Valiantly fighting off Obama fatigue

I'm feeling too cynical and burned out to comment much. I think my outrage meter is broken. But I did add emphasis here and there. :-/

More NHS horror stories via Wesley Smith:

Blunders by GPs, hospital and nurses jeopardised the health of thousands of patients when cancer was misdiagnosed or not spotted soon enough, according to an NHS report. Over a period of a year, doctors failed to spot key signs of cancer, tissue samples were mixed up, some patients were wrongly given an all-clear and vital diagnostic tests were delayed because of staff and equipment shortages, the study, undertaken by the NHS’s National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), found. Delayed diagnosis of cancer can lead to a patient dying earlier than expected or needing more invasive treatment than would have been necessary.

Well, duh. Rule #1 under government healthcare: DO NOT GET SICK. This trainwreck is attributed to "staff and equipment shortages." And it can happen here.

Jen-Ru on the sloppily written, incomprehensible law and the worthless fiscal assessments that escorted it to passage:

So we will, as McGurn points out, either witness the IRS hassling modest-income Americans into buying insurance they don’t want, or the law will be “unenforced.” If it is the latter, all the estimated cost “savings” supposedly achieved by expanding the risk pool of the newly insured can be tossed onto the heap of misrepresentations and fiscal fantasies deployed to pass the bill despite the dire warnings of those like Rep. Paul Ryan. This is the personification of the ever-growing bureaucratic state — incomprehensible, threatening, and very, very expensive.

Gallup on the cause of American anger:

One reason for Republicans' anger may be revealed in a new question asking whether Americans believe the methods Democratic leaders used to secure passage of the bill represented "an abuse of power" or "an appropriate use" of the majority party's power in Congress. Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans see it as abuse of power, whereas a smaller majority of Democrats (70%) call it an appropriate use of power. The majority of independents agree with most Republicans on this question.

Rep. Mike Pence on Obama's new mantra: drill, baby, drill:

As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.

The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.

From one of Obama's 40,000 20,000 daily letters:

"Mr. Obama," she continued, "I am going to begin by telling you about myself and my life over the past 2 years."

Where to start? Cline had been newly pregnant and living in a riverside house owned by her boyfriend in 2007, when the economy began to collapse in Michigan. She lost her job as a pharmacy technician in May of that year, on the same day her mother was laid off. Her boyfriend's swimming-pool business collapsed. She racked up $50,000 in debt on four credit cards, and two companies sued her. She filed for bankruptcy.

/sympathy

Interesting exchange between Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly:

WILLIAMS: Oh, let me tell you something, the flag- the tea party flag is now- you know, for example, they use the same kind of imagery-

O'REILLY: The 'Don't Tread on Me' flag?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, the one with the snake- that's the same imagery-

O'REILLY: Well, that's from the Revolutionary War.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. But it's taken away- it's taken away- obviously, it's not the same flag. It's not the flag that you see flying up in the New England states. It's a separate flag- it's a new flag that they have created. But it's the same imagery that was on Timothy McVeigh, you know? I mean, this is the kind of thing that's worrisome to me. I don't see how you can get away from it.

O'REILLY: Oh, come on, Juan. You are smarter than that. You can't possibly think the tea party is taking any cue from Timothy McVeigh. That's suicide.

People who get paid to talk should have more sense than Mr. Williams shows here. Read the rest.

And by the way, God bless Bill O'Reilly for coming to the assistance of the bereaved father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder.

Most recent posts here.

V&S: Advice from Hollywood's brain trust, Waxman's witch hunt, and the power of porn

Various & sundry:

Matthew Modine pulls his thumb out of his mouth long enough to utter this profundity:

Imagine if somebody were to really sit down with Osama Bin Ladin and say, ‘listen man,what is it that you’re so angry at me about that you’re willing to have people strap bombs to themselves, or get inside of airplanes and fly them into buildings.’ That would be the miracle if we can get, sit down and talk to our enemies and find a way for them to hear us.

The man is 51 years old. (h/t: John Miller)

For anyone who cares what Joe Biden says, he said this:

"If you call that a 'redistribution of income' -- well, so be it. I don't call it that. I call it just being fair -- giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting."

Except that the middle class is going to get the shaft. But socialism is just alright with him.

Men might not get this story but many women will:

The Sarkozys, accompanied by Mr. Sarkozy’s two sons by a previous marriage, had — get this — two half smokes each.

What? You’re saying Carla Bruni ate two hot dogs for lunch?

“She finished her first one and ordered another one,” said an adamant Ms. Pollard.

And she ate the second one?

“They were both real hungry, I think.”

But an apologetic Ms. Pollard let her sex down by failing to get a look at Carla's shoes. Hat tip: Julie Mason

Now for some serious pieces. Tony Blankley on those Frustrating, Stubborn Facts:

So, we have a jolly seven-month public match over both economic and political theory — and the honest facts — with the advocates of the monstrosity that we dare not call by its name. Last week I quite upset more than 800 digital “commenters” at the Huffington Post — and thousands of other friendly, if often obscene and contemptuous, e-mailers — because I used the word “socialism” to describe a government-designed, -taxed, -regulated and -mandated program the enforcement of which will require 16,000 new IRS agents.

We’re in for quite a brawl. Note to the Democratic party’s talking-points-drafting people: I am using the word “brawl” as a metaphor. I am not calling for violence against your dainty selves, so you can come out from pretending to be trembling under your desks and bask in the physical safety of debating Republicans, conservatives, tea-party folks, and other fine Americans.

Read the whole thing.

Michelle Malkin on Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill

This is the Eliot Ness wannabe who serves proudly as the Left’s chief inquisitor. This is the Capitol Hill haranguer who herded tobacco company CEOs in front of the cameras, made them raise their right hands, and cackled as he forced them to testify under oath about the evils of their products. Waxman’s demagoguery was so over the top that it prompted Washington Post columnist William Raspberry to write that the “Capitol Hill inquisition masquerading as legislative hearings reminds me of nothing so much as a witch-hunting Joe McCarthy.”

