Bailout Time For Baby

The Greatest Socialist Baby, ObamaCare, needs a bailout diaper change because it’s overwhelming success in creating “better” and “more” Health Care for everyone has got some ‘wastage’ (aka poop) 🙂

When Obamacare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote way back in 2010, conservatives warned that the massive government program would ultimately require bailing out health insurance companies that gladly signed on.

Fast forward five years and it’s that time. Today on Capitol Hill, lawmakers are being pressured by the White House to provide money, or a bailout, to insurance companies losing money due to running government Obamacare exchanges. From The Hill

Republicans and Democrats are close to agreeing on delaying two major taxes, the “Cadillac tax” on high-benefit plans and the medical device tax.

But those proposals have run into opposition from the White House, which wants language fixing ObamaCare’s so-called risk corridors — a program intended to help insurance companies that take a financial hit by participating in government-run health exchanges.

That program is nearly out of money because of a policy rider sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on a year-end spending bill in 2014 that bars the Department of Health and Human Services from tapping into other accounts to fund it.

Rubio’s role has injected presidential politics into the debate, making it all but impossible for GOP leaders to agree to the White House’s demands.  

The talks appeared to hit a wall Monday when Republicans ruled out fixing the risk corridors, which they panned as a “bailout for insurance companies.”

“This is not on the table. Risk corridors is fully off the table,” said a Senate Republican leadership aide.

Despite the disagreement, Republicans are feeling optimistic they can get the healthcare pieces worked out.

Repealing the Cadillac tax, which hits the health plans of union members especially hard, is a priority of Reid’s and many Democrats.

But that was the “soak the rich” component of ObamaCare because only “rich”, well to do, greedy, people had those plans they said.They kneww they were lying but they didn’t care. The Agenda Uber Alles. It was a funding mechanism they used to sell the CBO (and thus con everyone else) on the BS that is ObamaCare.

My Blog Nearly 6 years ago (January 8th, 2010):

Those who think they’ll be exempt from the tax because their health care insurance isn’t one that Obama would define as a “super, gold-plated Cadillac” plan are kidding themselves. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office under George W. Bush, says 95% of Americans who are covered by plans that fit into the Cadillac category make less than $250,000 a year.

Even groups on the left get it. As Jim Kessler, vice president for policy for the progressive Third Way think tank, puts it: “A lot of those folks that have Cadillac plans have Chevy wages.”

Also don’t believe the claim that the tax will be on the insurance companies only. Sure, insurers will write the checks to Washington. But they’ll forward their costs to the customers, adding to a tax burden that’s already too punitive — and going to get worse.

“Passing the tax on to workers would result in an effective tax rate that is even higher than the specified 40%,” Curtis S. Dubay wrote in October in a Heritage Foundation WebMemo. “When the insurance companies embed the cost of the excise tax in premiums, the prices of plans will rise. A higher price means the excise tax would be higher, too.”

This would happen when the tax on a $10,000 individual plan adds $600 (40% of the $1,500 beyond the $8,500 threshold) to the cost, leaving a new premium of $10,600. The new cost will then be subject to the tax, boosting the premium another $840 (40% of the $2,100 over the $8,500 threshold). By now, that $10,000 plan is costing $11,440 a year.

“This cascading effect,” explains Dubay, “could raise the effective rate for the excise tax to 67% according to one estimate — considerably higher than the 40% specified in the bill.”

The problems don’t stop there. The growing premiums will drive many private employers that provide coverage for their workers to downgrade to cheaper insurance plans, which defeats the effort to improve health care.

A Liberal Democrat “soak the rich” scheme that blows up in their face and does the exact opposite. Nah, that never happened before…

See Alternative Minimum Tax 🙂

history2

The good news is, it looks like the Obamacare Cadillac tax will be repealed and insurance companies will have to take the hit they signed up for when they agreed to Obamacare years ago.

I’ll leave you with this, which explains why Democrats and Republicans are on board with repealing the Cadillac Tax.

They knew this 6 years ago, but THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA, after all. 🙂

Most Americans don’t know what their insurance plans are worth. They’re happy to let their employers pay the premiums for them and believe that the money isn’t coming out of their pockets.

Very true.

Very Very true.

