Obama using war, climate change, & jobs as distraction for health care

by John Allison III

After spending the summer and fall trying to cram an unwanted government takeover of the US health care system down the throats of the American people, he’s finally managed to get a bill passed in the House and its companion bill debated on the floor of the Senate.  Now’s the time most would expect a final push, a strategic surge, a call on the very reserves of his energy and effort, to cross the finish line with legislation that could ultimately define his presidency.

But, instead of a network news health care infomercial starring the President, he decided to shift gears this week.  Suddenly he’s stepped forward with a response to General McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan, decided to attend the climate change conference in Copenhagen, and Thursday held a “jobs summit” at the White House. Is he counting his chickens before they hatch?  Does he believe he has this battle won, so he’s already tackling the next challenge?  It’s just hard to imagine after he’s focused on little else for months now, that suddenly the issue no longer draws his attention.

Of course, it could be by design.  All smoke and mirrors to confuse and confound.

Sort of like Nancy Pelosi’s Saturday at midnight vote to pass her vision of “reform” that places our health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats, or Harry Reid’s choice to hold the vote to move his bill forward on the Saturday night before Thanksgiving, President Obama is now hoping to take the eye of the American taxpayer off the ball in the last seconds of the game.

His jobs summit isn’t so much about jobs, but it’s just one part of a plan designed to turn the heads of the majority of voters who oppose his vision for the health care system, distracting them long enough to let the bill squeeze through before they realize it.

Think about it…three months after McChrystal issued his request for 40,000 troops, three months of facing harsh criticism for “dithering” while American troops twisted in the wind, he comes forth with a decision that sends the health care story to the inside pages of newspapers across the country.  Just one month after we heard the President wouldn’t be attending the climate conference in Copenhagen, Obama has suddenly done a 180 and decided not only to  attend but to promise a 17% cut in US carbon emissions by 2020.  And now the “jobs summit.”

Don’t be surprised to see the front page too crowded by all these announcements to adequately cover the health care debate over the next couple of weeks.  Look for the mainstream media to fall in line and lead with these stories and others to give cover to Democratic Senators trying to tow their party line while their constituents are distracted.

Obama and his Democratic lackeys in the Senate know Americans don’t trust the government to administer the health care system, but THEY DON’T CARE!  In their minds, we’re incapable of knowing what’s best for us.

They’re creating a diversion, hoping to distract us and force us to swallow their “reform.”

Don’t take your eyes off the health care debate until it’s dead!

Uncertain Trumpet

by Charles Krauthammer at Townhall.com

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

We shall never surrender — unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on “the need to maintain balance in and among national programs” and then insist that “we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”

The quotes are from President Obama’s West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was — a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.

Which made his last-minute assertion of “resolve unwavering” so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” On Tuesday night, he defined “what’s at stake” as “the common security of the world.” The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?

Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?

Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan War were satisfied. They got the policy, the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted — 30,000 additional U.S. troops — and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.

But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters.

…More

Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming, Too?

by Ann Coulter at Townhall.com

As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 — as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” — the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.

If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.

These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

…More

The Left Turns Off Obama

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann at Townhall.com

While the smoke rises from the Capitol building where the health care debate proceeds, Obama is losing his political base on the left.

His decision to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform are all sapping his support from those who voted for him.

And, even in the health care debate, the under-30 voters are learning that they are targeted — just like the elderly — for special punishment in Obama’s health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5 percent of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8 percent of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12 percent if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.

Then there is the loss of popularity that has nothing to do with ideology. It all begins with unemployment. While voters still believe by 50-42 (Rasmussen) that George W. Bush is more at fault than Obama for the economy, Bush is not on the ballot. The high jobless rate nurtures a belief that Obama doesn’t really know what he is doing. This discontent need not take the form of ideological opposition to the stimulus package or the deficit spending. It can merely be a sense that things aren’t going right.

And then come the adjectives. Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs and seems egotistical.

…More

Five More Amateur Mistakes By the Obama Administration

by John Hawkins at Townhall.com

“My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.” – Sarah Palin

Since he has been elected, Barack Obama has been like a four year old wearing water wings and desperately trying to reach the edge of the pool. In other words, he has been completely out of his depth. Who could have known that giving soaring speeches about “hope” and “change” while voting “present” on the tough issues wouldn’t be enough preparation for the most important job on Planet Earth — oh wait, millions of Americans knew that and pointed it out at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the media was too busy obsessing over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe and parody songs on the Rush Limbaugh show to actually consider whether or not a man whose biggest accomplishment was winning a Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President.

