Liberal Logic

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Derek Hunter:

They can’t be this dumb, can they? They just can’t be.

Yes. Because reality is not something a Liberal understands. They understand the reality of their ideology and that’s it.

Actual reality is unknown to them, or refused because it doesn’t fit.

Our progressives Democratic friends aren’t that stupid, right? But they are counting on the American people being stupid when it comes to world affairs. And there’s very little to suggest they won’t be successful in that endeavor.

Yeah, because the average american is now been made to be a moron, suckling at the teat of the Liberal Media pig.

Be it the president saying ISIS is “contained” hours before the group unleashed evil on the streets of Paris, or the secretary of state saying the Paris attacks were crazy, unlike the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, where there was “legitimacy” and a “rationale” to them, nothing they say can be taken as serious thought.

The media did show some irritation with the president this week, but he pushed right back. Barack Obama showed an anger and frustration toward the press daring to question his wisdom in Turkey he normally reserves for Republicans. Repeatedly chastising reporters for asking him what he deemed similar questions, the president committed to staying on the same path that brought us to the point where dozens were dead in France and the West is on high alert.

There’s something to be said for commitment, I guess. It’d be better in other aspects of his life, but at least the concept isn’t completely foreign to him.

 

After damning the torpedoes and ordering the engines ahead full steam, the president then set about working on his main concern – climate change. Yes, what computer models that can’t accurately predict the past say will happen in 100 years is the major focus of this government in a time of mass slaughter.

Legacy, it would seem, is every bit as addictive as heroin.

Ideology is reality. Reality is ideology.

But the administration can make that pivot because it can count on the media, no matter how poorly they’re treated, to be the Ginger Rogers to its Fred Astaire – they go where they’re led, happily.

The Ministry of Truth is consistent. Consistently Progressive, regardless.

As Hillary Clinton said in the debate no one watched (seriously, is the next “protect Hillary from anyone seeing her be a crazy leftist” debate on the Friday Star Wars opens? Might as well be), we are at war with “violent extremists.”

Dems have debates no one is SUPPOSED to watch. It messes with message. But they can say they had them and they can feed their core base of radical Progressives some meat.

“violent extremists”= Republicans? 🙂

No one questioned what type of extremists she was talking about because everyone knew it. She’s not talking about violent Black Lives Matters extremists or campus crybaby extremists, she’s talking about Islamic extremists. She just won’t say it. Is there any reason to believe she’d actually fight it?

We’ll never know because she’ll never be asked in any way that will require a serious answer.

While Democrats implode, the media plays guard dog.

And the average moron is none the wiser. And they get to vote in less than a year. Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

Just one example is the Huffington Post. It’s an ultra-leftwing blog with media credentials, but many people actually believe what they read there.

In a piece by someone they bill as a “reporter,” the Huffington Post declares “The West Is Giving ISIS Exactly What It Wants.” The sub-headlines are equally as journalistic, “Unfortunately, conservatives in the U.S. and Europe seem to want to do all the wrong things.”

Narrative, baby, it’s all about the Narrative.

Again, this is a “news” piece written by a “reporter,” not a column on the opinion pages.

The argument, if you can call it that, is threefold and is described as being embraced by “policymakers,” though each section cites only one liberal of dubious credentials.

First, keeping refugees in the Middle East increases the prospect that they’ll be radicalized. “Josh Hampson argues in The Hill that keeping Syrian refugees in the Middle Eastern countries where they are currently concentrated increases the probability that they will grow susceptible to radicalization.” Hampson, according to his byline, is “a research associate at the Niskanen Center where he focuses on defense reform and foreign policy.” Well, if there’s a greater authority on the issue I’ve never heard of him.

 

Hampson’s theory is that these people are so fragile that proximity to terrorists increases the likelihood they’ll decide to join a death cult. Are those who we really want in this country? People who are essentially a coin flip away from terrorism? They’re not exactly walking into a thriving economy where jobs await them.

Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector.

Second, reacting to terrorism negatively runs the risk of creating more terrorists, particularly American Muslims. Yes, it’s that stupid. “One of the goals of attacks like the one in Paris is to provoke an overreaction that will make some Muslims in the West feel that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with the culture of the countries they live in.” In short, be careful to how you react after being punched in the face because more people will want to punch you in the face.

