I Have a Secret

Very disturbing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ajkAP_M4ZAM#at=60

******

Ben Bernanke, The Fed Chairman held a news conference for the first in it’s history. Be Afraid Be very Afraid.

If the Fed is resorting to explaining itself in a press conference, you know we are in the doo-doo big time.

“The markdown of growth in 2011, in particular, reflects the somewhat slower than anticipated pace of growth in the first quarter,” Bernanke said in prepared remarks before he took reporter questions.

The U.S. dollar fell to a fresh 3-year low against major currencies while Bernanke spoke.

Politics, re-election, and The Fed’s policies. A Lethal combination??

U.S. economic growth slowed more than expected in the first quarter as higher food and gasoline prices dampened consumer spending, and sent a broad measure of inflation rising at its fastest pace in 2-1/2 years.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

As usual, Paul Krugman is leading the liberals to the briar patch, calling death panels a necessity to help balance the budget. In a roundtable discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” Krugman said of what recently came out of the president’s deficit commission: “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.” He also said, “Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for. And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, [the deficit commission] should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.”

Once Krugman pulled back the curtain, other liberals started talking about the “lie of the year.”

Writing for the Atlanta Constitution, Jay Booker admitted that death panels exist and defended their goals in a column entitled “Why ‘Death Panels’ are a necessary evil.” He said:

By law, the panel is prohibited from recommending health-care rationing; its role is simply to find the most cost-effective approaches to health care, with Congress given the power to override its decisions.

Inevitably, that proposal revived talk of “death panels.” It’s an emotionally powerful phrase, but only because it strips things down to uncomfortable truth: Death panels exist, they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery, and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.

The only problem is, when it comes to medicine, what works for someone else may not work for you. But if the IPAB deems something unworthy of payment, it doesn’t matter that your doctor thinks is may work for you. You won’t get it, unless you’re wealthy and can pay for it yourself.

Leftist columnist Cynthia Tucker also joined the crusade, proclaiming: “Yes, we need death panels.” In Tucker’s world, the government would pick winners and losers in the health care arena. She writes, “If we keep spending our health care dollars disproportionately on the elderly, we will have little left to spend on children. That makes for an upside-down society that cannot thrive for long.” Kids win. Seniors lose.

These liberals are giving cover to the bureaucrats who are beginning to implement their vision of a new health care system in America. While this may seem a ways away, the bureaucrats at the FDA are already moving to deny the cancer drug Avastin to breast cancer patients. This is just the fist volley in the fight over rationing, and the IPAB hasn’t even started yet.

MASSACHUSETTS VOTES TO CUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING!

Oh here’s news you probably won’t here on the Mainstream Liberal media:

Government-sector collective bargaining reform: When the Republican dictator Governor of Wisconsin accomplishes it with a series of high-profile votes, all hell breaks loose.  When the Democrat-dominated Massachusetts House passes it by a huge margin — crickets:

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers’ rights, unthinkable in a state that has long been a bastion of union support. Some Democrats accused DeLeo of following the lead of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republicans who have targeted public employee benefits

By the looks of that quote in bold, it seems as though Speaker DeLeo hired Scott Walker’s speechwriter.  Meanwhile, the Bay State’s liberal Democratic Governor, Deval Patrick, has lent some mild support to the measure and is urging incensed labor leaders to “dial down” their heated rhetoric in opposing the bill:

There’s “room for debate” about whether a House-passed bill gives labor unions enough of a seat at the table on health insurance issues, Gov. Deval Patrick said today, adding that he’s glad the House dealt with the controversial topic and hopes to see a final bill soon.

“I want labor to be involved,” Patrick told reporters after signing a financial literacy bill. “I want labor to be at the table.”

The governor also urged labor unions, who are comparing the House plan to the stripping of collective bargaining rights that has occurred in Wisconsin, to pull back on their commentary. “They should dial it down because that’s not what’s happening here,” said Patrick, who plans to visit Wisconsin on Saturday at the invitation of Democrats in that state to discuss collective bargaining issues.
True, the Wisconsin law limits the scope of government-sector employees’ collective bargaining privileges to wages, whereas the Massachusetts law only constrains the public unions’ ability to collectively bargain on healthcare benefits.  But the Wisconsin law exempted unions representing first responders from the new rules; the Massachusetts has no such carve-outs. 

After Gov. Walker signed his controversial bill into law, lefty commentators predicted that his actions would trigger a powerful pro-labor backlash across the country.  No dice.  Wisconsinites re-elected a conservative supreme court justice in the face of intense left-wing opposition, Ohio passed a more expansive measure, and now deep blue Massachusetts has taken a major step to do the same.  It’s amazing what a little political courage can do.

UPDATE: In case you’re curious about just how blue Massachusetts is, the state House is currently comprised of 128 Democrats and 32 Republicans.  All but two of the GOP lawmakers voted with the Speaker’s plan.  Theoretically, every single Republican in the chamber could have voted no, and the bill still would have passed comfortably.

Soo…shh..It’s a secret…

Just like Bernanke working to get Obama re-elected regardless of the harm and the inflation it will cause… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Battle of The Rages

While, they kind, non-violent, loving Liberals are smearing hateful Nazi symbols all over the Capitol proclaiming their moral superiority and politically correct love for everyone who isn’t a White Male.

