Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Commander in Hope Reassures America


The president in a speech from Hawaii yesterday announced his faith based security plan. Obama said,
We will be guarded by our hope, unity, and the values that binds us
What?!?!?!?    Hope? Are you kidding me? I heard this clip on a talk radio show yesterday, and I am stunned that it's not being played, replayed, and replayed again on any of the news outlets! When George W Bush made his famous/infamous "Wanted dead or alive" remarks in response to 9/11 the state run media crushed the guy and criticized his remarks as 'too jingoistic'.

Well? maybe so? But my question is, where is the critique or support for Obama's first verbal response to the latest attempted terror attack? There isn't any! Obama's response is so feeble, weak, inadequate, ineffective, poor, unconvincing, unpersuasive, unsatisfactory, unsuitable that even Fox News won't air it for fear that it will only emboldened more terrorist attacks by signaling to them that we will do nothing.

Obama is too busy dismantling the safeguards that kept us safe for the 8 tears after 9/11 to announce a response, except hope. Hope they don't attack again. Pray they don't attack again. By not being jingoistic, by not doing the things the Bush did, Obama thinks we will be safe. His priorities? Prosecuting Navy SEALS who gave a top Al Queda leader a fat lip. Closing Gitmo and moving prisoners onto U.S. soil where our jackpot justice system could possibly release war criminals, enemy combatants, and prisoners of war.

So egregious was his statement that today he refused to speak in front of reporters but he released a video statement where he tried to sound tougher than he did the previous day. State run Media helped him rewrite history and perhaps it is just as well, for all of our sakes.

Obama says 'systemic failure' allowed airline plot

In further evidence of a clueless administration...

Napolitano Says No Evidence of Wider Terrorist Plot -NYT


So Al Queda corrected in her by issuing a press release the next day, saving her from an investigation

We are soooo...screwed!

Friday, December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas. Go into that light, and to all a good night.


Here is wishing you a merry Christmas.

No matter your political or religious inclinations I hope you are able to take advantage of the holiday season to spend time with those that are meaningful to you.

In Hoc Anno Domini - WSJ.com

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Welcome back to bondage. The health care takeover enslaves all of us, and delivers us to the same fate as those who served unto Caesar.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Health Care Paradox


It looks as though the Obama administration will get the debacle of a health care bill that they wanted over our dead bodies....litterally.

This legislation is so flawed that it guarantees an accelerated increase in premiums over the dire projections of how costs would have increased if "we did nothing".

The contradictions of what they said they were going to do, and what thry are doing are just not insulting to one's intelligence, but diamettrically opposed to logic.

Suddenly, too much insurance is an evil thing! Too much insurance you say? There is no such thing as too much insurance! Too much insurance is called 'preventative care'! And everybody should have preventative care in order to bring down the costs of health care! Right?

Not so fast pilgrim!

Obama in Late Push on Health

The administration is sensitive to criticism the legislation does too little to trim growth of costs. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag says the 40% tax on high-cost, or "Cadillac," plans will encourage employers to look for more thrifty coverage and discourage unnecessary procedures. Cost is the reason for favoring this as well as the Medicare commission.
Mr. Obama said in an NPR interview Wednesday that Cadillac plans "don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to."
What?!?!?! Too much insurance is bad? Too much access to health care is bad? What means "thrifty" coverage!?!?

Can somebody please explain to me when a procedure is considered unnecessary and when a procedure is considered preventative care? Are you really falling for the lie about preventative care reducing costs? Where is that in this bill? I can't find it!

And, if the tax on those cadilac plans are such a moral imperative, then why give all the unions a pass on the tax? Should the government really encourage the unions to waste their money on those plans that don't make them any healthier and that just raise costs for the rest of us?

ObamaCare's Longshoremen Rules

Start with the special tax carve-outs included in the "manager's amendment" that Harry Reid dropped Saturday morning. White House budget director Peter Orszag has claimed that the bill's 40% excise tax on high-cost insurance plans is key to reducing health costs. Yet the Senate Majority Leader's new version specifically exempts "individuals whose primary work is longshore work." That would be the longshoremen's union, which has negotiated very costly insurance benefits. The well-connected dock workers join other union interests such as miners, electrical linemen, EMTs, construction workers, some farmers, fishermen, foresters, early retirees and others who are absolved from this tax.