Is Sharia compatabile with Western Values, esp. The Constitution?

Nope.

Just a simple fact. A little Truth. That’s all

By “overreaction” the implication is clear – take your medicine, pretend it didn’t happen or else it will happen again. It’s battered woman syndrome on a national scale and it’s presented as fact in a “news” story.

ISLAMOPHOBIA!

Third, by refusing refugees, the West is aiding ISIS because they don’t want Muslims to leave the region as it makes them look bad. But ISIS knows who is leaving and from where and could stop some if not most of them if it desired. But they’re not.

If you had a gum ball machine where 10% (or even 1%) of the gumballs in the machine were lethal would you let your kids use it until it was cleared or is that an “overreaction”?

The expert cited in this section, who is irrelevant here, “goes on to cite a dozen statements from Islamic State leaders warning refugees against heading to Europe or other ‘infidel’ lands.” A dozen statements from a terrorist organization not exactly known as a paragon of truth and virtue, that’s “proof.”

Hope a You Tube video. Liberals are good at blaming those…

This “news” piece, which is just one of many, concludes, almost miraculously, exactly how the Democratic Party wants it to – “if Europe and the United States were to shut out Syrian refugees, they would be foregoing an advantage they have over the Islamic State group.”

Weird how that just so happens to dovetail perfectly with what the president is demanding, isn’t it?

DOH!

Other arguments from other “journalists” are just as flimsy, but because they’re reported by news outlets they will find legs with the uninformed.

Stupid People, got no reason… 🙂

What’s difficult to understand is why any of these people care so deeply that they’d make fools of themselves to advance the agenda of a lame-duck president who’s never shown them particular favor or loyalty. They couldn’t possibly believe what they say, could they?

🙂

Do they really believe otherwise well-adjusted people decided to commit their lives to murder because they heard about a small prison on a tropical island? That they were normal people interested in hanging out with their friends until Gitmo was explained to them?

Yes.

Might I suggest that if someone was turned to murder by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having water poured up his nose they were going to murder no matter what.

No, because that’s islamophobia.

Still, this makes sense to our liberal friends. They have sympathy for the unstable person out there. They’d rather those people bring their instability to this country for reasons that make sense only if you know how Democrats work.

Their “compassion” shall be there undoing because it’s mixed with their unreality and their ideology and thus they are impenetrable to actual reality and you’re the problem for pointing it out to them.

People are their race, their gender, their sexual preference, anything but individuals to Democrats. Not since the defeat of the Axis Powers has the world seen more earnest and insistent propagandists. It’s a family tradition, if you will, on the left.

The real question is why our progressives friends want to bring ethnic and religious minorities to a country with racism in its DNA, were its campuses are overrun with racists keeping minority students oppressed, where the very system is stacked against them because of who they are. Why bring them here?

To be “victims” and vote for Democrats. And to make Democrats “feel good” about themselves and “morally” superior.

The answer is they either hate them or they know everything they stand for and claim as justification for it is a lie. Since they view individuals as disposable, logically it could be both. But there’s nothing logical about liberals. The simplest answer is always the right answer, and the worst, when it comes to our opponents: It’s “Agenda Über Alles.”

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The November Surprise?

Another round of “if you like your plan” well… too f*cking bad suckers!

But don’t worry, the Liberal media won’t tell you about it because that’s not on The Agenda (and it’s still “the Affordable Care Act” to them because their Orwellian training says so when it’s bad news) or they’ll sugar coat it in Orwellian BS and class warfare as they do anything that’s bad new for them.

One of the causes they’ll never see, because it was central to their Agenda:

From MSNBC (earlier this year): Until recently, insurance companies screened individual buyers for potential health needs and penalized or excluded anyone who might actually need care. The Affordable Care Act bars that discrimination, and it uses tax credits to subsidize coverage for people with modest incomes.

And we know how this was destined to fail and has failed. What they are flapping their collectivist lips about is Adverse Selection (which I have harped on before).

Suppose an insurance firm offered health insurance to the general public. It is likely to have the highest take up rate amongst unhealthy people. People who don’t exercise, people who smoke. They are the group most likely to need health care, therefore, it makes sense for them to take out insurance. Healthy people don’t see the point, if the price of health insurance is determined by the average unhealthy person.

If insurance premiums are based on the needs of smokers, then the premiums will be high. Therefore, there is no incentive for healthy people to take out the insurance.