But they aren’t the racists…oh no…

They don’t want to divide people by race…oh no…

They aren’t hateful and violent like Tea Partiers….oh no… 😦

Arizona’s new law is a reminder that the states formed the federal government and not the other way around. One of the federal government’s functions was to provide for the security of the new country against foreign enemies and intruders. At this, and particularly under this administration, it has failed miserably.

There are 460,000 illegal aliens in Arizona, a number that increases daily, placing an undue burden on the state’s schools, hospitals and law enforcement. Arizona has a window seat to an illegal invasion and on the escalating and violent drug war in Mexico that has put American lives and society at risk.

On March 27, the consequences of a porous and unprotected border claimed the life of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz after he radioed his brother that he was checking out someone he believed to be an illegal immigrant.

Incredibly, his murderer escaped to a pronghorn antelope area that the Interior Department of Secretary Ken Salazar had placed off-limits to U.S. Border Patrol agents.

So unserious is the administration about protecting the border that it has allowed a bureaucratic turf battle between Interior and Homeland Security to let 4.3 million acres of wilderness area become a haven and highway for illegal aliens, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potential terrorists. (IDB)

But they saved the Antelope!

Awww….isn’t that so warm and fuzzy…

Like the warmness of a drug dealers gun having a shoot out on the highway.

Or the drunk illegal that just killed a family.

Or the drop house with 50-100 illegals stashed in their as effective hostages until someone pay the Coyote.

Human Smuggling is ok with Liberals, BUT DAMN STRAIGHT WE’LL SAVED THE ANTELOPE!

I found this on The Daily Caller by Jedediah Bila:

I had a horrible nightmare last night that America was being run by a far-left ideologue that was spending our money like it grew on trees, cowering before dictators, and promoting government dependency while self-sufficiency and personal responsibility went by the wayside. Oh wait, never mind. 🙂

President Obama has once again championed political correctness in his criticism of Arizona’s new law to crack down on illegal immigration. As reported by Fox News, “The law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.” Obama responded by calling the law “misguided,” insisting that the failure of the federal government to handle immigration matters responsibly will yield “ . . . irresponsibility by others . . . That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans . . . ”

The federal government has had plenty of time to secure our nation from the threats of illegal immigration. Should Arizona sit back and hush up while a few more gangs invade its borders and endanger its citizens? You know, while the federal government takes care of its real priorities, like enforcing a government overhaul of the health care industry and inventing creative ways to disguise job-crippling energy taxes as some sort of green campaign? Kudos to Arizona for stepping up to the plate and doing a job it shouldn’t have to do. In fact, a recent Rasmussen telephone survey reveals that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation.

The important issue here is political correctness. Of course, everyone who supports the legislation has already been labeled racist. I wish the term terrorist rolled off the tongues of the Left with half as much ease as racial profiling. Somehow the crime of being in this country illegally is of far less concern to them than the act of asking someone to show his or her ID. Does the twenty-three-year-old who looks more like seventeen and is asked to show ID at the corner liquor store face age profiling, too? Let me not give them any ideas.

So, much like every liberty-loving American who doesn’t like Barack Obama’s Alinsky-inspired redistributive agenda, security-seeking Arizonians who support the state’s new legislation regarding illegal immigration fit the liberal definition of racist. The fact that the law prohibits officers from conducting an immigration check on the sole basis of one’s nationality or race is, of course, ignored by the Left.

It is imperative that Americans don’t get bullied into silence as a result of the leftist tactic of calling all forms of dissent racist, as the consequences would be dangerous. Such silence would lead to the destruction of our first amendment rights and a passive acceptance of potentially-disastrous policies. Also, tossing the word racist around with persistent ease would yield apathy among Americans when legitimate acts of racism arise that should be condemned. When writing about feminism, I’ve always said that the greatest disservice you can do to a female politician is to criticize or not criticize her policies due to her gender. The same applies to race.

The federal government hasn’t done its job of protecting Arizona. Legal immigration is something that has always been welcomed in this country, as America embraces the productivity and contributions of those from around the world who seek the opportunity our nation fosters. However, the illegal alternative cannot and should not be tolerated.

The bottom line is that the laws of our country should never be compromised in the name of political correctness or any other convenient term that aims to preserve some distorted ideological doctrine of “fairness.” A far-left friend of mine asked me this yesterday: “So, if a group of white, thirty-year-old women were doing something they shouldn’t be doing in Manhattan, and you got stopped by the cops to show ID because they thought you were acting suspiciously, wouldn’t you be offended?” My answer was a resounding no. If I were innocent, then what’s the big deal in flashing my ID? If anything, I’d be grateful that the cops weren’t taking any chances with anyone. And if I were guilty, the proper term isn’t “unfair.” It’s “caught.”

A crime is a crime. Security is of paramount importance. And if that means someone may get a little offended every now and then, so be it.

You’re just a hateful Nazi if you disagree with the Left.

Now that’s the best way to start a reasoned debate on the issue, don’t you think?? 😦