RTR.

And last but far from least, an anonymous NR column about the devastating effects of pornography on marriage:

By his own account, my husband of 13 years and high-school sweetheart, was first exposed to pornography around age ten. He viewed it regularly during high school and college — and, although he tried hard to stop, continued to do so throughout the course of our marriage. For the past few years he had taken to sleeping in the basement, distancing himself from me, emotionally and physically. Recently he began to reject my sexual advances outright, claiming he just didn’t “feel love” for me like he used to, and lamenting that he thought of me “more as the mother of our children” than as a sexual partner.

Then one morning around 2am he called, intoxicated, from his office to announce that he had “developed feelings” for someone new. The woman he became involved with was an unemployed alcoholic with all the physical qualities of a porn star — bleached blond hair, heavy makeup, provocative clothing, and large breasts. After the revelation, my husband tried to break off his relationship with this woman. But his remorse was short-lived. Within a few months he had moved permanently out of the home he shared with me and our five young children. In retrospect, I believe he succumbed to the allure of the secret fantasy life he had been indulging since his adolescence.

Read the whole thing. Related: Pornography is bad for children. And that's an extreme understatement. It can literally ruin their lives. Keep your children away from it.

Most recent posts here.

Obama's overpriced student loans

Another way to stick it to the young. Sen. Lamar Alexander:

“As Americans find out what it really does, they’ll be really unhappy,” Alexander predicts. “The first really unhappy people will be the 19 million students who, after July 1, will have no choice but to go to federal call centers to get their student loans. They’ll become even unhappier when they find out that the government is charging 2.8 percent to borrow the money and 6.8 percent to lend it to the students, and spending the difference on the new health-care bill and other programs. In other words, the government will be overcharging 19 million students.” The overcharge is “significant,” Alexander adds, because “on a $25,000 student loan, which is an average loan, the amount the government will overcharge will average between $1,700 and $1,800.”

“Up to now, 15 out of 19 million student loans were private loans, backed by the government,” Alexander says. “Now we’re going to borrow half-a-trillion from China to pay for billions in new loans. Not only will this add to the debt, but in the middle of a recession, this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work.”

And that ain't all. Read the rest. Then read this post by Richard Vedder:

President Obama’s signing of the education bill is triply disastrous. First, he violated basic tenets of representative democracy by tying otherwise politically unattainable education changes to the health-care bill.

Second, the bill’s student loan provisions will not save the $68 billion promised, and will move the country closer to a European-style socialism that has brought that continent stagnation. Going to a Soviet/U.S. Postal Service model of student-loan services goes against the sound maxim that competition is always better than monopoly. Moreover, the bill’s repayment terms will lead to increasing student-loan defaults, adding to the crushing fiscal burden on a government whose IOUs are now trusted less than those of some private corporations.

Read the rest at the Corner.


Most recent posts here.

About that 17% premium increase

. . . alluded to in the previous post. Obamacare doesn't give young adults a fighting chance to establish themselves:

Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If $42 = 17%, then 100% = $247. Add the additional $42 and you get a $289/month premium for healthy young people.

I guess kids are now expected to live with mum and dad forever.

Most recent posts here.

Tuesday various & sundry

Another busy morning for me so I'll have to run with what I've got thus far:

Obamacare will stick it to healthy young adults. You already knew that. But if Obama is going to spend all his time selling this monstrosity, even after the deal has been sealed, we need to keep its noxious effects on the front page.

Get rid of God and sell more books: Andrew Klavan declined to cleanse his character of his Christian faith and, as he was warned, the UK's largest bookstore ordered "far fewer copies" of it than of its prequel:

Pop culture’s negative portrayal of religion, especially Christianity, is not some accidental oversight. It’s purposeful, the result of hostile intent. Things aren’t quite as bad in the US yet as in Britain, but here too, those in charge of creating our entertainments are clearly at odds with the beliefs of their audience. More than three quarters of Americans identify themselves as Christians while people of other religions make up about another five percent. Even among those with no religion, only a very small number say they are atheists. God plays a role in most American lives.

Read the whole thing. (h/t: John Miller)

If I had ever had the inclination to contribute a nickel to the RNC this story would have killed it for good. These RNC Young Eagles are flying pretty low. And though he wasn't there and allegedly didn't know about this until afterwards, is Michael Steele really the best they can do? I want to like him, especially for his pro-life views, but sometimes I wonder if he's misplaced a few of his marbles.

The Amish, it seems (but who can tell with this sloppy rough-draft-become-law), will be excused from the individual mandate on conscience grounds:

Most Americans will have to carry health insurance under new federal health care law or risk paying tax penalties — unless they get a "religious conscience" pass.

That's what the legislation says.

Lawmakers note that "religious conscience" refers to conservative Plain sect groups even though it doesn't specifically name them.

I'm no lawyer but might this not open the door to conscientious objectors of all faiths?

Maybe a special relationship can't be destroyed that easily.

For dessert: Do not miss photos of this year's WaPo Peep-o-rama finalists. Entries include a few inspired takes on children's books, Mad Men, balloon boy, and some DC-specific dioramas. Maybe I overlooked them but I didn't notice any Peep-afied gay weddings.

Most recent posts here.

All together now

Does anyone else remember Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport? It's Mark Steyn's song of the week. When I was a little girl my father used to howl at this, especially the end. I haven't thought of it in years. Thanks to Mark I've recovered this piece of my cultural heritage and can now pass it on to my appreciative children. Enjoy!



Most recent posts here.

Jim Geraghty's magnum opus

"a comprehensive list of expired Obama statements..."

Yeah, it's long.