I heard a woman say, “Well, I just got out of the hospital. It cost $150,000. And I paid nothing. It was wonderful”

She was complaining about a $42 State Mandated charge in her car insurance. Because “I’m poor you know”. “I’m on a fixed income” (aka I relied on Social Security to pay for my glorious retirement).

And now 6 years later with the economy in the crapper because of Liberals they do it EVEN MORE now than they use.

People may not know the value of ANY insurance, but politicians know the value of politics. 🙂

“These are plans,” says the St. Pete newspaper, “that generally have very low co-pays and lots of extras.”

Sound familiar? Then either be prepared to pay more, or be stuck with a brass-plated, Yugo plan that’s more affordable. And while learning to settle for less, don’t forget: This grand reform effort coming out of Washington is supposed to improve our health care.(IBD and my Blog- January 2010).

It’s Bailout time, and you get stuck with Government “improved” Health Care and The Check.

Congrats. It’s a Whopper (from your own Burger KING). 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Terror Speech, Rick McKee,The Augusta Chronicle,Obama, ISIS, terrorism, terror, San Bernardino

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

90

I am here today with family to gather round and celebrate my Dad’s 90th Birthday and that brings about some reflection and trepidations.

Think of all the the things that have happened in his lifetime so far. The first talking pictures arrived not long after he was born.

TV was created when he was child already in the world.

He is a child, literally, of The Depression when things were bad, worse than they are now, despite everything that Obama has tried to do.

But this is also when “The New Deal” started and Social Security and the beginnings of the Welfare State.

It also an America that eventually rose up against the Nazi’s and the Imperial Japanese and with no political correctness fought and won the last War America fought like that where 1000’s were killed but it was for the cause of freedom and it was celebrated for that. Unlike today where the Liberal Media counts every death and runs an expose’ on how evil it all is.

When you have politically correct wars.

Where the release of 30 Terrorists from Guantanamo (for 1 American hostage) is celebrated as a great thing, while an Army Sgt has been in jail most of the year in Mexico because of a wrong turn but he doesn’t matter.

Obama makes nice with his anti-war base and he makes nice with Terrorists who want to kill us all. But nothing for an innocent Army Sgt in a Mexican Jail.

No political advantage there, so they don’t cares.

But hey, that’s politics 2014 for you.

My dad would have gone off to war, expect we won before he did.

Then came Korea, which was 1/4 as long as M*A*S*H was.

“The Greatest Generation” for sure.

They also had hope and drive for the future. To make it better a world. Hope & Change weren’t just empty political buzzwords, they were action.

Unfortunately, their “The New Deal” and their grandkids starting mucking all that up with “The Great Society” which turns 50 next year. But the poverty rate is exactly the same relatively as it was then. The longest and slowest recovery from a Recession since the Depression, run by Liberal Democrats who also lengthened The Depression because of their socialist ideals.

Do you think the Democrats will throw a party for the 50th Anniversary of their “Great Society”?

He saw Man land on the moon. So did I, but I was 6 so my memories aren’t so great on that.

Then came Vietnam and the end of the old world.

Nixon is impeached for his tapes and the break-in of The WaterGate Hotel. The Liberal mafia media found it’s voice.

After all, Obama lied massively and repeatedly for years and then came Benghazi and what happened to him?

He got re-elected. And he continues to lie his ass off every day.

My how times change.

The Ministry of Truth is in full control of their propaganda.

So one of the things I worry about when I’m 90 (and I hope I am) is that the world will be just as unrecognizable then as it was when my father was born, but not in a good way.

As I am fond of quoting about Orwell, thought control is the central thesis of 1984 and it has been the central tenant of Liberalism ever since.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

And who has controlled Education for generations?  Liberals.

Who controls the media, the majority? Liberals.

Who writes the oral and written history? Liberals.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

So as successive generations are brainwashed into accepting the Liberal memes as normal and dependency and stupidity as normal what future is bright about that?

For if you can’t even conceive of rebellion, how can you rebel?

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

And if you do rebel are you equipped to handle the roughness of self-reliance? I would say many, many people are not. That is scary. And so is, to them, the idea of going it “alone” without Big Brother and Mama Government there to soften the blows and hardships of life.