Puhlease!. Unless you are in a union, or unless you currently have no health care coverage, you are so screwed that you will rue this day!




x

Friday, December 18, 2009

Global Comedy


Excellent Cartoon over at reason.com. It is very apropos given that the president gave a speech today on global warming.

Go see it.

So, $100 Billion annually from the United States? That figure doubles the amount of foreign aid that the United States already provides to countries around the world.

Where are we going to get this money? Borrow it from China? Then give it back to them and other countries? China won't even agree to a verification frame work, which would verify compliance to a non binding treaty!

I wonder what Hugo Chavez will do with his slice of U.S. Foreign aid? Mine some more uranium for Iran? Hey! It's all in the name of clean nuclear energy! Muahahahaha

How stupid are we? Sheesh!

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Kiss My Hamas: Part IV


Q: How long does foreign policy on-the-job training take? 

A: Almost one year.


After giving Iran another year to build it's nuclear bomb, and to quell what was a real and nascent democratic movement, it has dawned on the Obama administration that 'reaching out and talking with our enemies' might not be working.

File this one under "No shit Sherlock"!

The beautiful irony here is that then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had taunted then Candidate Obama about the naivete of extending direct talks to Iran and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to announce to the world that diplomacy is not working. Boy, does she look annoyed! What I want to know is who is she annoyed at? Iran? or Obama? (tee hee hee hee)

I have made this prediction before, and this latest development only reinforces my intuition that Hillary will quit her post in late 2010 or early 2011, and then oppose Obama in a primary for the 2012 election. a la Kennedy vs Carter.

Good Times!

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Reason.com: She’s Back!


Good read.

She’s Back! - Reason.com

Tea Party protests have been chock-a-block with signs such as “Atlas Is Shrugging” and “The name is Galt. John Galt.” Sales of Rand’s classic Atlas Shrugged have soared in 2009, 

Ed Hudgins, director of advocacy with the Atlas Society, an organization that promotes Rand’s philosophy, says that when he looks at House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and federally owned mortgage lender Freddie Mac, he thinks of another Atlas Shrugged character: banker Eugene Lawson, who in Hudgins’ words “destroys his bank and a good part of the state of Wisconsin because he’s making loans based not on sound business practice but on the basis of need.”  


Many political bloggers this year have preferred to invoke one of Rand’s heroes by spreading the idea that more and more people may soon be “going Galt”
Ahem, yes....they have.(Going Galt)
More than ever, Rand’s uncompromising and unconservative (though hyper-free-market) vision rubs violently against the realities of contemporary American politics of both right and left. 

I have the same problem. If you are truly a conservative libertine, then both the right and the left hate you.
As for the movie......
With Rand fan Angelina Jolie, long rumored to star as railroad heroine Dagny Taggart, begging off the project, the producers are now preparing to turn Atlas Shrugged into a mini-series on the new cable channel Epix, possibly starring Charlize Theron. (In Hollywood, nothing is fact until the cameras roll—or until after they finish rolling. Atlas Shrugged is not yet at that stage and may never come to fruition.) 
I doubt that liberal Hollywood would ever let this movie get made. Too many careers would be ruined. Or, they would intentionally screw it up and cast it in the light of Wall Street 'fat-cats' walking around like they deserved everything because of their sheer arrogance, a la Marie Antoinette "Let them Eat Cake".
recognition of certain Randian truths. These include “asking in the face of new taxes and government controls, ‘Why work at all?’ ‘For whom am I working?’ ” The Atlas Society also suggests that Rand lovers should start by “recognizing that you’re being punished not for your vices but for your virtues,” “recognizing that you do not need to justify your life or wealth to your neighbors, ‘society,’ or politicians, or bureaucrats,” and “taking the moral high ground by explicitly rejecting as evil the premise of ‘self-sacrifice’ that they sell to you as a virtue.”  
I proclaim these truths to be self evident, but it's important to point them out to the looters!
given that most of Obama’s initiatives have been driven by deficit spending, not taxation, it’s unlikely we’ll see any statistically detectable signs of tax avoidance of the sort you’d expect from a Galt-leaning culture.
Wait for it. Just wait........
That kind of smarminess of bureaucratic-speak— ‘we’re doing this for your own good’—is very much in evidence these days.” 
Amen