Most recent posts here.

The Left's incendiary rhetoric

A sampling: Frank Rich reasons that we'd love Obamacare if we weren't all such terrible bigots:

The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

Does Rich understand how offensive that is?

Colbert King decries alleged vitriolic rhetoric with, er, well . . . vitriolic rhetoric:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school's first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.

Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School in 1957.

"They moved closer and closer," recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. "Somebody started yelling, 'Lynch her! Lynch her!' I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd -- someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me."

Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.

I'd like to know: is this how people really see the tea party movement? Judging from this Rasmussen survey, perhaps not:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical.

By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress. [my emphasis]

But if you write for the Washington Post you are not in the mainstream and you see things a bit differently. Courtland Milloy is so mad he could, um, spit:

I know how the "tea party" people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

I am sick of these people -- and those who make excuses for them and their victim-whiner mentality.

They aren't racists, the apologists say. They just don't like deficits and government takeover of health care. So what does using vile epithets for black or gay congressmen have to do with that? The tea party people didn't refer to white Democrats using racial epithets. No one yelled "white trash" or "redneck cracker" at any of those congressmen. And none of their own ever stands up and declares that such practices are morally wrong.

I'm behind on the news, so let me know whether anyone has collected the 10k offered by Breitbart for presenting evidence that anything ugly actually occurred.

But whether it happened or not, let us all stand firm with David Shuster who has condemned these racist epitaphs.

Bonus: Senator (!) Al Franken is a pompous ass with a short fuse. And rude. See him being plagued by Jason Mattera here. (And where do staffers get the right to lay hands on inconvenient questioners?)

Bonus 2: Gee, I don't get a crazy vibe from this guy at all.


Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for linking.

Most recent posts here.

Steyn in for Rush today

Today and tomorrow. Last time I missed all but five minutes. How nice that we now have Ricochet and can listen to Mark on a regular basis.

I'll be out all morning but hope to post something for real this afternoon.


Most recent posts here.

Schumer: Six months from now all our worries will have vanished

How they hope they're right:

You'll learn to like it.

That's the message from White House advisers and Democratic lawmakers to Americans opposed to the health insurance overhaul signed into law last week.

And they're willing to wager that come November, Americans will have done just that.

"As people learn what's actually in the bill, that six months from now, by election time, this is going to be a plus because the parade of horribles, particularly the worry that the average middle class person has that this is going to affect them negatively, will have vanished and they'll see that it'll affect them positively in many ways, " Sen. Chuck Schumer, D.N.Y., said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Don't think so:

• Health overhaul likely to strain doctor shortage (that's the new, improved headline).
• Mandated calorie info will put a burden on mid-sized restaurant chains.
• Obamacare will tax bandages, nebulizers, canes, condoms, and every other medical device.
• "AT&T is joining Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon and Valero Energy, all who have announced in the last couple of days that ObamaCare is going to cost them millions of dollars and cause them to layoff workers, reduce benefits and raise prices."
• Poetic Justice: DemCare Will Erase Health Care Benefits for Million of Union Members Starting in Just Nine Months
• 5 million retirees will be dumped from employer-based prescription coverage into Medicare.
• Jobs will not be created or saved.
  
• Those who created the bill have exempted themselves. (What a selfless act.)

I'm sure I've missed some.

Hat tip: Allahpundit on Twitter

Most recent posts here.

Obama's great gift

A limitless capacity for hypocrisy. He's a virtuoso, 95% fraudulent. And this might be a personal best:

After a week spent beating up on Israel, blowing a minor gaffe into an international incident, subjecting Israel’s prime minister to unprecedented insults that Obama would never think of trying on even the most humble Third World leader, and establishing the principle that the Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem — even in existing Jewish neighborhoods — is illegal and an affront to American interests – after all that, Obama plans on spending Monday night mouthing a few lines from the Passover Haggadah at a Seder held in the White House.

According to the New York Times, Obama will take part in a Seder in the Old Family Dining Room along with a band of court Jews such as David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. The Seder, as the newspaper notes, will end, according to tradition, with the declaration of “next year in Jerusalem.” (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)

Read the rest. I can't speak for American Jews but doesn't this rub salt in the wounds?

Most recent posts here.

Thank goodness we have the Obamas to tell us what and how much to eat

How did we survive without their benevolent tutelage?

Another way Obamacare will make business a big loser:

More than 200,000 fast food and other chain restaurants will have to include calorie counts on menus, menu boards and even drive-throughs. . . .

The idea is to make sure that customers process the calorie information as they are ordering. Many restaurants currently post nutritional information in a hallway, on a hamburger wrapper or on their Web site. The new law will make calories immediately available for most items.

This is a typical Obama admin nudge. As babies, we can't be expected to take responsibility for seeking the information we need or to use common sense in our food choices. And it dovetails perfectly with Michelle O's anti-obesity campaign, which will shovel taxpayers' money into, among other things, eliminating "food deserts" (you live in a food desert if your grocery store is more than one mile from your house) and forcing manufacturers to adopt dumbed-down nutritional labeling so that "deciphering calorie counts per serving would not require higher math." (I did not make that up.)

The first lady recently held a nag-session with the Grocery Manufacturers Association and made the following claim:

“Today, snacking between meals has become more the norm rather than the exception. And while kids 30 years ago ate just one snack a day, we’re now trending toward three –- so our kids are taking in an additional 200 calories a day just from snacks alone,” Mrs. Obama said.

Really? I'd like to see some data on that, along with evidence that smaller meals and frequent snacks are bad for growing children. But that's beside the point. Parents exist to oversee the care and feeding of their kids. It's not proper for the federal government to micromanage that.