What’s a little freedom when you can have “security” right?

They are made into vassals for their Feudal Lords to rule over them. Vassals know their place and don’t get uppity, for if they do, then their Masters swift “justice” is upon them.

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

Is this the future?

With the current Democrat Party it surely is. But that doesn’t make the Republicans much better though because they like power just as much as the next guy.

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. 🙂

It is up to the Vassals to take back America. It will not be an overnight process.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”

To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man – greetings!”

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Audacity of The Ministry of Truth

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.— Gov. Huckabee 2009

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate (or just ignore it like Libya). This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

And calling out the Ministry of Truth for what it is needs to be done more often.

Now onto Pat Cadell, the guy who I have great respect for. He’s Democrat. Yes, a Democrat. He is one of a nearly extinct species, a sane Democrat. A Democrat who is still a Democrat, but isn’t consumed with petty, childish, narcissistic  extremism.

Editor’s note: The following text is from a speech delivered by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell on September 21. It was delivered at Accuracy in Media’s Conference: Obamanation: A Day of Truth. The title of the speech was “The Audacity of Corruption.

I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody.  Which is exactly what they should be.  They were unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people. 

That changed in 1980. 

There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me.

Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever. 

But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances. 

We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it’s the highest in history.  For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.”  Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, independents were 31%. 

So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well. 

I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.”  What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail.  A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why.  That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe.  David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Adviser—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria. 

Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t.  And no one has raised this in the mainstream media. 

He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions.  No one asked him whatsoever about that.  He was not inquired.  George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms.  I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran.

I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending. 

This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States.  And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.” 

I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security.  In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point.  Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this.  They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked. 

Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration did we have Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator.  That’s a really unbiased source!  And the press, of course, won’t look into this. 

 It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down.  Yes, the president could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?”  As she said when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!”  I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.

Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption.  Sixty percent or 80%—it’s closer to 80%  I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama. 

But nobody says a word. 

Of course Republicans don’t raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power.  And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.

When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. 

To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated. 

I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps.  Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.” 

This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and president, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together.  The problem here is that no one will name names.

But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya.

Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack.  None of that is on the national news.  None of it is being pressed in the papers. 

If a president of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!  It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment.  But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.

And the American people collectively sighed and went back to watching “Dancing with Stars” or some nonsense.  Bread & Circuses.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view.  It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s “Face the Nation”] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” 

Nobody has asked that question.  This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference.  Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident.  But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it.  But I want to go through two other quick points.

As I have said, The Republicans are desperate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If they can’t beat Obama with an economy like this they are truly incompetent.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail.  Prison.  I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. 

They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood!  The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. 

He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy.  The president—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. 

On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration.  We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off.  But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories.  They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.

Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about.  Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it.

My point exactly. 🙂

But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated.  Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using the 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. 

Over sampling Democrats to get the results THEY want not the actual results they would get. But that’s not biased… 🙂

When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported.  And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful.

But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. 

We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t. 

AMEN!!

The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason.  Despite organizations like Accuracy In Media and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. 

If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months!  I’d have been looking at individual reporters!  I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you!  And they are here to do this!”  And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.

Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican Party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press.  This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. 

Better to preserve the incest than to do your job. Anyone notice they hate you anyways and they know it?? You’re afraid of THEM over US.

They are all one happy, dysfunctional family and they don’t want to point that Uncle Obama is an embarrassment much like the family members of drunks, drug addicts, and abusers.

Now one wants to address the dysfunction. So addicts and abusers get away with it and the press is on it and they hide it as best they can. And those being abused say very little to nothing about it.

You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it.  And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore.  There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.  When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know,  they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. 

And it is a threat to the very future of this country if we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about. (FOX)

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

The Ministry Has Work to Do

The Ministry Of Truth (which the Daily Kos having a website with that name by the way is amusing)

The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further.