Solutions to Adverse Selection

To avoid adverse selection, firms need to try and identify different groups of people. This is why health insurance premiums are higher for smokers and obese people, etc.

And some people deemed of high or extreme risk are excluded altogether.

And this works in any insurance really, the higher risk people get higher premiums or excluded altogether in order to try and keep premiums as low as possible.

BUT

In Health Insurance if  you MANDATE that you can’t adversely select the higher risks (what the Left calls “discrimination”) then EVERYONE‘s premiums are going up to cover the influx of the unhealthy and the one’s who couldn’t afford it in the first place but are mandated to have it anyhow (or just like a freebie) are now on the taxpayers-you-and-me’s dime and we get to pay to pay for them as well!

That’s fair!, right. 🙂

And then you stick in the provision, in ObamaCare, that says if your plan doesn’t match up perfectly with what ObamaCare considers the perfect plan then your plan has to bit the big one and you get….

More than a dozen states plan to cancel health care policies not in compliance with ObamaCare in the coming weeks, affecting thousands of people just before the midterm elections.

“It looks like several hundred thousand people across the country will receive notices in the coming days and weeks,” said Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The policies are being canceled because states that initially granted a reprieve at the request of President Obama are no longer willing to do so.

In coming weeks, 13 states and the District of Columbia plan to cancel such policies, which generally fall out of compliance with the Affordable Care Act because they don’t offer the level of coverage the law requires.

Virginia will be hardest hit, with 250,000 policies expected to be canceled.

And because federal law requires a 60-day notice of any plan changes, voters will be notified no later than November 1, right before the Nov. 4 midterms.

Many of those forced out of their current plans and into ObamaCare may not be able to keep their doctors. They also could face higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, making ObamaCare an election issue on the eve of voting.

Obama had originally unequivocally promised that under his health care plan, everyone could keep their doctors and plans.

In 2009, he told the American Medical Association, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.No one will take it away. No matter what.”

The president later was forced to admit that any plan without the additional benefits required under ObamaCare faced cancellation.

But that unleashed a nasty political backlash, forcing him to back down and call for states and insurers to extend those policies for three more years.

Some said he didn’t have much choice. “There were some five or six million people who were at stake here and the federal exchange was in no condition to even process a few hundred thousand people much less millions,” said Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute.

Many states flatly refused to extend and now comes the new round of states that plan to cancel policies. (Jim Angle)

But don’t worry, IF the liberal media even mentions it, it will be the Insurance Companies fault, not the fault of ObamaCare and it’s ridiculous “requirements” because ObamaCare is the Light, and we “haters” are the Darkness, after all.

You don’t want the days of “discrimination” (racial overtone background music) to come back now do you? 🙂

After all, The Left is the Light, and everyone else is The Dark.

MSNBC: “Honest people can differ on the merits of those policies.

And there’s no one more honest and transparent than The Left, after all, they are The Angels of Mercy and Compassion… 🙂

So LIGHTen your wallet, here comes ObamaCare! The November Surprise?

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Hoist By Their Own Petard

More ObamaCare mess.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal regulations that implemented subsidies that are vital to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, in direct conflict with another ruling on the issue handed down earlier on Tuesday.

A three-judge panel unanimously said the law was ambiguous, and that it would defer to the IRS’s determination that subsidies could go to individuals who purchased health insurance on both federal and state-run exchanges.

The second court was obviously more liberal agenda driven since the Law does state the Feds are excluded from the exchanges. This was a political attempt, that partially failed, to get Republican Governors to cave-in and they didn’t. Now the Agenda has a new problem.

The ACA (ObamaCare) say the subsidies shall be available to persons who purchase health insurance in an exchange “established by the state.” But 34 states have chosen not to establish exchanges.

Nothing a few Agenda-driven judges can’t confuse! 🙂

A separate panel from a federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday morning said the IRS could not offer premium tax credits to people who purchase insurance through the federal insurance marketplace that serves most of the 8 million consumers who have signed up for private coverage for 2014.

Analysts estimate that as many as 5 million people could be affected if subsidies disappear from the federal marketplace, which serves 36 states through the website HealthCare.gov.

The subsidies are available to people with annual incomes of up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $94,200 for a family of four.