Mrs. Obama is correct that things have changed in thirty years. Many more children now come home from school to empty houses. This may have something to do with kids' eating habits. But that factor is too politically incorrect for Mrs. Obama to consider. And anyway, it's a moot point, because the stay-at-home mother is extinct:

"This isn't about trying to turn the clock back to when we were kids or preparing five-course meals from scratch every night. No one has time for that," the first lady said in her remarks.

Got that, homemakers? You're dinosaurs.

Back to the restaurant reg's. Ed Morrissey is the voice of reason on this:

But let’s be serious. No one who’s seriously concerned about caloric intake is going to order the gigantic Jalapeno Smokehouse Burger w/ Jalapeno Ranch dinner [2130 calories!]. Most people have the common sense to know that big burgers and whopping mounds of fries will total a huge number of calories, no matter where one buys or makes dinner. Responsible adults can navigate a menu on their own to choose the healthier options, if they want to do so, without forcing restauranteurs to conduct the kind of lab analyses necessary to give accurate calorie counts for menus.

Sure, this is small compared with the havoc Obamacare will wreak on the quality, availability, and price of health care, but it's typically anti-business, and wholly unnecessary. More from Ed:

Davanni’s, a local pizzeria-sandwich restaurant with 22 locations around the Twin Cities, will now have to comply with this mandate. A caller to my Saturday show (who wished to remain anonymous) told my radio partner Mitch Berg during a commercial break that it will cost Davanni’s approximately $200,000 to comply with the new mandate — just to start. Every menu change will require Davanni’s to have the new or modified items re-analyzed, which means that Davanni’s will probably resist adding new options for their customers.

Read on for the fallout from that burden, which is not trivial, particularly when it's your job or business that's affected.

Again, Obamacare will intrude into our personal lives, depress jobs and growth, and discourage creativity and innovation, as it will in the medical field.

Related: A bunch of Tuscan kale in every pot

Cross-posted at Potluck.

Most recent posts here.

In defense of Pope Benedict

These are excerpts from a long post on the Corner by Father Raymond J. de Souza:

The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.

[. . .]

A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

[. . .]

A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

[. . .]

To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.

Please read the rest before accepting the NYT version of this story.

Related: Weakland writes his memoirs

Most recent posts here.

Resisting the "slow death of freedom"

Two must-reads on the nature of the enemy and how to resist:

First up, Mark Steyn's Saturday column, Disincentivizing America. He suggests he's going to bore us but don't believe it:

In 2003, Washington blessed a grateful citizenry with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it being generally agreed by all the experts that it was unfair to force seniors to choose between their monthly trip to Rite-Aid and Tony Danza in dinner theater.

Just an aside, but therein lies an often ignored truth: seniors, as a demographic, have more disposable income than everyone else (and more power to them). But given that, might one not think that medical expenses, such as prescription drugs, would be an appropriate use for some of that wealth? What priority is higher than one's own well-being? A financially set older person paying for his own meds is doing nothing more than taking care of himself, which he'd probably tell you is what he worked for all his life. Before you scream at me, please note that I'm talking about the well-off elderly, not those counting their pennies and living on Purina.

Mark's real point has nothing to do with Tony Danza, but rather with the pernicious effects of Congress's hastily thrown-together monster healthcare bill. One of its nasty provisions will cause millions of retirees to be cut loose from their employer-based prescription coverage and dumped into Medicare. And that's a mere taste of things to come:

This single component of "health" "care" "reform" neatly encompasses all the broader trends about where we're headed – not just in terms of increased costs (both to businesses and individual taxpayers) and worse care (for those retirees bounced from company plans into Medicare), but also in the remorseless governmentalization of American life and the disincentivization of the private sector. As we see, even the very modest attempts made by Congress to constrain the 2003 prescription drug plan prove unable to prevent its expansion and metastasization. The one thing that can be said for certain is that, whatever claims are made for Obamacare, it will lead to more people depending on government for their health arrangements. Those 5 million retirees are only the advance guard. And, if you're one of those optimistic souls whose confidence in the CBO is unbounded, let's meet up in three years' time and see who was correct – the bureaucrats passing out the federal happy juice, or the real businesses already making real business decisions about Obamacare.

Mark predicts, as does Charles Krauthammer, that a VAT is coming our way, and concludes with a provocative suggestion:

Which is to say that right now the future lies somewhere between the certainty of decline and the probability of catastrophe. What can stop it? Not a lot. But now that your "pro-life" Democratic congressman has sold out, you might want to quit calling Washington and try your state capital. If the Commerce Clause can legitimize the "individual mandate," then there is no republic, not in any meaningful sense. If you don't like the sound of that, maybe it's time for a constitutional convention.

~~~

Second must-read, if you haven't seen it, is Michael Ledeen's American Tyranny (Tocqueville quotes are italicized.)

Tocqueville foresaw a slow death of freedom. He feared that the power of the central government would gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives, and he was afraid that we would welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we controlled it.

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated… [. . .]

Tocqueville thought we would not be bludgeoned into submission; we would be seduced. He foresaw the collapse of American democracy as the end result of two parallel developments that would ultimately render us meekly subservient to an enlarged bureaucratic power: the corruption of our character, and the emergence of a vast welfare state. His nightmare vision is brilliantly and terrifyingly prescient:

That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Read on. Tocqueville nailed it. The beauty part is that America, "like a recalcitrant child," is fighting back.

Keep those tantrums coming, people. Don't be cowed by those who would love nothing more than to slap a gag on you. The louder we yell, the more they'll distort, demagogue, demonize, and ridicule. Ignore it. They believe in free speech as much as they believe in small government.

Most recent posts here.

Rep. Michael Burgess, MD, on the rough draft that became Obamacare

"This bill is going to require significant fixes probably for the remainder of my lifetime on this earth. This was probably the worst product we could have put out there for the American people."



You can find a more complete version on Burgess's Facebook page.

Most recent posts here.

Getting to know Obamacare

"We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it."

We're beginning to see. And it's not pretty.

"It's just going to be like Christmas, I mean it's going to be great. No worries, you know, the bills, we can go ahead and pay our copay and be all right."

Dream on. WSJ:

It's been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or "political." [. . .]

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

Governance by intimidation.

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

Quote of the day:

The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don't make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage. But their bill was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.

On the bright side, Obamacare may have a silver lining.

*Updated to add Jennifer Rubin's take:

Well, this is par for the course: a complete disregard for the consequences of their own handiwork, the bullying of private enterprise, and the determination to politicize what were once economic and legal judgments. One can see in the Democrats’ fury the desperate attempt to conceal the implications of their monstrous legislation, to maintain as long as possible the fiction that ObamaCare is a great cost-saver, and boon to employers. It’s going to be hard to keep up the charade, for as the editors note, ObamaCare “was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.”

In that regard the adverse consequences of ObamaCare will likely be more apparent than those of the ill-conceived stimulus plan, which “merely” added to the ocean of red ink. How will shareholders, small-business owners, employees, and retirees react as they see the damage pile up, and learn that there is more in store if the bill is fully implemented? Well, they might find “Repeal and Replace!” an attractive message.

Most recent posts here.

Bully Barney Frank warns against bullying

Go figure -- one of the worst bullies in the House is an anti-bullying advocate:

FRANK: We've been trying, many of us, to get junior high school students to stop the bullying. My state of Massachusetts unanimously, Republicans and Democrats, voted an anti-bullying bill. Well, then the kids turn on, they see members of Congress engaging in that kind of activity or cheering it on when two people disrupted the proceedings on Sunday by shouting from the balcony, which is really an undermining of the fundamentals of democracy.

We know where he's going with this. Frank and company would have no problem with the Canadian model of free speech as long as they could exempt themselves from their own gag orders, which they surely would do.


Most recent posts here.

Obama humiliates Netanyahu

Obama breaks new ground in US foreign relations, abandoning a head of state in the White House and heading to his private quarters to have his waffles in peace:

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

I don't write about foreign policy much because that would violate rule #1, but I think I understand part of this. It's Obama's modus operandi when others refuse to yield to his will, whether it be a congressman or an ally. You may recall this snapshot from a NYT piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg a month ago:

As the clock neared 1 a.m., the two sides were at an impasse. Mr. Obama stood up.

“ ‘See what you guys can figure out,’ ” one participant remembers him saying, adding that the failed effort left the president mad. Another Democrat who was there, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, said Mr. Obama left “frustrated that while he was putting out ways to bridge the problem, we hadn’t reached a conclusion.”

When crossed, he becomes petulant, throws up his hands, and tells the other party or parties to let him know when they're ready to come around. This is not leadership. (It can't be much fun to live with, either.)

More from the TimesOnline:

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. [. . .]

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled. [. . .]

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said. [. . .]

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

Far from being an asset, one of Obama's worst failings is his lousy temperament, so ill suited to his position.

Much more on this from Jennifer Rubin:

According to the Telegraph’s account, the meeting began with the president presenting a list of 13 demands to Netanyahu. These included a complete freeze on Jewish building in eastern Jerusalem. When Netanyahu did not immediately accede to this diktat, Obama left him saying he was going to go eat dinner with his wife and daughters. Netanyahu and his party were left to wait for over an hour for Obama’s return. The paper claims that as Obama left, he told the prime minister to consider “the error of his ways.” Yediot Ahronot reported that Obama merely said, “I’m still around. Let me know if there is anything new.” A second brief meeting followed, which apparently consisted of the president restating his demands. As a punishment for Netanyahu’s failure to immediately bend to Obama’s ultimatum, there was no joint statement issued about the meeting and no press coverage of the visit. Friday’s Ma’ariv describes the scene thusly: “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”

Do not cross the Obama ego.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

Hyping threats for dollars

Breitbart challenges Rep. John Lewis to produce proof of racist treatment last weekend:

Have proof that a single racial epithet was hurled at Rep. John Lewis? Andrew Breitbart is offering $10,000 of his own money for proof that the N- word was directed at Lewis just once let alone the 15 times as Lewis has claimed. [. . .]

Breitbart is correct, if proof was available we would have seen it by now many, many times. Moreover, Breitbart has challenged Lewis to prove he was telling the truth when he made his claim. A man of character would surely be willing to defend his own honor especially if a favored charity would substantially gain in the process. Will Lewis defend his honor or is he more likely to ignore Breitbart’s challenge?

Rep. Eric Cantor, whose office was shot at, condemns Democrats for hyping threats for political gain:

In brief and pointed remarks, Cantor said he would not be releasing any information about the other threats he's received, as some lawmakers have done, out of concern that it would "encourage more to be sent."

And he admonished his colleagues -- specifically Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine -- for "dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting these incidents be used as a political weapon."

"Any suggestion that a leader in this body would incite threats or acts against other members is akin to saying that I would endanger myself, my wife or my children," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain."

Case in point: Politico reports Organizing for America doing exactly that. Click to read their latest fundraising letter.


Most recent posts here.

Guess who loves Obamacare

Hint: He's not America's biggest fan. But first, Obama displays his arrogance in Iowa City:



Sigh. Obama thinks we want the government in the driver's seat?

Allahpundit's response:

The cool, sweet fact of the matter is that the GOP has a lot to run on this fall. How shall we hammer them? Let us count the ways:

Jay Cost lists them here.

Of course, Obamacare will always have a lock on the communist dictator demographic. Yeah, Castro is a huge fan:

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."

Exactamente.

Most recent posts here.

OT: The Owl Box

A mother owl "gives birth," in real time.

Oh dear. She's having lunch and it's not pretty. I think it was a bunny.

Not really related: The Easter Bunny Must Die

Most recent posts here.

The mocking of Terri Schiavo

This is bad. Wesley Smith:

Fox’s Family Guy stooped even beneath its usual scatological obsessions to literally mock a dead woman, whose only “crime” was to have been profoundly cognitively disabled. The episode–which I embedded below only after much thought, opens with a fictional school play, Terri Schiavo: The Musical. In it, Terri is depicted as having been hooked up to every conceivable machine, a total lie since all she needed to remain alive was food and water delivered through a tube. But the facts this case have been continually misstated from the beginning, so that is nothing new.

But what is novel–and truly beneath contempt, not only because it mocks and degrades Terri, but also, everyone now living with serious cognitive impairments–are the lyrics. “Michael Schiavo” says, “She’s a vegetable,” and the chorus responds, “We hate vegetables!” to which the audience breaks up in laughter. Later she is depicted as having “mashed potato brains,” which are poured into a bowl, and being “the most expensive plant you’ll ever see.”

This doesn’t just mock a dead woman who can’t defend herself. It is hate speech against people similarly situated. Indeed, the V-word should be rendered just as societally unacceptable as the N-word has thankfully become. Both epithets serve the same purpose, that is, to demean, dehumanize, and exclude–so as to open the door to oppression, exploitation, and killing.

Read the rest and watch the embedded video. The song, which is near the beginning, was worse than I expected. Oremus.

Palate cleanser: Today is the Feast of the Annunciation. Visit the Anchoress.


More images here.

Most recent posts here.

Like a four year-old, Biden uses bad words to get attention

What an adolescent loser Joe Biden is, basking in the glory of his own vulgar idiocy and invoking his poor late mother in the process. You have to wonder whether he did it on purpose:

Biden, who acknowledged his “faux pas,” said that when he found out the comment – he called the new law “a big f—–g deal” – had been picked up by an open mic, he said is immediate thought was: “Thank God my mom’s not …” The room erupted in laughter, drowning out the rest of the sentence.

Biden also told the crowd, gathered at the home of Baltimore-based developer David S. Cordish, that President Barack Obama didn’t take him to the woodshed. At Wednesday morning’s White House briefing, Biden said the president told the meeting: “You know what the best thing about yesterday was? Joe’s comment.” And to that, Biden said he responded: “If you thought it was so good, why didn’t you say it?”

Biden also said Obama told him that he tried to have a T-shirt made with his remark emblazoned on it, but couldn’t get one in time. [Yes, there already is one.]

Forget adolescent. This is more like a pre-schooler who's just learned a bad word and revels in the attention it gets him. Or, as Allahpundit once wrote of Harry Reid,

And like a two-year-old who’s just crapped on the carpet, he’s curiously proud of it.

This crowd takes the Clinton standard of White House decorum and drops it a few more notches. Fill in your own "Imagine if _________ had done this."

Related post: Obama's impeachment insurance.

In other news:

The socialists get cocky and burst forth from the closet.

Awesomeness: Shuster loses to Kevin Jackson. And I know you'll be surprised, but it turns out, among the numerous videotapes made at the Kill the Bill rallies last weekend, no evidence has been found that racial slurs or spitting took place. Not that that matters to spinners like Shuster. (Reminscent of the "ugly crowd" stories from the campaign.)

Go figure: Stupak's seat is no longer safe.

Get out another hook for Dennis Moore, who didn't bother to read the bill. Milton Wolf, MD, marvels:

What arrogance or blind ideology compels a man to allow the government takeover of the finest health care delivery system in the world without even reading the bill?

A new tax on medical devices is one of those necessary costs to getting the America that Dick Durbin wants. Jim Geraghty:

Brad Ellsworth: Because the Senate needs the architect of the National Tampon Tax.

Baron Hill: Because your breast pump will help manage our spending crisis.

Scott Murphy: Every time you use a suppository, think of his health-care vote.

Blog post title of the day. Enjoy.


Most recent posts here.

Not reconciled

Those who represent us in the US Senate, along with senate Democrats, were busy into the wee small hours of the morning. They'll resume their efforts to socialize America at 9:45 am. Michelle Malkin's report includes a list of the amendments proposed by the GOP (partial list below). It makes an incomplete but handy set of talking points for what's wrong with this bill. Tidbit:

Update 2:10am Eastern. They are now voting on the Hutchison amendment to make permanent certain sales and marriage tax provisions that were set to expire. The amendment falls, 40-55.

Oh, dear. Al Franken has taken over as presiding officer.

Update 2:43am Eastern After tabling more GOP amendments, a pale, hoarse Harry Reid calls for adjournment. Befuddled Franken announces: “I guess we’re adjourned.” Official adjournment gaveled at 2:56am Eastern.

Andy Levy tweets in reply to my report on Reid’s grim appearance: “‘And I looked, and behold a pale hoarse Harry Reid.’ (Revelation 6:8)”

…And Hell followed with him.

After 10 hours, the Senate voted on 28 GOP amendments and rejected each and every one, including a Vitter amendment to spare mobile mammography units from punitive tax treatment.