The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania (read: America now) with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels – with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child’s spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother (Obama) makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate (or these days cover it up, modify the conditions or invent a new term for it and just continue on- i.e. “Tax Reform” now means Tax Increases on “the Rich” on the Left). This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind  (or be wrong)(if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction)(Fast & Furious), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Example: “short-term measures for jobs growth.” — Read Stimulus spending. 😦

Has the economy improved since Barack Obama became the president of the United States? Of course not. Despite what you may be hearing in the mainstream media (The Ministry of Truth), the truth is that when you compare the U.S. economy on the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated to the U.S. economy today, there is really no comparison. The unemployment crisis is worse than it was then, home values have fallen, the cost of health insurance is up, the cost of gas is way up, the number of Americans living in poverty has soared and the size of our national debt has absolutely exploded. Anyone that believes that things are better than they were when Barack Obama was elected is simply being delusional.

The following are 18 statistics that prove that the economy has not improved since Barack Obama became the president of the United States….

#1 Today there are 88 million working age Americans that are not employed and that are not looking for employment. That is an all-time record high.

1a. The Unemployment rate has been OVER 8% for 3 Years in a row!!

#2 When Barack Obama was elected, the percentage of unemployed Americans that had been out of work for more than 52 weeks was less than 15%. Today, it is above 30% .

2a. The number of workers who have been unable to find a job in 27 months or more has shot up 83%, with their ranks now at 5.5 million

#3 There are 1.2 million fewer jobs in America today than there were when Barack Obama was inaugurated.

#4 When Barack Obama first took office, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million .

#5 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is hovering close to an all-time record high .

#6 During the Obama administration, worker health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent .

#7 Since Barack Obama has been president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by 90 percent .

#8 Since Barack Obama has been president, home values in the United States have declined by another 13 percent .

#9 Under Barack Obama, new home sales in the U.S. set a brand new all-time record low in 2009, they set a brand new all-time record low again in 2010, and they set a brand new all-time record low once again during 2011.

#10 Since Barack Obama took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen by more than 6 million .

10a. Median annual household income is about 7% below where it was in February 2009, according to the Sentier Research Household Income Index.

#11 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million .

#12 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#13 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans living in “extreme poverty” is now sitting at an all-time high .

#14 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1700 an ounce.

#15 Since Barack Obama became president, the size of the U.S. national debt has increased by 44 percent .

#16 During Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined .

#17 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office .

#18 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.

More:

Standing too many months on the unemployment line is driving Americans crazy — literally — and it’s costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

With their unemployment-insurance checks running out, some of the country’s long-term jobless are scrambling to fill the gap by filing claims for mental illness and other disabilities with Social Security — a surge that hobbles taxpayers and making the employment rate look healthier than it should as these people drop out of the job statistics.

As of January, the federal government was mailing out disability checks to more than 10.5 million individuals, including 2 million to spouses and children of disabled workers, at a cost of record $200 billion a year, recent research from JPMorgan Chase shows.

The sputtering economy has fueled those ranks. Around 5.3 percent of the population between the ages of 25 and 64 is currently collecting federal disability payments, a jump from 4.5 percent since the economy slid into a recession.

Mental-illness claims, in particular, are surging.

During the recent economic boom, only 33 percent of applicants were claiming mental illness, but that figure has jumped to 43 percent.

Research also shows a growing number of men, particularly older, former white-collar workers, instead of the typical blue-collar ones, are applying.

Even More:

But barely a month after returning from a luxury Christmas break in Hawaii Michelle Obama is on holiday again – this time at the exclusive Colorado ski resort of Aspen. It’s her 16th holiday since her husband took office.

The Obamas are staying at the home of Jim and Paula Crown, owners of the Aspen Skiing Co, the Daily News reported.

A “middle class” non-“rich” non- Crony host I’m sure. 🙂

Let them Eat Snow!

The Icing on the Cake:

In 2011, the average gallon sold for an all-time high of over $3.50, and the average household spent $4,155 gassing up their vehicles—also a record. And if you were hoping for relief at the pump in 2012, it looks like you’re out of luck.

Gasoline prices have never been higher this time of the year.

At $3.53 a gallon, prices are already up 25 cents since Jan. 1. And experts say they could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April. …

The national average for gasoline began the year at $3.28 a gallon. The average price for February so far is $3.49 a gallon. That’s up from $3.17 a gallon last February, a record at the time. Back in 2007, before the recession hit, the average for February was $2.25 a gallon.