The subsidies were the bribes to get people in the door of ObamaCare in the first place, as well as the cudgel against Republicans.

Did anyone mention cost? 🙂

Democrats in Congress passed a law that explicitly limited Obamacare subsidy eligibility to consumers who purchased plans on state-level exchanges. They did so in order to coerce and bribe states into setting up their own marketplaces under the law. (Another attempt at coercion, mandatory Medicaid expansion, has been struck down 7-2 by the Supreme Court). Given the controversial law’s unpopularity, a majority of states declined to establish exchanges, forcing the federal government to create the infamous federal version — with Healthcare.gov as its centerpiece. Subsequent New York Times reporting indicated that HHS never expected to have to set up any exchange at all, let alone for 36 states. That’s because they were laboring under the belief that the law’s sticks and carrots would compel every state to implement marketplaces on their own. Many did not, and the plain text of the law clearly states that anyone buying coverage through any system other than a state-based exchange would not be eligible to receive generous taxpayer subsidies, which relieve much of the heavy cost burden for many consumers (even with the subsidies, many enrollees say they’re struggling to pay).
Faced with this predicament, the IRS decided that Congress’ true intent was for all exchange consumers to have a shot at subsidies if they were financially eligible, so it simply decreed it to be so in the form of a regulation that effectively rewrote a major provision the law. Today, the Court ruled that the law says what it says, and that the IRS overstepped. This decision, at least for now, plunges Obamacare into chaos — and furious Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. When you ram through a lengthy, hastily slapped-together, unpopular law without reading it, unintended consequences sometimes arise. And this one’s a biggie. Then again, as Will notes in his piece, a strong case can be made that this passage of the law was very much crafted intentionally, even if today’s fallout was ‘never supposed to happen.’ Congress debated how to phrase the subsidy eligibility language, and ended up passing the Senate’s version — a move made necessary by the anti-Obamacare election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. A previous House version’s verbiage had been much more encompassing. But it didn’t pass. Obamacare did. If it stands, this ruling not only strips subsidy eligibility from many Americans (which could/will touch off a breathtaking adverse selection death spiral), it liberates tens of millions from the unpopular individual mandate tax. Why? (Guy Benson)

Time for King Fiat and His Executive Order Super Glue? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

So Israel should stop being so mean to the Palestinians… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Fair & Balanced

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“I’d like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down.”

During an interview with the liberal website Mediaite, Joy Behar added, “Who’s he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?”

JOY BEHAR: I would ask him plenty of questions about, is he planning to endorse the Ryan budget? And I think that would be a terrible mistake. I don’t want to see people on the streets begging for food, thank you.

BEHAR: Oh, less government? That is an idiotic statement. Can I just say that?

Now substitute, conservative and black/minority/gay  and see what would happen. 🙂
And you there you have the “New Tone” of “Civility” folks.
Oh, and she just replaced Keith Olbermann on Al Gore’s Current TV.
Enjoy! 🙂
*********

The news that the House Oversight Committee will vote next week on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents in the Fast and Furious investigation, was met with silence from the Big Three (ABC, NBC, CBS) network news shows. There was no mention of the Holder hearings on Monday’s evening news shows or Tuesday’s morning shows.

The blackout of the Holder hearings continues a stunning trend. Since December 2010, when the Fast and Furious scandal first broke, there have been zero stories about the gunwalking scandal on NBC Nightly News and Today show. On ABC there was only one brief aired on Good Morning America. Only CBS has truly covered the story, mainly due to the work of one reporter, Sharyl Attkisson. Since Attkisson broke the gunwalking story, there have been a total of 30 full stories and 1 brief aired on CBS’s Evening News and This Morning programs.

Curiously, Attkisson’s stories on the gunwalking scandal have screeched to a halt.

From February 4 through this morning’s news there has been only one report (An Erica Hill brief on the May 3 This Morning) on the Fast and Furious controversy. It’s not as if Attkisson stopped paying attention, as she authored a story for CBSNews.com on Tuesday, but oddly her reporting did not make the air on that night’s CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley.  

The following brief, aired on the May 3, 2012 CBS This Morning, represents the sum total of stories by the Big 3 on the Fast and Furious scandal in over a month:
ERICA HILL: There is new information this morning in the Fast and Furious gunwalking operation, first exposed last year by our own Sharyl Attkisson. Sources tell CBS News that today lawmakers will take the first formal step toward charging Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee accused Holder of obstructing their investigation. In Fast and Furious, U.S. officials allowed thousands of guns to flow from the U.S. into Mexico. Two of those guns were later found at the scene where a U.S. border patrol agent was murdered.

