico. An inspection of public records has revealed that illegal votes were cast in New Mexico’s 2008 primary election.

“This is a bombshell. We now have undeniable proof that a significant number of fraudulent voters were cast in Democrat primary races for the New Mexico state legislature as a result of ACORN’s voter registration fraud,” remarked State Representative Justine Fox Young (R-Albuquerque). “No longer can ACORN argue that their phony voter registration forms don’t translate into fraudulent votes. They do and today we can prove it.”

...

“It is safe to say that the number of illegal votes being cast dwarfs the 366 votes that decided the 2000 Presidential election in New Mexico,” said Nina Martinez, Secretary for the Republican Party of New Mexico. “Barack Obama contributed $832,000 to ACORN, organized an ACORN subsidiary, represented them as their attorney, trained some of their members and received ACORN’s endorsement. Obama should withdraw his financial support from ACORN and come clean about what he knows of their activities. Every fraudulent vote cancels out an honest vote. We must ensure the integrity of this year’s election.”

ACORN is currently being investigated in a number states for voter registration fraud. Do you like the idea of your vote being suppressed by fraudulent votes? Barack Obama doesn’t seem to mind. He worked with ACORN early in his career and paid them during the primaries for a GOTV effort. Is this the type of person that should be elected to our highest office?

---

Filed under: Politics -- News -- Obama – Crime

Trackposted to: The Virtuous Republic, , , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- ACORN -- New Mexico -- voter fraud

Mark My Words online store

Explain what the law says and you get investigated

2008-10-16T22:01:00.003-05:00

Don’t worry if that title doesn’t make sense, we may have new overlords soon that will give those who talk too much an education that makes it all clear.

There’s a reason guilty people lawyer up when the law starts asking questions. Now, the best advice is to lawyer up even when you’re innocent of breaking the law, especially if you do something that might offend or work against Barack Obama.

Seriously

via Protein Wisdom who summarizes:

In short, in the name of voter suppression, they’ve made it illegal for anyone to actually evoke the law, just as campus speech codes prohibit people from saying things that someone else might somehow find uncomfortable. If that isn’t Orwellian, I don’t know what can possibly reach the bar.

It sure is interesting what Barack Obama inspires in his supporters. Hey, how about we elect him president and validate this kind of behavior?

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Technorati tags: Obama -- DOJ -- free speech -- Orwell

Mark My Words online store

The politics of destruction and distraction

2008-10-16T19:42:00.001-05:00

Make sure your papers are in order and any personal controversies, errors, embarrassments and so on, are not documented, or known by anyone at all. Does that sound rather impossible? Well then, just never ever get involved in politics or even think that you as a private citizen can ask a media darling Presidential candidate any questions.

Much has been made of Joe the plumber, who asked Obama about wanting to raise his taxes. John McCain used that to good effect in the debate. Unfortunately, for our political process, even our freedom to speak, Joe has been subjected to more scrutiny by the mainstream media in several days than Barack Obama has in this entire campaign.

His ability to work is being threatened (thanks to HotAir) because he spoke up. The attempted narrative is that Joe is not really a plumber, couldn’t have made the $250,000 income that would be hit with Obama’s tax increase and he shouldn’t be working anyway, or something. The most silly are those who are whining about how McCain “used” Joe. One reasonably gets the impression that the question and Obama answer are deemed as inappropriate subjects by some.

All this doesn’t change the real issue, it only distracts from it by attempting to destroy the messenger. It doesn’t matter if Joe was a complete plant or fraud, the question even if hypothetical still stands, as does Obama’s answer, which reveals/confirms his natural tendencies and philosophy.

Obama is a liberal/socialist by record, not the moderate he attempts to sound like now in a general election. His gut reaction to Joe’s question is therefore not an anomaly or mere verbal slip but a confirmation.

Barack Obama’s views revealed in his interaction with Joe, was also displayed in an earlier interview with Charlie Gibson where in Obama steadfastly refused to step away from raising the capital gains tax because he wanted more fairness in the tax code.

So when will the in depth investigation of Charlie Gibson and his paperwork begin?

Obama supports the “fairness doctrine”, he has encouraged people to jamb the phone lines of a radio station twice now, to silence a critic. His minions didn’t have facts to counter what was being said; only smears and ad hominem attacks against the individual being interviewed. There would also be the race card constantly thrown when Barack Obama is criticized. It’s no wonder that Michael Barone, who has other examples, has issued the following warning.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead. (source)

At least Joe had the chance to ask his question before the demand for his papers. If Barack Obama wins will we eventually look back on that as the good old days?

Addendum:

As I was working on my post Ed Morrissey had similar views. As always, his comments are worth reading in full, so here’s the link.