A 25-cent jump in gasoline prices, if sustained over a year, would cost the economy about $35 billion. That’s only 0.2 percent of the total U.S. economy, but economists say it’s a meaningful amount, especially at a time when growth is only so-so. The economy grew 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter, a rate considered modest following a recession.

High oil and gas prices now set the stage for even sharper increases at the pump because gas typically rises in March and April.

Sunoco, an big East Coast Refiner, has closed refineries (as as ConocoPhillips) because they were “bleeding” cash costs.

Sunoco, saying Marcus Hook was bleeding cash, shut down the plant in December, not long after the nearby ConocoPhillips in Trainer called it quits. Together, the two refineries produced about 20 percent of the gasoline used in the Northeast. Their owners are trying to sell the plants, without success.

“As soon as these two refineries shut down, prices started rising,” said Denis Stephano, president of United Steelworkers Union Local 10-234, which represents workers at the idled ConocoPhillips refinery.

“When you shut refineries down, you take refined product out of the market,” he said. (Philly.com)

And think of the Jobs… 🙂

And then there’s Iran, you know the guys Obama is largely ignoring.

Add it all up, and you can see the Ministry has a lot of work to do.

Remember this when the Ministry Lies to you 24/7/365 about how great things are becoming because of the Greatness of Barack Hussein Obama!!

Trust Me. 🙂

The Partisan Bunker

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Mark Meckler, the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, struck a similar note, saying that when the tea party protests first began, “we were ignored, mocked, and then attacked by the media” and “called ‘Astroturf,’ ‘fringe,’ ‘racists’ and ‘Nazis.’”

“Yet today, the leftist media seemingly cheers for a group of lawbreaking miscreants who have openly committed a variety of illegal acts,” Meckler said.

Said Brandon: “Of course, you hear about the guy who got arrested throwing a shoe at the White House. I heard they were pepper-spraying people down at the Smithsonian. I have yet to hear a story about a tea partier ever doing that.”

And Judson Phillips, the leader of the Tennessee-based group Tea Party Nation, said the “media’s coverage of Occupy Wall Street has been almost totally positive to the point of glossing over some serious issues.”

“While a number of people have been arrested and there is even a photo of a protester defecating on a police car, there still is no really negative coverage from the mainstream media,” Phillips said.

“Meanwhile, protesters in New York had a photoshopped image of the decapitated head of the chairman of Goldman Sachs on a pike and no one seems to be talking about that,” he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s strong statements in support of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement raise an interesting question: Does she, then, oppose the preferential treatment her son received at the hand of the financial industry?

Pelosi’s son, Paul Pelosi, Jr., was protected from a round of layoffs when he was a mortgage broker for Countrywide.

Of course not. Liberals are all about “Don’t Do as I do, do as I say” and corporate cronyism is only bad if it’s a conservative or Republican. Not a Democrat or Liberal.

Also, according to the Los Angeles Times, Pelosi’s son Paul also got about $1 million in loans for a condo from his politically-connected employer Countrywide.

Pelosi’s son’s special treatment contrasts with the top House Democrat’s support for Occupy Wall Street — a movement that appears to oppose corporate corruption and cronyism.

“Well, I support the message to the establishment — whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest — that change has to happen,” Pelosi said on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.

Pelosi’s office responded to an inquiry by TheDC by pointing to her record in Congress, instead of addressing her son’s apparent special treatment from the banking industry.

“Leader Pelosi spearheaded the passage of the strongest consumer protection legislation since the Great Depression, the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told The Daily Caller. “Her record is clear.”

Translation:  Stop looking at what I do and just do as I say!!

Now is that “transparent” enough for you??

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to “pass this bill now,” he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.

The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.

He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case.

For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.

Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama’s proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president’s proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.

The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president’s powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans’ ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.

“He knows it’s not going to pass. He’s betting that voters won’t pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the `do-nothing Congress,'” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California’s School of Policy, Planning and Development.

The new, combative Obama isn’t looking for compromise. He’s looking for a win. And if he can’t get the legislative victory he says he wants, he has made clear that he’s more than willing to take a political win.

It is, he acknowledges, a result his campaign for his jobs bill is designed to achieve.