But don’t worry, they aren’t biased propagandists for the Liberal cause. They are “journalists” and they are “fair” and “balanced”. Just ask them…. 🙂
*******

‘Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda,” wrote Ryan Lizza in this week’s New Yorker. “The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change,” supposedly to “improve the world.”

So forget about the abysmal jobless numbers above 8% for over three years, or the $15 trillion deficit that threatens to turn the U.S. into Greece. No, amid those very real calamities, climate change is more important.

If this isn’t a sign of a president out of touch with reality, what is? If climate change is Obama’s “most important” policy issue, then neither the Tea-Party-led victories around fiscal discipline — such as the Wisconsin vote, nor the West Virginia primary, here 40% of Democrats chose a jailbird to protest Obama’s anti-coal agenda, made a dent on him.

Like a madman doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, it can only mean Obama intends to double-down on his green agenda if re-elected.

It’s the Agenda Stupid! He’ll be more “flexible”. 🙂

Has Obama learned nothing? The economy topped the voters’ list of concerns in 2009, but Obama bulled ahead with health care reform anyway.
Poll after poll since 2009 shows the public considers climate change dead last in importance. In 2012, Pew Research Center reported that 86% of the public considered the economy a top priority, and 82% considered jobs in that slot. Global warming ranked dead last at 25% — and that represented a 13% decline from 2007.(IBD)
The Agenda is the The Agenda!
The Voters and the American People be Damned!
So why do you wanna vote for this twit again?
*******alt
contrary to claims by the nation’s top elected duffer, private sector jobs are down 4.6 million in the last 52 months.While the number of federal government employees increased nearly a quarter-million paychecks, 11.4%, in the same period. This despite the Democrat candidate’s vow four years ago to go through every budget line-by-line. You betcha.

Private-sector jobs are still down by 4.6 million, or 4%, from January 2008, when overall employment peaked. Meanwhile government jobs are down just 407,000, or 1.8%. Federal employment actually is 225,000 jobs above its January 2008 level, an 11.4% increase. That’s right, up 11.4%.

Private payrolls have been trending higher in the last couple of years while government has been shedding staff. But that’s because governments did not cut jobs right away. Overall government employment didn’t peak until April 2009, 16 months after the recession started. It didn’t fall below their January 2008 level until September 2010.

Fewer than three in 10 American teenagers now hold jobs such as running cash registers, mowing lawns or busing restaurant tables from June to August. The decline has been particularly sharp since 2000, with employment for 16-to-19-year olds falling to the lowest level since World War II. (Townhall)

One largely overlooked aspect of Obama’s Friday remarks was his plea that the nation needs to grow state and local governments to provide more jobs. Obama displayed his keen grasp of the Acme School of Economics by making his top stimulus spending idea increasing the size of governments. It isn’t working on the federal level, so maybe it will now in the states.

It’s easy to argue that Obama’s tunnel vision on government employment reflects his complete lack of experience in the business world. But it’s also mainstream Democratic thinking.

Just look at Joy Behar. 🙂

This increasingly desperate president’s election year economic policies are like deer-hunting with an AK-47 on automatic. Who knows? You might hit something.

After all,  Why does Obama think the private sector is “doing fine”? “We’ve seen record profits in the corporate sector.” And high corporate profits are good for tax revenues to pay for government programs and government jobs. That’s the main reason Obama cares about the private sector. (IBD)

And Democrats all want to tax (sorry “revenue”) you to death because after all, all we need to do is Spend Even More and Utopia awaits!

“People are poor and people are left behind because they do not have access to the free enterprise system.”–Senator Marco Rubio.

But don’t worry, everything is “fine”. Just ask the Media and the President. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

The Role of Government

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett: “We have to give people a livelihood so they can provide for their families,” Jarrett says in the video. “We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, a footing, and that’s what government is supposed to do.”