Monday, December 14, 2009

Fear and Loathing in Providence


Once again Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) is in Providence today, and talking about health care. To his constituents you ask? Nope! Not yet. Still no plans for a town hall with the people he represents. Today's event is called "The Best and Brightest Forum on Medical Innovation". There will probably be a good photo-op in tomorrow's Pro-Jo, and it will be made to look like he is out there talking about the critical issue of health care.

You may recall that Rep. Kennedy has said he's afraid of town hall meetings.

All Patches has to fear, is fear itself!

And Nancy Pelosi is scared of those Tea Party types too!


She is of course referring to the murder of Harvey Milk who was killed by Dan White a former San Fransisco Supervisor, who was a democrat!

It's funny. If you don't agree with Washington's out of control spending and you speak up in opposition then you are scary! But if you're on the left, and you want more free stuff, then go nuts!

Torch-carrying protesters storm UC Berkeley chancellor's home; 8 arrested

Those silly Tea  Party protesters don't know how to protest at all! Their protests would make you think they are all teetotallers.

Now this is how you protest!

Nearly 1000 arrested at climate change protest



The stark contrast of how a climate protest and a tax protest gets described is hysterical! The video above is from the Huffington Post. They basically report a peaceful protest temporarily interrupted. You know, those crazy kids. Lefties will be lefties you know. What are ya gonna do? But if you search the Huffington Post for reports on the Tax Day Tea Party protests it's a different story. Here they go out of their way to report an actually peaceful protest as an angry mob!

Tea Party Video: Right-Wing Tax Protests Caught On Tape

An angry guy off camera starts cussing up a storm
Oh no! Not cussing! Dear god! Run for the hills! Hide the woman and children! Where is the humanity! Hide Mr. Kennedy, hide!
Gotta love it!

UPDATE (5:28 PM): I just want to point out that I posted this before Glenn Beck did his Copenhagen protest shtick. His was laugh out loud funny though. I'll post video here if I can find it.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Beat the Drum Louder


There is an old adage that says:
"You learn more from those that disagree with you, than you do from those that already agree with you"
I think I would now add to that "unless you're on the left because then you think you already know everything"

They are still angry out there!

So with some free time to burn I let my curiosity get the best of me and used that wonerful "Next Blog" link to randomly take me around the  blogosphere.

One of the places I landed early on was a blog at http://somehistoricalperspective.blogspot.com/. Great! I like to think my blog is all about historical perspective too! When you arrive at this blog the title of the blog is "Make it Stop! Make it Stop!".  Interesting? It almost screams the visual of someone holding their hands over their ears and screaming "Make it Stop! Make it Stop!". moving on, the first article is interesting. It is a slam piece about that ridiculous purity test that I have really only heard people on the left talk about. I don't doubt that some silly ultra-conservative may have suggested something like this, but even if it's true that there is a push to use something like this I too think it's dumb. The last part of the post penned by 'LaPopessa' sparks my curiosity.
9 -Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
10 - The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Where to begin, where to begin. Could it be the innate contradiction of points 9 & 10 (we care about your life only while in the womb, outside of it, run or duck & cover, 'cause we've got a right to those guns).

That's kinda cute. But it left me with a question? So I left an anonymous post. Not sure why I decide to do that? I usually don't post anonymous, but somehow I guess I did get a bad vibe from the site. Perhaps this could be one of those politics of personal destruction types! So I wrote something to the affect of
Interesting post, I do not think I would pass the purity test either........ I too have often pondered the inconsistency with 9 & 10 as well. I suppose one could pose the the contrary condition: Why is it OK to kill an innocent baby and not to be able to protect your family from killers?

