Shots Across the Bow

So, let me get this straight. The Milli Vanilli President was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after his two weeks in office for his efforts to reach out to America's enemies, who are now blasting the Nobel Prize committee (figuratively,not literally...yet) for giving him the award for reaching out to him. Meanwhile, the DNC is charging anyone who comments on the idiocy of giving him the prize a few months later with being in league with America's enemies.

While it's nice to see the DNC finally recognizing that America has enemies, they are sounding just like the Bush administration. "If you don't honor the President for this empty achievement, then you are aligned with terrorists."

What a bunch of hypocrites.

How is a Nobel Peace Prize like a Grammy?

Apparently you can win either one without actually doing anything as long as you look good while not doing it.

Apparently getting called out on national television has caught Obama's attention.

The AP is reporting that the White House is now backing the idea of verification before distributing benefits, an idea rejected by Democrats in the House. He may have been rude, but Joe Wilson's two words are still echoing in the White House.

You know, after watching the speech again, I get the impression that Obama may not actually know much about the legislation his administration is pushing. When Wilson erupted, while Pelosi looked shocked and irritated, and Biden looked, well, like Biden, Obama looked confused, like he really thought that HR 3200 did what he said it did. Given the new direction by the White House, it feels almost as if he read the legislation for the first time, realized that Wilson was right, and moved to correct the oversight. This isn't as far-fetched a supposition as you might think. Remember, this is the president who had to have his own executive orders explained to him as he signed them.

This morning, I heard on the radio that the Obama Administration is claiming that their policies have saved or created 1 million jobs. I thought to myself, "Self, that can't be right. I know that unemployment has been going up and that jobs are disappearing right and left. Surely the White House wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that Americans wouldn't notice a lie this big!"

I was wrong. They are that stupid. (Notice I'm linking to NPR, to avoid any claims of right wing bias of my source.)

White House economists said Thursday the Obama administration's recovery efforts have saved or created more than one million jobs so far.

Now this a couple of paragraphs later:

The report is certain to draw criticism because the U.S. economy has actually lost about 2.5 million jobs since the stimulus was signed in February. Because the White House number is based on economic models, it's impossible to say for certain what that number would have been without the stimulus.

We've lost 2.5 million jobs since the stimulus was signed, yet the White House claims that if they hadn't acted, we would have lost another 1 million jobs. NPR says the truth of this claim is hard to judge because it is based on economic models. IN other words, instead of relying on real world fact6ual data, the Obama Administration prefers to guess. So let's see how well they guess. The next graph, from Innocent Bystanders, shows a comparison of the Obama Administration's economic forecasts predicting the effects of their stimulus package to the actual unemployment rate, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



Notice that real unemployment data shows almost no relation to the projections made by the Obama team. Also notice that the point of inflection, where the rate of job losses begins to slow, occurs in the 2nd quarter of 2009, the same time it would have occured in the Obama team's projections if there were no stimulus package. Also notice that the slope of the unemployment data continues to mirror that of the projections without the Stimulus, not the projection of the effects of the stimulus package. Most importantly, notice that the Obama projection has unemployment peaking at just under 8%. According to the BLS, we're at 9.7%

14.9 million people out of work, 2.5 million of them since the stimulus package was signed, and this joker claims to have created a million jobs. He really thinks you are stupid enough to believe this lie.

Is he right?

Just how stupid are you?

What was it President Obama did right before Joe Wilson called him a liar?

Oh yeah, that's right, he called Republicans liars. He just used a lot more words to do so. He's articulate, don't you know.

Yes, that's SC Rep Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar during his speech to Congress, calling him out specifically on Obama's claim that "The reforms that I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." So who is telling the truth?

Obama supporters point to Section 246 of HB 3200, which says:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS: Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

So Obama was telling the truth, right? Not so fast sparky. All that this section says is that those here illegally will not get Federal subsidies to buy health insureance, but that is only one small part of Obama care. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

CNN noted that HR 3200 requires all individuals carry health insurance, and that there was no system for verification of legal residency built into the bill. Given that millions of illegal immigrants work in the US today using fraudulent documents, it's no stretch to imagine that they could use those same documents to obtain those subsidies. An amendment to add a verification process already in use to prevent those here illegally from enrolling in Medicare was defeated by Democrats. The loophole is there and the Democrats want it to stay there.

Jon Feere notes that illegal aliens are specifically exempted from the requirement to carry insurance and the mandatory fine the rest of us will pay for not carrying insurance. Yep, you heard right. If you or I decide we don't need health insurance, we will be fined by the Federal government. If an illegal alien doesn't want to carry coverage, that's OK with President Obama. And since, as James Edwards writes, those illegal immigrants will still receive medical care at the nation's hospitals and emergency rooms, they are getting a completely free ride at the taxpayer's expense.