But that’s not socialism or government trying to run your life for you. Nope. Nothing to see here…

Contrast that with Sen. Marco Rubio during a recent speech at the Reagan Presidential Library:

These are proper roles of government — within the framework of creating an environment where economic security and prosperity is possible.  And on the compassion side of the ledger, which is also important to Americans — and it’s important that we remind ourselves of that — I don’t really like labels in politics, but I will gladly accept the label of conservatism. Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. And our programs to help them should reflect that.

Now, yes, there are people that cannot help themselves. And those folks we will always help. We are too rich and prosperous a nation to leave them to fend for themselves. But all the others that can work should be given the means of empowering themselves to enter the marketplace and the workforce. And our programs and our policies should reflect that. We do need a safety net, but it cannot be a way of life. It must be there to help those who have fallen, to stand up and try again.
Amen.  Even if you’re a bleeding heart type who’s inclined to agree with Jarrett that the feds ought to take a more proactive role in directly aiding the poor through wealth redistribution, I’d point out that Big Government has done a really lousy job at achieving that goal through the years.  The Democrats’ Great Society and its “war on poverty” has been a wildly costly and tragically ineffective proposition.  More recently, President Obama promised that his 2009 “stimulus” program would “lift two million Americans from poverty.”  Hundreds of billions of dollars later, 2.9 million more Americans have fallen into poverty.  Which is to say nothing of the gutwrenching economic desolation that has afflicted so many of human history’s socialistic dystopias. 

Big, overbearing, meddling government isn’t merely philosophically wrongheaded, it just doesn’t work.  That’s why conservatives are exempliying true compassion when they work to limit the size, scope, and influence of a Leviathan that consumes greedily, but has little to show for it. (Guy Benson)

Speaking of overbearing…

The Obama administration is escalating its crackdown on tough immigration laws, with lawyers reviewing four new state statutes to determine whether the federal government will take the extraordinary step of challenging the measures in court.

Justice Department lawyers have sued Arizona and Alabama, where a federal judge on Wednesday allowed key parts of that state’s immigration law to take effect but blocked other provisions. Federal lawyers are talking to Utah officials about a third possible lawsuit and are considering legal challenges in Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina, according to court documents and government officials. (WP)

This would be the same Justice department that refused to prosecute the Black Panther Case, and is trying desperately to cover up the forceable walking of guns into Mexico under “Fast & Furious” amongst many other problems.

But states wanting to crack down on illegal immigration where this government refuses to go, well…That’s just evil. 🙂

He <Obama> told a roundtable of Latino reporters Wednesday that Arizona’s immigration law created “a great danger that naturalized citizens, individuals with Latino surnames, potentially could be vulnerable to questioning. The laws could be potentially abused in ways that were not fair to Latino citizens.”

The same old tired parroted argument that is, of course, utterly false and has been proven to be so. But since when did truth ever stop a liberal from using fear and intimidation? NEVER.

“We can’t have a patchwork of 50 states with 50 different immigration laws.”

We must have only 1 law. Ours. And if we chose to ignore it well too F*cking bad for you you can’t do anything about it! We are all powerful and what we say goes. Period. End of story.

Isn’t Democratic government grand? 🙂

PASS THE BILL

“Are they against putting teachers and police officers and firefighters back on the job? Are they against hiring construction workers to rebuild our roads and bridges and schools? Are they against giving tax cuts to virtually every worker and small business in America?”–President Obama

He’s going to drive the price of straw through the roof if he keeps this up? The army of straw men he’ll have by election time will rival the Chinese Military.
So if you’re against his bill not only are you racist, but heartless, mean, cruel and just want to kick people in the nuts repeatedly!
Emotions must trump logic because logic tells you he’s full of bovine fecal matter!
“Well, this isn’t about giving me a win, and it’s not about [Republicans],” Obama said.

Pinocchio’s nose just grew so long it hit the other side of the universe!
“This isn’t just about what I think is right.”
Yes it is.
Your Ego would have it no other way.
Liberal Economist God Paul Krugman: The truth is that we’re in this mess because we had too little regulation, not too much.
Dozens of infrastructure projects could qualify for expedited treatment under a White House plan to create jobs by cutting through regulatory red tape that critics say is holding up important initiatives.
But I thought we needed MORE regulations? 🙂

President Barack Obama last month ordered Interior, Agriculture, Housing, Transportation and Commerce Department officials to identify by Friday up to three big projects each that could merit faster environmental approvals and other permits. Funding must already be arranged or identified.