I guess ultimately I am wondering which position of consistency you favor? Kill babies and go ahead kill anyone else with your gun? or don't kill babies and don't own guns?
 I went back a few times because I was truly interested in what the reply might be. After the post sat there for a few days I went back and it was gone! So I left another post that said something to the affect of:
Not into the whole free exhange of ideas thing?
I went back again. Sure enough, deleted. But this time there was a reply (2 comments).

Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
3:03 PM

Blogger LaPopessa said...

Yes anonymous I have. Beat your chest all you like, but until you man up enough to actually leave your name, don't expect me to take you seriously.
9:59 PM
 Wow! So she would never take an anonymous piece like the Federalist Papers seriously? I mean, just for some historical perspective. So I determine this probably isn't the place for me.

Moving on again I stumble upon http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/. The Title of this blog is "Odd Time Signatures". Indeed! I find a post that elicits my curiosity .

Tell me again: What was the public option supposed to do? 

In this case, I leave a comment, and I get a reply from the author Karoli . In the reply I am posed a question in what comes across as an angry tone. So I answer the question. You can read the thread here. No reply. OK fine.

Then I find another interesting post.

True health care reform: Puzzle it out

I leave another post. You can go here and read it, but you won't see it on the site. Basically it said

True health care reform

 The concept of pre-existing conditions came about the same time congress rolled out medicare medicaid. The idea was backed by the government then because they thought it would incentivize people to maintain insurance policies. They were talking the same mantra then that they are talking today. If everybody, including the young and health have insurance then the large pool will insure enough money is available for all. It didn't work out that though.

So, without the threat of being denied insurance for a pre-existing condition; explain to me again why I should carry health insurance? My choices are to continue to pay the monthly premiums as I do today, or I can drop my coverage and pay a tax that is roughly equivalent to one months premium? And then, if I get sick? Just sign up for insurance then! Brilliant!


http://conservativelibertine.blogspot.com/2009/...

In short, the left does not like well thought out well reasoned ideas or questions. The only way they know to combat cold calculated logic is to hold their hands over their ears, scream "La La La I can't hear you!", and beat the drum louder.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Death & Taxes


Now they get you coming and going.........

A while back I lamented that the diktat to have health care insurance was the equivalent to an existence tax.


The Existance Tax

 

I should probably post the lyrics to the Beatle's "Tax Man" here. They wan't to tax you for being here, and then they want to tax you when you leave.

The Tax That Won't Die

Both concepts are abhorrent to anyone that believes in a free society.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Making (up) History......

Now this is spin you can believe in!

Harry Reid recently tried to capture the moral high ground in the well of the Senate by "equating opposition to Medicare cuts and tax increases with support for human bondage that it took a bloody civil war to end, "

Olympia Snowe Is Right

Mr. Reid made his case with his usual intellectual nuance this week: 
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'Slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"
Does Harry Reid know any history? I mean, he knows that it was the newly formed Republican party that was the Anti-Slavery party and that it was the democrats that were fighting for slavery, right?  We know from history that the Whig Party basically dissolved over the issue of slavery. The protest movement against slavery became the Republican Party, right?

But, no no, this time, they (the democrats) are on the right side of history. umm...brotha puhlease! 

The irony of the analogy is staggering. What democrats are currently trying to do with health care reform will actually enslave all Americans regardless of their race! They still believe that Massa knows best, and that they can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves! But don't worry, they will be benevolent masters (this time). As the government continues to take over large segments of the economy, as they move to rule our lives and everything we do in the name of reducing the costs of health care, the United States will be come one big sharecropping plantation.

It's even more ironic that the President who claims Lincoln as his all time political hero will be the president that could sign into law the legislation that shackles and enslaves an entire country.

Harry, thanks for reminding everybody that when it come to moral issues the Republicans are right (literally), and that you guys are just selfish, power hungry control freaks.