Talking up the bill in an appearance last month with African-American news websites, Obama said: “I need people to be out there promoting this and pushing this and making sure that everybody understands the details of what this would mean, so that one of two things happen: Either Congress gets it done, or if Congress doesn’t get it done, people know exactly what’s holding it up.”

So is it now “transparent”?

Democrats won’t go for an agreement that doesn’t include lots of new tax revenue; Republicans are just as ardently anti-tax. The impasse over revenues means that Democrats won’t agree to cost curbs on popular entitlement programs like Medicare.

“Fairness has to be a prerequisite for it,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “We have just come through passing a bill that was (all spending) cuts, no revenue.” Pelosi was referring to the August debt limit bill, which set tight “caps” on agency budgets but didn’t contain revenue increases pressed by Democrats.

Democrats are more insistent on revenues now.

“There’s been no movement on revenues and I’m not sure the Democrats will agree to anything without revenues,” added a Democratic lobbyist who required anonymity to speak candidly.

“While the panel members aren’t doing much talking, other lawmakers, aides and lobbyists closely tracking the committee are increasingly skeptical, even pessimistic, that the panel will be able to meet its assigned goal of at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings during the next 10 years.” (WP and others)

A mere 120 Billion a year, the current Congress spends that in a month!

So how’s that “transparency”? 🙂

And how’s the idea of cutting Trillions, especially on entitlements coming?

How do think. They desperately don’t want to and will do whatever they have to to do as little as possible.

And at 48% of Americans who are on the dole hope they don’t do anything.

So will it take being the bug splatting on the windshield before we have to do anything.

Think Greece. Think Italy. Then think you’re in deep bovine fecal matter.

Deep….Deep….Deep….

The Partisan Bunker is open and ready for you…

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler



Labels

Before I get to the explanation, choke on this fact:

Updated numbers for the national debt are just out: It’s now $14,639,000,000,000.

When Barack Obama took the oath of office twice on Jan. 20, 2009, CBS’ amazing number cruncher Mark Knoller reports, the national debt was $10,626,000,000,000.

That means the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That’s the fastest increase under any president ever.

But that’s George Bush’s Fault! He made them do it! remember that. 🙂

The nation’s debt increased $4.9 trillion under President Bush too, btw. But it took him 2,648 days to do it. Obama will surpass that sum during this term. (LA times)

That’s the Republicans Fault! 🙂

It’s growing $2.95 million a minute, but don’t worry, we just need to SPEND EVEN MORE!

And it’s all those nasty, mean “Conservatives” fault!

The Buck stops with anyone but a Democrats (or “Liberal”).

The Media Research Center has a revelatory study out this morning on the vast discrepancy between the way the news networks use the “conservative” and “liberal” labels for candidates.

In the first half of this year, NBC, ABC and CBS morning and evening news shows put attached the term “conservative” to a presidential contender 62 times, while during the same period in the presidential race in 2007, “liberal” came up only three times.

Media Research Center analysts reviewed the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs from January 1 through July 31 and found 62 “conservative” labels for Republican candidates or those talked about as potential candidates. A check of the same broadcasts for the same time period in 2007 found a paltry three “liberal” labels for the Democrats running that year, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity.

In fact, reporters four years ago used the “liberal” label more freely with Republican candidates than Democrats. ABC’s Jake Tapper (World News, March 5, 2007) called Rudy Giuliani a “former big city mayor with liberal views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.” But Democratic candidates such as Edwards and Clinton, whose views were to the left of Giuliani, were not once called “liberal” on any of the networks during the period we examined, while CBS and NBC never tagged Barack Obama as liberal.
Indeed, the most-labeled candidate this cycle is Michele Bachmann, who accounted for more than a third (23) of the ideological descriptions we tallied. On ABC’s World News on June 14, correspondent John Berman called Bachmann “one of Congress’s most conservative members.” Later that month, ABC’s Jon Karl described Bachmann as having “unyieldingly conservative views (June 26) and as an “uncompromising conservative” (June 27). Over on the CBS Evening News, Jan Crawford tagged Bachmann as “unapologetically conservative” (June 26).

On the June 27 NBC Nightly News, correspondent Kelly O’Donnell said Bachmann was “known for her firebrand conservative style.” The next morning on Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked Bachmann: “Are you at all concerned that your socially conservative views, that make you very popular in Iowa, might not play as well down the road?”