Of course, we can debate Obama’s ideological decisions all day. Does the country need socialized medicine? Should he have pursued that staggeringly expensive stimulus program? Has he been applying enough pressure on Iran? The answers to those questions are no, no, and no — but, there’s a more important question we need to consider: does Barack Obama know what he’s doing?

Early on, the Obama Administration made a lot of foolish mistakes. Obama selected numerous tax cheats for his Cabinet. They gave the Russians a button that was supposed to say “reset”– but that actually said “overcharge.” They gave our best allies, the Brits, 25 DVDs of American movie classics — that were not only wildly inappropriate, but wouldn’t even play in their DVD players. Unfortunately, those early gaffes have not only continued; they’ve begun to have more serious policy implications.

…Read more about the following Obama administration mistakes

1. What are we trying to do in Honduras?
2. Russia’s missile defense date dupe:
3. Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in New York:
4. Cash for Clunkers:
5. Why all the bowing?

Obamacare To Hike State Taxes

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann at Townhall.com

While Obama has been at great pains to make a show of avoiding taxes on the middle class to pay for his health care changes, his proposed increase in Medicaid eligibility will have a huge impact on the 39 states whose income cutoffs for the program are below those required in the new federal legislation.

All states except for Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin (plus the District of Colombia) will have to raise their eligibility for Medicaid under the Senate health care bill. And they will have to pay for part of the cost. Under the House bill, with a higher Medicaid eligibility standard, Massachusetts and Vermont would also have to pay more.

The magnitude of the new Medicaid spending required by Obamacare is such as to transform the nature of state finances. A large part of the reason that some states, particularly in the South, have been able to avoid higher taxes is because they have chosen to keep down the Medicaid eligibility level.

The hardest hit states would be Texas ($2.8 billion in extra state spending), Pennsylvania ($1.5 billion), California ($1.4 billion) and Florida ($909 million). Who knows if Florida could avoid imposing an income tax if it has to meet so high an unfunded mandate?

In many of the states represented by swing senators in the health care debate, the required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high. In Arkansas, where swing Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln live, the increased state spending required under the Obamacare bill would come to $402 million (not counting the federal share), about a 10 percent increase in state spending. In Louisiana, where Marie Landrieu has sold her vote in return for more Medicaid funding, the increase would come to $432 million (a 5 percent hike in state spending), more than wiping out the extra funds she got in return for her vote. In Indiana, where moderate Evan Bayh is senator, spending would go up by $586 million, a hike of 4 percent. In Ben Nelson’s Nebraska, the additional state spending required under the bill would be $81 million, a 2 percent increase. The Obamacare bill would cost North Dakota, home of Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, $14 million, and in South Dakota, represented by moderate Democrat Tim Johnson, Medicaid spending would have to rise by $33 million.

The Medicaid expansion provisions of the Senate bill are complex. In the first year of the program (2013), states must enroll anyone who earns less than 133 percent of the poverty level in their programs. For a family of four, the national average poverty level in 2009 is $22,000 a year. So any family that size that makes less than $29,000 would be eligible for Medicaid. Many states, particularly in the South, actually have Medicaid cutoffs that are below the poverty level. Arkansas, for example, cuts off its Medicaid eligibility at only 17 percent of the poverty level, and in Louisiana, it goes up to only 26 percent. For these states, the spending increase required by the new bill is huge.

…More

Corruption-ridden ACORN still on the dole

That’s correct! President Obama’s administration has wriggled itself out of the corner it found itself trapped in and has found a way to channel taxpayer funds to the group that perpetrates voter fraud across the country and, even worse, has consistently shown itself willing to support illegal activities such as child prostitution, human trafficking, tax evasion and more!

From the ultra-left leaning New York Times:

The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.

But, why would we expect any more from Attorney General Eric Holder? We should have known this was coming. The same Justice Department that we need to provide Constitutional rights to brutal terrorists who were captured by our military on a foreign battlefield has determined the Legislative branch of our government really has no authority whatsoever.

If Obama wants to fund ACORN, he’ll fund the group of sleazebags and to Hell with Congress!

It seems Obama’s lawyers believe the Constitution protects the criminal activities in which ACORN routinely engages. Again from the Times’ article:

Moreover, he [Justice Department Attorney David Barron] argued, requiring the government to cancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even in cases where performance has already been completed but payment has not been rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided by interpreting the law differently.