Obama is facing a tough re-election fight next year in the face of a stubborn 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Infrastructure projects, which can help state and local economies, are a key part of his job creation strategy.

Administration officials would not discuss proposals while they were under review, but transportation and construction groups say there are at minimum 50 projects in the permit process that could qualify for faster treatment.

Most are winding their way through a federal, state and local maze that often takes several years and can last between 15 and 20 years for the biggest proposals.

“It’s just the whole process itself. The way we build things in this country ensures that it will take decades,” said Mark Policinski, executive director and chief executive of the Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments.

But I thought we needed MORE Regulations. 🙂

“We are very interested in any relief the president and his agencies can give us on the red tape that usually ties our projects up for years,” John Horsely, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, told Reuters. “I’ve characterized the process we’ve been going through as one step forward, two steps back.”

But I thought we needed MORE Regulations. 🙂

We Need to Spend More. Regulate More. And it is the role of government to make sure everyone is “lifted up” and provided for.
Thanks comrades, but no thanks.
OBAMACARE
Guy Benson

ABC Newsman Jake Tapper surveys the national landscape and is startled by the observation that several of President Obama’s famous healthcare promises don’t quite seem to be coming to fruition.  (You don’t say).  He confronts White House deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle with the evidence, and oh my does she spin.  Even I’m dizzy:

A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation underlines that many of the promises surrounding President Obama’s health care legislation remain unfulfilled, though the White House argues that change is coming.  Workers at the Flora Venture flower shop in Newmarket, NH, remember when presidential candidate named Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., promised that their health care costs would go down if they elected him and his health care plan was enacted.  On May 3, 2008, the president told voters that he had “a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums.”  Last year workers at the flower shop saw their insurance premiums shoot up 41 percent.

The Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums topped $15,000 a year for the first time in 2011, increasing a whopping 9% this year, three times more than the increase the year before. The study says that up to 2% of that increase is because of the health care law’s provisions (me: and that’s just the beginning), such as allowing families to add grown children up to 26 years old to their policies.

What does Nancy-Ann have to say for herself?

DeParle insists families will see that savings — by 2019.  “Many of the changes in the Affordable Care Act are starting this year, and in succeeding years,” DeParle told ABC News, “and by 2019 we estimate that the average family will save around $2,000.”  DeParle said that the “big increases that occurred last year were probably driven by insurance plans overestimating what the impact would be and maybe trying to take some profits upfront before some of the changes in the Affordable Care Act occur.

In other words, everything will be turning up roses eight years from now — you’ve gotta trust us.  Plus, these know-nothing insurance companies are “probably” overestimating the impact of the law.  I mean, what do they know?   I wonder if Kathleen Sebelius is scribbling furiously in her “zero tolerance” notebook.  Tapper continues:

The Kaiser study also indicates employers are switching plans and shifting costs onto employees. Half of workers in smaller firms now face “deductibles of at least $1,000, including 28 percent facing deductibles of $2,000 or more,” according to the study.  Doesn’t that fly in the face of the president’s promise that “if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan”? ABC News asked DeParle.

Perfectly legitimate question.  Back to you, White House flack:

She said no — the president wasn’t saying the legislation would guarantee that everyone can keep his or her preferred plan, just that the legislation wouldn’t force anyone to change. “What the president promised is that under health care reform, that he would make it more possible for people to have choices in these (health insurance) exchanges,” DeParle said. “And that’s going to be what will help businesses bring costs down. Right now, they’re just struggling. That’s one reason why they’re shifting costs to employees.”

Unbelievable.  President Obama didn’t really mean you could keep your plan if you like it, we’re now told; he just meant the law would help provide more choices in the government-approved exchanges.  I’m sorry, but I’m quite certain that’s not what he said at all.  Unfortunately for the White House, there’s this thing nowadays called “the internet,” on which people can research topics such as, “what exactly did President Obama say about me being able to keep my plan?”  Well, well, well.  Look at what the search engine turned up:

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

Contrast that unambiguous, definitive pledge with DeParle’s historical revisionism and hedging.  You know, I’m beginning to suspect Joe Wilson’s sentiment — albeit disrespectful and inappropriate for the venue — was absolutely, positively on the money.

So remember how this blog started: “We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, a footing, and that’s what government is supposed to do.”