Hmm...things are looking a litle dicey for the President. Now throw this inconvenient little fact into the mix: The President and his supporters are quick to claim that there are somewhere around 40 million uninsured people in America.

You hear Pelosi say it.
You hear Reid say it.
You here the New York Times say it.
You hear Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann say it.

What you won't hear them say, is that 10-12 million of that number is comprised of, you guessed it, illegal aliens. If Obama wasn't planning to cover them, why would he include them in that number? To dishonestly inflate the numbers in order to ease the passage of his plan?

Wouldn't that qualify as a lie?

As the refs say, upon further review, the ruling on the field stands. The President was telling a lie.

As somebody who has been known to speak truth to power, usually with a 200w amplifier and a full quiver of sarcasm, I fully empathize with Joe Wilson. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being manipulated by an empty suit bellowing emptier rhetoric. And after I've had a bellyful, polite behavior takes a back seat to integrity. Like the man said, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." I would just as soon the President tell me the truth, that in order to get this thing passed, and to get reelected come 2012, he needs the Latino vote, and that's why he's leaving massive loopholes in this bill and yes, lying about it.

UPDATE: By the way, for all of you hypocrites crying over the disrespect shown to the sitting President, what did you have to say on this day:


Yeah, that's what I thought.

UPDATE II: It's not just me. Wow. When even the Associated Press feels compelled to notice that a democrat is shading the truth, things must be getting pretty bad for President Obama.

Here's how it will work. The people who pay the least into the system but require the most from the system will see their benefits reduced. This will affect two groups.

The first group will be the elderly. As Obama himself has said, we need to decide whether to expend medical resources to help patients who may not have much life left to them. Instead of a hip replacement, they'll get pain meds instead as they wait in a hospice to die. The second group affected will be children with developmental problems, both physical and mental. As Zeke Emanuel, President Obama's Health Care Reform Adviser has written, since their societal usefulness will be limited, it's only fair that their ability to draw on society's resources should also be limited, so that the rest of the public might benefit from a more useful allocation of limited resources.

The irony here is that the group which pays the most into the health care system, young and middle aged adults, also use the least amount of the resources.

And that, my friends, raises a very interesting question. If we're raising all of this money through new taxes and such to fund health care, yet we're eliminating the primary consumers of the health care dollar, where will all of that lovely money go? If I were a cynical man, I'd bet that the insurance companies, the AMA, and the various legal groups who are backing this monstrosity might just be in line to benefit financially from this legislation, which should increase their income while limiting their outlays.

Ok, so I am a little cynical.

I love the part at the end where that nice young brownshirt tells the sheep that "It's your meeting." So much for a public forum.

Of course, this only confirms what has been obvious throughout the Obama Presidency; the message is always managed, always controlled, and always scripted. There is a time and a place for spontaneity, but never when the cameras are rolling. President Obama lives and dies by the teleprompter not because he can't speak in public but because that's the best way to make sure he stays on scriipt.

The irony is that what the nice young brownshirt was doing is exactly what Pelosi and her folks have been claiming that conservatives are doing.

For those who want to object at my calling this guy a brownshirt, read your history. The attacks on dissenters have already begun, and given the Justice Department's treatment of the NBP thugs, I see nothing to stop them from escalating.

Words fail me. There are a lot of mean, ugly people in the world, and apparently, the ACLU stands ready to aid every one of them.

Teddy thought it was a laughing matter, so I'm sure he would be ok with me bringing it up.

All the really cool kids are doing it, so let's join in.

My last post has stirred up some of my friends who think it is unfair and inaccurate and possibly over the top.

I agree with the last, but that's a feature, not a bug. Using Rep Watson's absurd rhetoric to lampoon the fawning media coverage of Obama's pitching prowess was just an added bonus. My first aim was to demonstrate just how ridiculous most Obama apologists are when they try to link all opposition to him to racism, which is exactly what Rep Watson said in this clip. Listen to it again if you don't believe me. She very clearly lays out her position that all opposition, not some or most, but all opposition is rooted in his racial identity, which is patently false. All you have to do is look at the opposition to government health care under the Clintons and compare it to the opposition today to see that it is the issue that drives the opposition, not the color of Obama's skin. To claim otherwise is dishonest, not to mention completely absurd. Her argument falls apart even earlier when she claims that wishing for a President to fail is the same as wishing for America to fail. Once again, listen to what she said while President Bush was in office. Apparently, she wanted America to fail back then.