---

Filed under: McCain -- Politics -- Obama -- News – MSM

Technorati tags: Obama -- free speech -- liberals -- fairness doctrine -- thugocracy -- joe the plumber -- Joe Wurzelbacher -- MSM

Mark My Words online store

OTA Open Trackback 10.13.08

2008-10-12T23:19:00.001-05:00

As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

---

Filed under: OpenTrackback

^{Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words}

Barack Obama and the Chicago way

2008-10-12T09:37:00.001-05:00

This isn’t about the quote by Sean Connery’s character in The Untouchables. Instead, it’s John Kass of the Chicago Tribune newspaper addressing the Bill Ayers, Barack Obama connection, and Chicago machine politics.

excerpt:

Turn on the TV news when John McCain is picking up undecided voters by invoking Barack Obama's relationship with unrepentant American terrorist William Ayers and, invariably, some liberal talking head will sniff in disgust and say Ayers is no big deal where Obama comes from.

Unfortunately, that's true. Ayers is a terrorist. But this is Chicago.

Obama and Ayers are neighbors and they worked together on school issues with the same foundation. Obama's political coming-out party was held in Ayers' living room when Obama was running for his first political office.

And the boss of Chicago is Mayor Richard Daley. Mayor Shortshanks has thrown his protective embrace around both men. These are facts. (source, thanks to Glenn Reynolds)

Read the whole thing, and note how money is spent by the city while it’s also laying off 1,000 city workers. Let’s also note that Barack Obama has lied, distorted and attempted to minimize the facts regarding his relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Perhaps it’s hardly surprising that narcissistic 60’s radicals would still be only thinking of their own aggrandizement while imagining they are somehow fighting the good fight. They’ve found a place in Chicago, despite their being unrepentant about their past, and have done quite well with selling out. Who would have thought that all the riots, violence and agitation would result in being paid to help manufacture media spin for corrupt politicians? It clearly says nothing good about Chicago politics with it’s convenient union of machine politics, radicals and domestic terrorists, although I have yet to see any of them erect Greek columns in their own honor.

---

Filed under: Terrorism -- Politics -- News -- Obama -- Illinois – Crime

Trackposted to: The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: obama -- ayers -- dohrn -- tribune -- chicago -- daley -- politics

Obama’s first 100 days in office includes ACORN

2008-10-11T20:11:00.001-05:00

Actually, he said this would occur during the transition, before his first 100 days and even the inauguration.

Thanks to Ace.

Why this is important is outlined here (Thanks to Lucianne).

excerpt:

At times, ACORN opts for undisguised authoritarian socialism, as when it proposes that “large companies which desire to leave the community” be forced to obtain “an exit visa from the community board signifying that the company has adequately compensated all its employees and the community at large for losses due to relocation.” How much longer before ACORN calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city? This is the road to serfdom indeed, even though it begins with little steps. The proposal gives a glimpse of the vastness of ACORN’s ambition, despite the seeming modesty of its individual programs. Understanding that ambition, seven state legislatures have passed laws to block municipalities from setting their own minimum wages.

That’s only one of the reasons. Read it all, it’s long but very important to know what Obama has chosen to make alliance with.

And of course there is the rampant voter fraud that is currently being attempted by ACORN in a number of states. One example would be here in Indiana where around 5000 new names were turned in just before the deadline. So far, as many as 2000 have been found to be fraudulent. That’s just in one county. In fact, the problem is so widespread, crossing state lines, and has been an issue for several elections that the RICO Act is applicable. Will anyone in law enforcement do the right thing? We shall see, as it stands several states are conducting criminal investigations. To make all this more insulting, ACORN receives federal funds. That’s right, your tax dollars have been helping this organization corrupt our voting process for years.

For more information about ACORN and Barack Obama, this is helpful. As one can see from the information about individual states there, the fraud being discovered is enough to change close elections. But how much is not being found?

And yes, this is another matter Obama is lying about. It is a fact that he worked with ACORN activists during his community organizer days and he has helped train them since then.

It turns out Hillary Clinton and her supporters have experience with voter fraud. I used to just blow off the PUMAs. While it was nice to have them in common cause against Obama, I didn’t realize the problem went much deeper. Watch some clips from a documentary here, to see what they experienced by way of the Barack Obama campaign.

As they state, while we disagree on certain issues, our right to vote is being taken away from us. No matter your political affiliation, this is something we should all agree is wrong.

So, I come down to this. Do we believe that the Obama campaign curtailed the freedom of speech of those who opposed him? Do we believe that Clinton’s supporter’s votes were not counted fairly? If we answer ‘yes; as I have answered, than it seems to me that the fact that we disagree with Sarah Palin on reproductive choice, or creationism, or even protecting the Polar Bears—is the human rights equivalent of small potatoes. There are two basic rights that make us a democracy; two essential rights that keep us free. If I have my voice—and my vote—I can work for all the other issues. Without them, I can do nothing. (source, emphasis in bold mine)

Voter fraud has been practiced by Barack Obama and ACORN. Do you want to ensure that people responsible for the fraud are never prosecuted? Do you want to validate the destruction of our right to vote by helping Barack Obama be elected?

---

Filed under: Politics -- Obama – Crime

Technorati tags: Obama -- voter fraud -- ACORN -- PUMA -- Democrats

Mark My Words online store

Sarah Palin and abuse of power

2008-10-11T14:16:00.001-05:00

Headlines matter and because they do, we have a responsibility to not rely merely on what screaming banners in bold font and colors try to proclaim.