Hearing these clowns claim the Constitution as the basis of their argument almost makes one ill. I guess this is one of the “negative liberties” our President believes our founders provided us with–the obligation to pay entities friendly to the Executive branch even after the Legislative branch cuts them off. Of course, hardworking Americans should be getting used to this type of Chicago-style politics emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American taxpayer has felt the sting of President Obama’s knife in the back time and time again. So it’s really no surprise that he would steal from us once again to pay off his friends at ACORN.

As you pay your taxes this holiday season, smile and think about where that money will be going–to that corrupt bunch of criminals who support and promote voter fraud, human trafficking, child prostitution, and more vile, disgusting, illegal activities–even though government funding of this criminal organization is illegal!

Shape up, or ship out Mr. President

Received via email claiming the author is one Harold Estes, 23-year US Navy veteran who enlisted in 1934. Snopes.com says the claim is thus far unconfirmed, but regardless who wrote it, it effectively communicates the concerns many of us have with the behavior of our President this year.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

” We’re no longer a Christian nation”

” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world,”America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

Thank God for real patriots like Mr. Estes who guaranteed we inherited the freedoms he was born to. Now it’s our turn to do the same for future generations.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Today is the day set aside to give thanks for all the wonderful blessings we enjoy. So here are some of the things I’m thankful for:

• A forgiving God who sent His Son to die for our sins so that we may receive eternal life
• My lovely wife, two beautiful daughters, and all of my extended family.
• My friends and coworkers. (Even those of you who are liberal!)
• Being born free in the greatest country in all the world.
• Everyone in America who is standing up to preserve the freedoms given us by God, and secured by previous generations of Americans.
• A home that keeps my family warm and dry.
• A good job that keeps food on the table and clothes on our backs.

For these things and more, I thank the One true God and His Son, Jesus Christ!

Arkansas the NRSC’s NY-23? Not so fast.

Was it too much to hope for that the GOP might actually have learned a lesson from the disastrous turn of events in New York’s 23rd Congressional District earlier this month?  After the NRCC blew nearly a million dollars on a RINO candidate who, in the end, dropped out and endorsed her Democratic rival, you’d think leaders of the Republican Party would realize victory isn’t assured in 2010 because a candidate has an “R” beside his name.  And maybe they have.

One might even expect GOP heavyweights to recognize the grassroots’ aversion to candidates too deeply entrenched in the political establishment, especially when their adherence to conservative principles is in question.  But even if they can’t take quite that big a step at the moment, the essential lesson from NY-23 is the national party needs to step aside and let the grassroots determine their nominee.  But does that mean they can’t offer any help until a candidate is chosen?

In Arkansas, a state where Democratic Senator Mark Pryor didn’t even face a Republican challenger last year, there are already seven announced Republican candidates running for Democrat Blanche Lincoln’s Senate seat in 2010.   Only two hold political office, while the others come from a variety of backgrounds–farming, business, medicine, and military–but have never run for office. This may be the most contested Republican primary for national office in Arkansas’ history.

After Senator John Cornyn’s (R-TX) promise that the National Republican Senatorial Committee “will not spend money in a contested primary,” conservatives in the state probably assumed the national GOP hierarchy would stand aside and let Arkansans decide who would stand against Lincoln next November.  But some are wondering if Cornyn and his colleagues at the top of the GOP food chain are already working to anoint a candidate in the crowded field.

Cornyn, along with Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), David Vitter (R-LA), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) held an NRSC fundraiser last week for Arkansas State Senator Gilbert Baker in Washington and there are shouts from every corner that this reeks of the Scozzafava scenario in New York.  But Amber Wilkerson Marchand, spokeswoman for the NRSC says,   “Baker had asked to have the fundraiser at the committee’s headquarters in Washington, and that the group would allow other candidates to have events there if they asked.”

Though we’ve been unable to reach all of Baker’s opponents, we did reach Arkansas Tea Party, Inc. founder and 2010 GOP Senate candidate Tom Cox.  When asked if the committee had offered to host a similar event for his campaign he stated, “I can’t speak for the other candidates, but they [NRSC] made that offer to me.”  So it doesn’t appear they plan to anoint Baker in the Arkansas race.

It looks like the NRSC might have learned from their congressional counterpart’s costly error last month that sent Democrat Bill Owens to the US House.  They’re simply helping candidates raise much needed cash to unseat Lincoln.

Relax folks. No crisis here.