To point out her hypocrisy and absurdity, I engaged in a bit of absurdity myself. Apparently, I was effective.

Look, I know there are people out there who oppose Obama based on his race. I have family members who voted Republican for the first time in their lives over that very issue. Notice what I just said; they voted Republican for the first time. Yes, they are life long, ardent Democrats.

So much for Rep Watson and her race baiting stereotypes.

The argument was made that blacks want to be identified by their race, and have that race treated as equal in every way to whites. If that were a true statement, I would have no problem with it. Unfortunately, all too often in the real world, we see that some want to take advantage of a perceived inequality to gain an unfair advantage. Take Jayson Blair as a prime example of this process in action. Or Obama himself. Every defense of his programs by his supporters carries with it the accusation of racism. Every single one. If you can defend his programs without ever bringing race into it, then I will respond with thoughtful criticism and there can be an exchange of ideas, because you will have demonstrated that the debate is about the ideas of the man, not the color of his skin. But But as long as some Obama supporters want to tell me that I'm a racist because I think his healthcare plan sucks, I will respond with scorn and ridicule, because they have proven that they don't have any real argument to present.

As far as wanting him to fail, it's not personal and it has nothing to do with his skin color. It has everything to do with what I see his policies doing to America over the next several decades. You can believe that or not; I know it to be true.

"They are trying to see that the first president who looks like me fails."

I didn't realize that Obama has boobs and a vagina.

Of course, it does explain that pitiful throw in St. Louis.

All future posts concerning President Obama will feature this picture:


Because it looks so much like him.

Ted Kennedy is dead, and liberals everywhere are rushing to praise this "Lion of the Left" and it's making me sick to my stomach.

How skewed do your priorities have to be to praise Ted Kennedy for living a life of privilege and power even after what we all know he did? To refresh your memory, after partying late into the night, a young Ted Kennedy along with passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, drove his car off a pier on Chappaquiddick Island.

While Mary fought to escape the car, Teddy swam away.
While her air grew foul, Teddy consulted with friends and family on how best to "manage" the situation.
While she drowned in misery, Teddy swam across the sound to try and set up an alibi, pretending he'd never been on the island that night.
While her body was trapped in the car all night, Teddy was in his hotel room.

It wasn't until after her body was found that Teddy finally reported the accident. The diver who found her body testified that had Kennedy reported the accident immediately, there was a good chance he could have rescued Miss Kopechne. The inquest determined that Kennedy was negligent and that his negligence was responsible for her death. However, the grand jury was not allowed to hear the results of the inquest, only the DA's summary report, which did not include the inquest's conclusions, and Kennedy never faced manslaughter charges.

Political power and his family name kept Ted Kennedy from paying for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, and the gaping moral blind spot that seems epidemic among liberals allowed him to continue to work as a Senator in Washington right up until he died yesterday.

And now those same folks are talking about what a great guy Kennedy was, how he supported all the right causes, and always seemed to have his facts in order.

It's too bad he didn't show that same moral clarity and command of the facts the night of July 18, 1969.

Modern liberals claim to value the individual above all, yet they subordinate the rights of the individual to the needs of the state at every opportunity. This is called insanity.

Conservatives, on the other hand, value conformity to established norms, yet fight to protect the freedoms of the individual against the encroachment of the state. This is also insanity.

Socialists, like all tyrants, claim to know what is best for you and will do whatever it takes, even kill you, so you can live happily ever after.

Libertarians just want to be left alone with their booze, drugs, guns, and hookers. They aren't real good at governing, but they do throw good parties.

The next time some liberal spouts the whole "Obama inherited these problems from the previous administration" garbage, remind the nitwit that:

1) Obama was part of the previous administration for four freaking years. Ask the mental midget to point to any Bush economic initiative or spending bill that Obama opposed. And by "opposed" I mean actually voted against, not just talked about.
2) The Democrats owned the House and the Senate for the final two years. You know the period when everything started collapsing?
3) When Republicans tried to draw attention to the coming real estate collapse, and the deadly instability of Freddie and Fannie policies, they were shouted down and called racists by the very people now trying to blame them for the collapse.
4) Then ask this simple question: "When driving through a minefield, should the driver be facing forward to find the safest path, or looking in the rearview mirror?"

The bottom line is that Obama and his pals didn't inherit this mess; they were right there in the thick of it, causing it.

If you're incapable of handling this particular set of facts, then maybe you ought to trade in your political analyst's hat for a game more suited to your level of intellect. How about "Chutes and Ladders?"