Now don’t you feel all warm and fuzzy… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers


DC Vs The States

I was going to do another Illegal Immigration blog, but I will save that outrage for another day.

I found this article by David Broder, no rightwing bomb-thrower or extreme Leftist he.

It points out that while Washington D.C can’t stop spending to save anyone’s lives, the States are cutting programs, services, and raising taxes like mad because they are forced to.

Most states, unlike Washington, are mandated to not run deficits in their budgets.

Most people do as well.

So they are slashing and burning everywhere.

Here in Arizona, our Governor, Jan Brewer, who was given the job after Janet Napalitano could see the iceberg coming and jumped ship before she had to do anything about it has been fighting about this since the day she was handed the office.

And the rancor has been fierce.

But they have to get it done.

Meanwhile, in D.C., they spend $4 Trillion in 14 months, and the CBO projects a nearly $25 Trillion Dollar Deficit by 2020, and the Democrats continue to spend.

They pass Pay-As-you-Go Legislation to put lipstick on the deficit pig and before the inks even dry they roast the pig.

They can’t help themselves.

It’s what they do.

That and endless obsess about how to run everyone else’s lives for them and the minutiae of political chess matches.

There is no discipline in D.C.

And they don’t want any.

There is enforced discipline on the States.

Which explains why the government always foists the mandates on the States.

They make them do it.

The States are the siblings who have to pick up the pieces that the Drunken,drugged out, abusive Parents in Washington everyone lives with.

So, on that note: David Broder (Washington Post):

There is a great divide in American politics. It’s not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between the president and Congress in Washington, on one side, and governors and legislators around the country on the other.

The record of the Washington politicians is summarized in the report that came out of the Congressional Budget Office last week. That nonpartisan scorekeeper announced that it projects the cumulative national debt to increase in the next decade by $9.8 trillion.

That unimaginable (and indigestible) sum is more than a trillion dollars higher than the Obama administration’s estimate. It means a lower future standard of living for Americans because of vastly increased debt.

As Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, pointed out in his commentary on the CBO report, it projects the annual cost of interest on the debt to rise from $209 billion this year to $916 billion by 2020.

Most of that debt is now held overseas by nations such as China and Japan, so we are draining huge sums from ourselves and handing them to others to use in buying us up — or competing against us.

That is the story that has been written and is still unfolding in Washington, with budgets shaped by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a saga of national ruin.

The state side of the story is told most clearly in another report this week, this one from the private Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Staff members Nicholas Johnson, Catherine Collins and Ashali Singham summarized systematically what I had heard anecdotally from many of the governors when they were here last month for their annual winter conference.

Less Spending, More Taxes

The Great Recession knocked state tax revenues down by $87 billion in the fiscal year that ended last September — an 11% decline that was the steepest on record.

In response, the first thing the states did was to cut spending. General fund outlays were reduced by 4% in fiscal 2009 and by another 4.8% in 2010 — even as Medicaid rolls swelled and other recession-related expenses climbed.

But the governors and legislators did not stop there. Two-thirds of the states, 33 of 50, also raised taxes last year, adding more than $30 billion in revenues.

Ten states hiked taxes enough to increase revenues by more than 5% over the previous year’s collections. This happened in California, Florida, Indiana and Nevada, which have Republican governors, as well as in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and Oregon, all governed by Democrats.
While the federal government was handing out tax rebates and now is preparing to extend many of the Bush-era tax cuts, 13 states were raising personal income taxes, 17 were passing sales tax and various business tax increases, and 22 were hiking excise taxes on tobacco, alcohol or gasoline.

California, with chronic budget problems, a Democratic-controlled Legislature and a Republican governor, bit the bullet and temporarily raised its income tax rate across the board and its sales tax by 1% and also lifted its vehicle tax.

It’s Different In D.C.

All the states except Vermont operate with a constitutional requirement that they balance their budgets. But I was reminded again during the governors’ conference how different the psychology is in the state capitals and in Washington.

Governors live in the real world, where budgets mean something more than a formula for shifting burdens to the next generation and where there is much less room for partisan game-playing.

Once again this year, Congress has passed a “pay-as-you-go” bill requiring it to make compensatory cuts whenever it increases appropriations for some worthy purpose. Then it turned right around and began waiving the requirement when circumstances pinched.

Discipline is visible in the states. It is still a stranger to Washington.

AMEN