To be complacent and rely only on the mainstream media is to abuse the power you have to be informed. That others, whether they be the Obama/mainstream media campaign or the various partisans and tools doing their work, choose to spread lies and distortions or be led by the nose when presented with such, only emphasizes how much everyone of us should take our responsibility seriously.

Now to the headline that has been going around the Obama/mainstream media circus. The headline being that an Alaska legislative report has determined that Sarah Palin abused power. When I first saw the headline, while at a bar with co-workers, my first thought was if they had no new information, it was simply bogus. Since I’ve followed this story and knew the background I kept watching, though of course I couldn’t hear what was being said. The next headline during the discussion was that the report recommended no sanctions. Interesting, that only reinforced my initial reaction to the main headline. If they really had a strong case, as the headlines scream, then sanctions would be appropriate. But how many people had been following this and saw more than the first headline? How many people only see that headline while at the grocery store and don’t even see what is reported? How many times has the media already distorted, suppressed or ignored the truth in this campaign?

Bill Dryer details the problems with what the media is trying to sell.

Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law (bold in original)

excerpts:

Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.

[…]

Be sure to read it all, as here is much more which shows this report to be incredibly shoddy and merely partisan, and the media handling of it to be only distinguished by being more so.

But again, how many of you have only seen or heard the headlines?

In the days ahead, the Alaska Legislature could vote in support of this study. Does that then mean the report no longer has all the others fatal flaws noted by Bill Dyer? It’s obvious that such an appearance of bipartisanship would not correct those problems. Of course it’s a sure bet that the Obama/mainstream media campaign will then cry aloud about how the report is bipartisan. One very serious problem with that. The Republican party is not all that happy with Sarah Palin. That’s hardly surprising considering that she took out high level party members due to corruption. In this case, bipartisanship may only be an indication of how corruption in one party chooses to shake hands with corruption in another, when encouraged by Obama and the mainstream media.

How we choose to react to such media and political attempts to distort the truth says a lot about us. Those who willfully lie and deflect attention from Obama’s lies will continue to do the same in service to smearing Governor Palin. That so many in the media may as well be paid Obama staff and work towards the same goal, should not dissuade the rest of us being from being responsible and taking the time to be informed.

---

Filed under: MSM -- Palin -- Politics -- News – Obama

Technorati tags: Branchflower Report -- palin -- obama -- msm -- hollis -- wooten -- Hollis French -- Monegan

Mark My Words

Do you like your health plan?

Are we no longer a nation of laws?

Climategate, from Russia with love edition

CRU Climategate continues

More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies

More on that CRU email and data hack

Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!

The ACORN story continues

Infidel woman stops jihadist’s murder rampage

Obama decides to escalate the war

ACORN Philadelphia video available

About those Rush Limbaugh quotes

Global warming hockey stick dead?

ACORN sues activist journalists

National Endowment for the Arts links to partisan grant recipients

NEA conference call is propaganda for Obama with your tax dollars?

NEA conference call next for Breitbart?

Mayor encourages criminals to run

Another State shuts down ACORN funding

ACORN kicked in the nuts by House vote

An embarrassing attempt at defending ACORN

More ACORN videos will be released

ACORN suspends services, orders audit

Obama’s nuts getting dipped in hot grease

Obama’s nuts are getting squashed

Illegal immigrants not covered by ObamaCare?

About Obama’s healthcare speech

Did you bwake your widdle wed wagon?

Healthcare reform – empower the consumer

Free economic theory lessons

Reverend Wright represents the best of what the black church has to offer

A glimpse of Obamacare, except it will be worse

MSNBC trying to start a race war?

Sarah Palin says Obama is wasting your tax dollars

The government option = single payer

Free market healthcare reform – additional objections

Global warming consensus and other matters

Simply admitting defeat would be less embarrassing

Free market solution to pre-existing conditions – some objections

A free market solution to pre-existing conditions

What Obama really wants for your healthcare

Sarah Palin – the other shoe drops

Sarah Palin resigns

Abuse of power, where is the outrage?

Does God Exist? More info on tomorrow’s debate

U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky thinks you are stupid

Straw is easy to burn

It’s Only A Joke

Sarah Palin - pro-choice?

I hope Obama fails = treason?

Does God Exist?

Rush Limbaugh said something about Barack Obama

One word

Insiders shorting NY Times stock?

Sarah Palin in her own words

Is it racist to make a joke now?

A Keith Olbermann documentary

Barack Obama – why the rush?

Obama and Ayers guilt by association only?

Sarah Palin says VP is in charge of the Senate

God love ya Joe Biden

OTA Open Trackback 10.20.08

ACORN voter fraud

Explain what the law says and you get investigated

The politics of destruction and distraction

OTA Open Trackback 10.13.08

Barack Obama and the Chicago way

Obama’s first 100 days in office includes ACORN

Sarah Palin and abuse of power