Um, who’s the party of no now?

That last item needs to be broadcast far and wide. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are not the friends of women, or children. Or men. They're not the champions of the very young or the very old. But if you're a perv looking for Viagra, they're your guys. In addition, from Michelle's list, we find that the Dems almost unanimously rejected the following amendments, too, which may cause Obama supporters to wonder whose side he's on. (Answer: his own.)

Senator Burr: Tricare and Veterans Health Programs
Senator Hatch: Protect Wounded Soldiers from Medical Device Tax
Senator Crapo: Protect Cancer Patients from Medical Device Tax
Senator Crapo: No Tax Hikes for Families Earning Under $250,000
Senator Roberts: Rationing
Senator Grassley: Requires President, Congress Enroll in Exchange

That last one tells you everything you need to know about the bill and the liberals who passed it. Every American should hear this, so shout it from the rooftops: If Obamacare were so wonderful, why have its creators exempted themselves from it?

More on the GOP amendments from Daniel Foster.

It seems that the world's greatest deliberative body ran into a snag with the Senate Parliamentarian that will send the wreck bill back to the House:

Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin sustained two GOP objections to two minor sections of a Pell Grant provision in the student loan part of the bill intended to change the original healthcare reform bill passed by both chambers.

The Senate held 10 hours of continuous, marathon voting starting at 5 p.m. Wednesday, with Republicans trying throughout to lodge a successful objection to the bill to force its return to the lower chamber. The bill’s passage by the House is a safe bet, prompting Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) to call Frumin’s ruling “a consolation prize.”

We'll see.

Obama will make a campaign stop in Iowa today (has any other president ever behaved this way?). Would anyone care to bet against Rush Limbaugh's prediction that the president will obnoxiously, and falsely, argue that the bill is benign because the sun rose again today in the east? Limbaugh:

He's gonna go out starting tomorrow in Iowa City and all next week when he goes out to sell this embarrassing piece of legislation, and he's going to say, "Where's all the sob stories? Where are all the dire problems? Anybody pull the plug on Granny?" He's gonna go out, and all of these fearmongering scare tactics supposedly made up by people like me are going to be held up as just that, nobody's pulled the plug on Granny or any of that.

Well, he knows the plan's implemented in phases, and according to the election cycle, he's implemented a lot of things according to that, he's going to claim that people will already benefit from the plan when in fact people won't realize anything until it starts to kick in.

And he has to keep selling it because this monstrosity will never sell itself.

ETA: See Carol at No Sheeples for the complete list of amendments, including links to each one.


Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)
Most recent posts here.

Gibbs provokes press corps

Spokestool Robert Gibbs puts in a full day of obfuscation and distortion in the service of his master. First up, patent nonsense as he attempts to justify the executive order:



Then this maddening give and take with the press corps over the lack of transparency surrounding the signing of the executive order via Byron York:

"But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from -- " the reporter started to follow up.

"On, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event," Gibbs answered.

"Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?"

"We'll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency."

"Not the same, Robert," the reporter said. "Never has been."

"I know you all disagree with that," Gibbs answered. "I think Pete takes wonderful photos."

Gibbs' suggestion that the press corps thinks Souza is a bad photographer set off the reporters. That's not what they were saying; the point was that the press was not allowed in.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa," the reporter said. "Don't twist this -- it's not an attack on Pete."

"Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck," Gibbs said, "but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s -- "

"It's not transparent and it’s a vital issue."

"And you will have a lovely picture from Pete."

"You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?"

"No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order."

And so on! My silent partner Pundit wonders if the press will finally turn on Obama, Gibbs, and company. Don't think so. (Click for the lovely picture.)

Most recent posts here.

Stupak & Planned Parenthood's mutual admiration society

As Jim Hoft would say, unreal. Actually, this time he says: Figures. Stupak Now Out Defending Planned Parenthood. Sure, Stupak's pro-life. When it's convenient. And that ain't often. He can't even take a stand against Planned Parenthood.

In a Washington Times interview with Kerry Picket our hero meanders through another moral morass:

STUPAK: I don’t think I ever voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions…in my district. Planned Parenthood has a number of clinics in my district that provide health care for my people. Therefore, these clinics do quite well in my district, and I’m all for health care and extending it to everybody–access to health care, so that’s just another way. Also on Planned Parenthood , when they do it, there is a segregation of funds that go with it. It’s usually about four hundred million they tried to de-fund on Planned Parenthood. Maybe this time, I’ll look at it again if Pence brings it up. Maybe I’ll vote differently this time, but you’re right I did vote against it.

[Insert your own outrage here. I'm tired.]

More from Mr. Hoft:

Planned Parenthood returned the favor and praised Bart Stupak on Monday after he voted for the pro-abortion bill.

Rght to Life groups withdrew their support for Bart Stupak in the November elections today.

I guess Bart is as "naive" about PP as he is about the validity of Obama's executive order. A few facts: The scrape-and-suction experts at PP were responsible for more than 300,000 abortions in 2007-08, and raked in some truly obscene profits:

The abortion giant took home $85 million in "excess of revenue over expenses" (a nifty way of saying profits) and had an operating budget of over $1 billion for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report. Included in that budget was $350 million in "government grants and contracts" (an equally nifty way of saying your tax dollars). An increase in the number of abortions performed helped fuel the profits.

But, er, not in Stupak's district, he says. He has a highly compartmentalized conscience.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

Easter Egg Roll: Private school students need not apply*

*Unless your last name happens to be Obama.

Last year, in order to "present a realistic mosaic of American families," tickets were set aside for families headed by two mommies or daddies. This year the realistic mosaic favors public school kids over parochial, private, or home educated. Doug Powers is sure this was an oversight:

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration announced on Tuesday it has reserved 3,000 free tickets to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for students in D.C.-area public and charter schools, but not for children who attend private or parochial schools.