Four years ago, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards espoused the most stridently liberal positions of the major Democratic candidates, but drew no liberal labels from January 1 through July 31, 2007. (Then-NBC reporter Chip Reid, however, did supply a single liberal label on the December 28, 2006 edition of Today, as Edwards prepared to announce his candidacy: “Critics say Edwards is too liberal and, with just one term in the Senate, too inexperienced.”)Viewers only heard two liberal labels for then-Senator Barack Obama, who, like Edwards, espoused strongly liberal positions as a candidate. The labels came in a single flattering story by ABC’s Jake Tapper that was aired both on the January 16, 2007 World News and the next morning’s Good Morning America: “Obama has drawn raves for presenting fairly traditional liberal views as fresh and inspiring….As for then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who led the Democratic field throughout 2007, she was also never termed a liberal. In fact, network analysts busied themselves refuting the notion. “People think she’s a liberal, even though she’s hawkish,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asserted on NBC’s Todayon January 15, 2007. (Mr. “Tingle up my Leg” himself!)

For its part, CBS failed to attach a single liberal label to the Democratic candidates during the first seven months of 2007.It’s neither inaccurate nor impolite to describe this year’s GOP candidates as “conservative” — most of them wear the label proudly. But if the networks are going to treat both sides fairly, they should have been just as ardent in pointing out the liberalism of the Democratic field that produced the most liberal President in American history.
But why would they do that? 🙂
It would be like calling Illegal Aliens…Illegal Aliens! Not “migrants”.
And Islamic terrorists and radicals…Islamic terrorists and radicals. It’s much easier and better to call the Tea Partiers terrorists than the real ones.
Gotta fear the weirdos.
Besides pin the most ardent Liberals in a corner and they’ll call themselves “Progressives” but they won’t use it except then. It’s another out for them.
Demonize your opposition.
Label the Mark of the Beast.
Begone, ye SATAN “Conservative”. 🙂
Chris Matthews on Gov. Rick Perry:  Speculating on the Texas Governor’s popularity, Matthews theorized, “Do you think part of this southern appeal of this guy, who is to most of us this guy, Rick Perry, is he’s not a Mormon. He’s a Southern Baptist.” The NBC anchor then suggested sinister motives behind his supporters: “And a lot of it is that permission slip people give themselves, ‘Oh, I’m not bigoted on race or religion, but I just like this guy.'”
Now can you imagine saying that about the other guy…you know…THE LIBERAL. of course not, why would they do that…
Sunday’s (NBC) Meet the Press, substitute host Savannah Guthrie pushed the President from the left: “If the President thinks more should be done, if he thinks there should be more stimulus, why doesn’t he just go for broke? Why doesn’t he go out there and ask for it, make a case for it?”
Yeah, go for it! We’re nearly 15,000,000,000,000 in debt what the hell let’s SPEND EVEN MORE!!
Now that’s a good plan!! 😦
In contrast to her exchange with Gibbs, when Guthrie interviewed Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels minutes later, she actually discouraged Republicans from standing on principle: “…at the Republican debate the candidates were asked whether they would accept a deal in which there were $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes. And every single candidate raised their hand….does that convey a sense that Republicans are so intransigent on this issue that this problem they profess to care about, i.e. the deficit, can’t be solved?”

Daniels countered by pointing to stubbornness on the Democratic side: “Well, first, there’s tons of intransigence on the other side. The Democrats have been utterly, I’d say, not only stubborn, but cynical in their protestations that they won’t touch, they won’t, they won’t modernize or rebuild the safety net programs, and everyone knows that has to happen.”