Why exclude children in private and parochial schools, asked the father of a parochial school student at Tuesday’s press conference where U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the ticket giveaway.

“These tickets are from the White House to public schools, and we’re appreciative, but there may be other things unrelated to this press conference,” Fenty responded. “That’s a great question.”

First nag Michelle Obama will use the event to promote her federally funded initiative to combat our reputed childhood obesity epidemic. (That the epidemic may not exist, and that Mrs. Obama's efforts may do more harm than good, doesn't enter into it.)

It's no great loss for all those ineligible kids. Last year's entertainment was too Fergalicious for the ten-and-under crowd, in my opinion. But cool celebs trump age appropriateness in this White House.

Most recent posts here.

Obama's campaign doesn't end with passage

It seems that the Left's victory isn't quite as comprehensive as they pretend. If it were, why (aside from his insatiable ego hunger) would Obama feel the need to continue stumping on behalf of the bill? He knows he has to keep pitching it in hopes of brainwashing voters into supporting it by November. And, of course, he still can't tell the truth about its contents.

The AP reports that the bill is badly written and will not deliver as advertised. In other words, even at the signing ceremony, Obama lies:

The Obama administration is scrambling to fix a potential problem with a much-touted benefit of its new health care law, a gap in coverage improvements for children in poor health, officials said Tuesday.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

In recent speeches, Obama has given the impression that the immediate benefit for kids is much more robust.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were sweeping and straightforward.

But I'm sure the president will correct these inaccuracies when he hits Iowa on Thursday. Right?

hat tip: The Corner

Most recent posts here.

Obama's impeachment insurance

Joe Biden. He dropped the f-bomb at the signing ceremony. I think he owes America an apology for this. But other Obama administration morons are cheering him on.




Most recent posts here.

How about an up or down vote on taxpayer-funded Viagra for rapists and molesters?

Sen. Tom Coburn has offered the following amendment to the reconciliation package:


One can only imagine Bart Stupak's principled stand on this one.

David Freddoso says Coburn has more where that came from.


Most recent posts here.

WaPo promotes same-sex marriage with article after article

The Washington Blade has shut its doors, but the Washington Post labors manfully to fill the gay news gap. In its relentless campaign to promote same-sex marriage as the exact equivalent (only better) of the real thing, the Post prints yet another feature article on the tribulations of gay wedding-planning. This time the focus is on the travails of Ellen-style lesbians in pursuit of formal menswear. (Yes, it can be awkward.)

A sampling of other recent Post pieces:

Mini-mass wedding is smaller historic gay rights moment than they wanted
In Washington area, gays' new right stirs up old conflicts
Gay marriages expected to create wedding-related jobs in D.C.
In Mexico, gay couples celebrate historic weddings
Gay couples find one marriage barrier gone, others still rigid
For local event planner, a perfect match
First gay marriages in District performed

Is it just me, or are they pushing this agenda pretty hard?

Most recent posts here.

A couple of things

Truncated post this morning due to time crunch, so see last night's post as a supplement.

1) If you haven't read it yet, set aside time for Mark Steyn's Tattered Liberty. One excerpt:

Permanence is an illusion — and you would be surprised at how fast mighty nations can be entirely transformed. But, more important, national decline is psychological — and therefore what matters is accepting the psychology of decline.

2) Hot Air has a video from Hannity that starts with a great montage, followed by Hannity's talk with Sarah Palin.


Most recent posts here.

Monday evening links: Unmaking the sausage, et cetera

Kimberley Strassel on how Nancy made her toxic sausage. One ingredient was water:

As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.

Jennifer Rubin and Robert Zelnick find Obamacare to be "a lot of pain with uncertain gains":

Robert Zelnick writes: “Everything about the House-passed bill smacks of political excess rooted in ideological purity.” He then tries to puzzle out who the bill is supposed to help. What about the poor and uninsured? “Well, most of the truly needy are already protected by Medicaid. Most of the rest: employed married folks who have chosen the risky but comprehensible path of self-insurance?” So there isn’t a big net plus — or a group of grateful voters whose votes are sufficient to balance all the angry conservatives and independents. What about cost containment? As Zelnick says, “the bill does nothing.” But there are many who are getting socked:

Read on.

How great is health care going to be? This great: Exempted from Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill

Rich Lowry has five reasons not to despair. Among them:

The truth will out. Obama has been saying things about his bill that are untrue: It won’t make premiums go down; it won’t control costs; it won’t allow everyone who likes their current insurance arrangements to keep them. These false representations may well make the bill more unpopular rather than less after passage.

I believe that's a certainty.

Bill Kristol takes it a step further and says Yes We Can - Repeal the bill, that is.

Luckily, key parts of Obamacare--especially the subsidies--don’t go into effect until 2014. So what Republicans have to do is to make the 2010 and the 2012 elections referenda on Obamacare, win those elections, and then repeal Obamacare. [RTR]

From RS McCain, some hapless Canadian academic makes like a "banana republic police chief" (Steyn) and warns Ann Coulter -- Ann Coulter -- not to speak too freely when she tours Canada. Ann:

I hope they send the Royal Canadian Mounted Police after me!

I think Dudley will have met his match. Steyn:

What a sad and embarrassing letter, even by the standards of the Canadian academy. Does M Houle write to all University of Ottawa speakers like this? Or does he reserve his telekinetic powers to detect "pre-crime" only for the ideologically suspect?

I've no idea what Ann Coulter's reaction to this letter is, but I suspect it's "Go ahead, Princess Fairy Pants, make my day."

RTR.

Another reason not to despair: this isn't Canada. Yet. Memeorandum has more.

Mood swing alert -- gloom and doom from John Derbyshire:

I see plainly that Western civilization, over my lifetime, has been a slow-sinking ship. The few who have known what is happening have worked desperately to seal the watertight doors, repair the fissures, pump out the flooded zones. It's been a losing fight, though. The tilt of the decks is harder and harder to ignore. Last night, a major bulkhead gave way. Soon a funnel will topple over with a great crash and a shower of sparks. Yet still the band is playing, the people are dancing, the food coming up from the galley. [. . .]

It'll be over soon. We'll be down in the cold, lightless depths of imperial despotism — in which, after all, the great majority of human beings, throughout history, have always lived. It's the natural way: liberty is an unstable temporary aberration.

Read the rest.

Lastly, a little funny from Jim Treacher:

If you’re a Democrat who voted for this, you might be thinking: “I’m glad I don’t have to go back to my district and talk about this again.” That is so adorable. What else is new in Candyland?

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)
Most recent posts here.