AVILA: Deep cuts in education helped balance the budget, and the divide between rich and poor is the fourth widest in the country. Some argue that, deep in the heart of Rick Perry’s Texas, there is little heart. Jim Avila, ABC News, San Antonio. (NB)
“I know you’re an objective reporter, but I smell birtherism about this guy. His attack on Obama isn’t just policy. It’s about the nature of the person who’s President….This could be Bull Connor with a smile.”–Chris Matthews. The fact that Bull Connor was a White, Southern DEMOCRAT I’m sure was missed by this Alinsky-inspired attack.
And we all know the Mainstream media is “Objective”, don’t we? 🙂
So where are the statements about Obama’s economy, the nearly $5 Trillion in spending in less than 3 years,  the chronic  unemployment, Libya, taxes, jobs, ObamaCare, anti-business, being a SOCIALIST! etc.
Oh, sorry, that’s George Bush’s Fault! Silly me… 🙂
And what isn’t his fault is the Republicans fault. Even if they have only had one branch of Congress for 7 months it’s still there fault.
Why? because they are “CONSERVATIVES”. That’s why. And we all know they are stubborn, heartless, mean, miserly, nasty old grinchs who just wanna throw grandma off a cliff, steal candy from babies, and be racist, bible-thumping terrorists.
And we can’t have that now can we?
Vote for Me, the Democrat, because the other guy/ gal  is a “Conservative” (aka asshole)!!
Political Cartoons by Jerry HolbertPolitical Cartoons by Michael Ramirez



The Not-War War

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Orwell at it’s finest:

The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”

It depends on what your definition of War (or “hostilities”)  is is. 🙂

A Democrat will scream and yell when a Republican is President, but now, eh, so what…

And the Media? They are ok with it.

But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.” There are no U.S. ground troops in Libya.

President Obama declared last week that the three-month-old Libyan campaign should not be considered “hostilities.” That word is important, because it’s used in the 1973 War Powers Resolution: Presidents must obtain congressional authorization within a certain period after sending U.S. forces “into hostilities.”

Obama’s reasoning was that he did not need that authorization because U.S. forces were playing a largely supportive and logistical role, and because Libyan defenses are so battered they pose little danger. U.S. drones are still carrying out some strikes against Libyan targets.

Overall, the White House reasoned, “U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution.”

Imminent Danger Non-Hostilities are bombing Civilians and Military on foreign soil but it’s not a War because the Left says so.

I want to see the next Republican President get away with this. 🙂

Orwell’s “blackwhite”: Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

Doublethink: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

First, the mainstream media is irreparably slanted in its coverage and story selection.  Hypothetical: Let’s say President Bush had conspicuously dismissed typically-binding legal analyses, opting instead to stack the deck in favor of cherry-picked opinions, all in an effort to justify carrying on a war he’d started without Congress’ consideration, let alone approval.  Would the media treat such an audacious power play as anything other than a Constitutional crisis of the highest order?  He’s trampling on the Constitution!  Imperial presidency!  Lawlessness!  Separation of powers!  But this president is named Barack Obama, and he’s a Democrat. (townhall.com)

So if a Republican, Like George W. Bush goes to Congress and get approval for War and gets it he “lied to Congress” as in “Bush lied people died” and it’s an “illegal war”.

But a Democrat President starts a war on people who haven’t attacked us and we have no interest, that War is not a war because they say it’s not a war. It’s not even “hostilities”.

But spending $1 Billion dollars to drop drones and kill people in a foreign country is not War!

Why? because a Democrat started it.

Orwell would be proud of you my son.

On a message board I posted a question, “If George Bush would have just lobbed missiles at Saddam and that was all he did would they have been happy with that like they are with Obama?”

Response: crickets. Then I was attacked as “repuke” (the far left’s term for a republican).

It was predictable.

This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the Office of Legal Counsel as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t.

Just like he won’t go to Congress for authorization because he will fail and he knows it.

So lets obfuscate and play word games. And the Liberal media is happy to go along with it.

Second, forget the media for a moment and consider the precedent Obama is embracing.  According to his reading of the law, a president can initiate hostilities against a foreign nation, deploy American troops and resources abroad for months, hand off operations to a virtually wholly-owned US subidiary (NATO), then have his political team issue a ruling that the hostilities aren’t really hostilities, thus circumventing any checks from the people’s branch.

“Frankly, I think cutting off funding in the middle of a military operation when we have people engaged is always a mistake,” Defense Secretary Gates told “Fox News Sunday.”

But it’s not a War! it’s not even “hostilities” but it is a “military operation” that is not subject to oversight by anyone. Well, at least it was upgraded from what it used to be: A time- and scope- limited kinetic military action. 🙂

Rejoice.

And these are the guys you want in charge of your Health Care!! 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon