Media Weapons of Massa Distraction

The big story out of Washington this week is the resignation of New York Congressman Eric Massa. The details are a quick Google search away if you’re interested. Massa went on Glenn Beck’s show this week to tell his story. It was a boring interview and nothing interesting came out of it. Beck himself said he wasted our time by having the interview and that the story didn’t matter to any of us personally. I agree with Beck in this instance. This story doesn’t matter to any of us at all.

In the realm of political sex scandals, Massa’s scandal is farm league. There were no hookers or blow, no oral sex, no dead bodies- only ‘tickle fights.’ This should have been a one day story in the news at the most but it’s turning into a huge cabal. Today, the House Republicans are spreading rumors that they are going to ask the House Ethics Committee to investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader for their handling of information about misbehavior by Congressman Massa. This is completely unnecessary and it’s obvious they’re doing this to get back at the Democrats for the whole Mark Foley scandal in 2006. Thank you House Republicans for standing up and fighting for the American people, I can’t wait until you guys are in charge again.  

This is a total waste of time. As Glenn Beck said, this story doesn’t affect any of us personally at all. It’s about as important as the Balloon Boy or Tiger Woods story. Unfortunately, stories like these that pass for ‘news’ today.

While everyone is distracted by this stupid story, Pelosi is no doubt behind the scenes, working alongside the White House, arm twisting the fence sitters in their caucus to vote for the unpopular health care bill that will literally affect every single person in the country. Did you know that they want to add a provision to the health care bill that would completely overhaul the nation’s student loan program and require the Education Department to originate all student assistance loans, effectively eliminating a role for banks and other private lenders. For those of you keeping score, Obama has taken over two car companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and potentially the entire health care system and the student loan industry.  Still think Obama isn’t a socialist?    

 Health care isn’t the only thing they’re working on right now either. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are meeting with Obama today to talk about immigration reform. According to the Politico, the Schumer-Graham plan “includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (a liberal must-have) while sweetening the pot for moderates by proposing tough new safeguards, including a biometric national ID card for workers.”

A biometric national ID card!?!? Are you f***ing kidding me? ‘Moderates’ are in favor of this? Apparently so. Bill O’Reilly talked about it on his show this week with Lou Dobbs and they were both all for it. The Wall Street Journal said the proposal was only “potentially controversial.” I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Does liberty even matter anymore?

As if a government takeover of health care/student loans and the National ID cards aren’t bad enough, ABC News reported that the Tresasury Department announced yesterday that “the government racked up a record-high monthly budget deficit of $220.9 billion in February.” (Remember, February is the shortest month of the year.)

According to ABC: 

The latest flood of red ink brings the total deficit for the first five months of the current fiscal year to $651 billion, far exceeding the $589 billion shortfall for the same timeframe in the last fiscal year. The government ended the 2009 fiscal year with a record $1.4 trillion shortfall. The Obama administration has forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit for this year.

 That speaks for itself. If you still believe anything that Obama says about ushering in a new era of responsibility, cutting deficits, deficit neturality, or reducing the national debt you’re an idiot. 

 So while everyone in the media is using the Massa scandal to get ratings the government takes away more of our liberty. I guess it’s just a slow news day.

Health Care: The Immortal Bill

Health-care reform. It was born over a year ago behind closed doors in Washington, D.C. It is IMMORTAL. It is not alone. There are other like it: cap-and-trade, card-check, immigration reform, and financial regulation reform. Now is the time of THE GATHERING when an up or down vote from the House and Senate and the stroke of the Presidents pen will release THE QUICKENING that will destroy our health-care system and take away our health-care liberty. In the end there can be only one: single payer.

 

Que Queen Music.

Even Democrats Think EPA Carbon Emission Regulation Goals Are Bat-Poop Crazy

Well, at least one Democrat thinks so. Senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia will introduce a bill today that effectively stops the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide for at least two years.

For those of you who aren’t aware, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the stuff we humans, and most other mammals exhale. CO2 is also a by-product of burning fossil fuels. 

Republicans like Lisa Murkowski have already introduced legislation to reign in the power of the EPA, but Rockefeller’s bill is significant because it shows that even Democrats know that regulating a trace gas that is essential to life on our planet is bat-poop crazy.

Environmentalist are not happy, however, and are urging President Obama to veto the Rockefeller bill if it ever gets to his desk. They see the bill as “a dangerous precedent and a serious blow to the administration’s ability to cope with climate change if Congress fails to pass a bill.”

Can someone tell me how regulating carbon dioxide will help us cope with climate change? Do you really think that if we lower the amount of carbon dioxide we produce that it will have a significant impact on anything? Also, does anyone else think it is dangerous that the President can use an un-elected regulatory body to do his bidding if Congress doesn’t pass the bill he wants? Why even have a Congress?

Hopefully more Democrats will see the light and fight against this inappropriate use of the EPA. It may be too little too late though, especially if the EPA decides that it is going to do what ever it wants to do, Congress be damned.

For more information about Rockefeller’s bill, see this article from The Washington Post

Coincidence? I Think Not!

Well, well, well, it seems that Barack Obama is engaging in corrupt behavior.

Earlier today the White House announced that President Obama nominated Scott Matheson to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matheson is well qualified for the position. On any other day this nomination would be no big deal. Today, however, is a different story.

Scott Matheson has a brother named Jim Matheson. Jim is a Democrat Congressman from Utah. Jim voted against the health care bill when it went through the House the first time. Tonight, Jim and nine other Democrats who voted against health care the first time will meet with President Obama. Obama hopes he can persuade them to vote ‘yes’ for the health care bill this time around.

Put yourself in Jim’s position. You’re a back bencher Congressman from Utah who’s been invited to the White House because the President of the United States wants you to change your position on an issue. Now add to that the fact that the President just nominated your brother to the 10th Circuit Court of appeals. Wouldn’t you feel the pressure to change your vote? Wouldn’t you feel like you owe one to the President?

I’ve never heard of Jim Matheson nor his brother Scott. I’m sure they are both nice guys with clean records. But there should be an independent investigation into whether or not the White House used this nomination to buy the vote of Congressman Matheson. Perhaps there is a simple reasonable explanation. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but I doubt it. It will be interesting to see how Congressman Matheson votes.

Did You Know the Patriot Act was Extended…by Democrats?

The folks at the World Socialist Web Site are up in arms:

With almost no debate, the Democratic leadership in Congress pushed through an unamended extension of the USA Patriot Act’s most notorious provisions, granting sweeping powers to eavesdrop and seize library, Internet and other personal records of US citizens. 

The three extended provisions give US intelligence agencies the power to: 1) conduct “roving” wiretaps without specifying a particular phone number or e-mail account; 2) force institutions to surrender credit, banking, medical, mental health and library records; and 3) spy on so-called lone-wolf foreign nationals, who have no affiliation to either terrorist organizations or foreign governments.

 Since it passage, the Patriot Act has come under intense criticism from most on the left. These “notorious provisions” were originally set to expire in December but were granted a two month extension that was set to expire Sunday. The Senate Judiciary Committee had proposed some amendments to the provisions that would have barred the use of National Security Letters, NSLs, which are ”administrative subpoenas issued by the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon to obtain confidential records of US citizens who are not suspected of terrorism or espionage.” Other potential amendments to the provisions included removing immunity from telecommunications companies who helped the government with wiretaps. In the end, however, none of these amendments were added and the provisions were extended for another year. 

The Associated Press blames the Democrats’ inability to amend these provisions on Republicans:    

Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the nation’s primary counterterrorism law, stymied by Senate Republicans who argued the changes would weaken terror investigations.

If Democrats had allowed the Senate to have a full debate on the Judiciary Committee restrictions, they would have exposed themselves to Republican arguments that Democrats were hurting law enforcement.

So for almost 8 years since the Patriot Act was passed, the Democrats bashed Bush over the head with it as evidence of their belief that he was a fascist turning our country into a police state, but now that they’re in power they don’t want to appear “soft” on terrorism so they are caving to the Republicans every wish on the subject? The World Socialists aren’t buying it:

While no doubt such cowardice and opportunism govern all of the decisions made by the Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the reality is that support for the police state measures introduced with the Patriot Act has been bipartisan from the outset.

While the Democratic Party won the 2008 election based on a platform that explicitly promised to overturn unconstitutional provisions in the Patriot Act and halt “the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime,” since coming to office the Obama administration has continued and expanded these practices.

Just as with its foreign policy that continues the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an economic policy designed to defend Wall Street at the expense of workers’ jobs, wages and benefits, the Obama administration is continuing the wholesale assault on democratic rights initiated by its predecessor.

The staggering repudiation of the promises made by the so-called candidate of “change” is not a matter merely of Obama’s own duplicity. He heads a government that is dedicated to the defense of the essential interests of a financial oligarchy.

Under conditions of deepening economic crisis and in the face of ever-wider social polarization at home, it can defend these interests only by embracing the unconstitutional methods adopted by the Bush administration. The Obama White House is continuing to build up a police state not for use against some ubiquitous terrorist threat, but to counter the inevitable growth of mass struggles by the American working class.

If only Republicans could stick it to Democrats like the Socialist do. What I don’t understand is why the socialist are against the Patriot Act. They don’t like the idea of a police state being used against the working class, but at the same time they want the state to control the means of production and seize all private property. It doesn’t make sense. Where do we see police states today? Socialist states like Cuba, Venezuela, and China. If the socialist were being intellectually honest and consistent they would be in favor of the Patriot Act since a socialist state needs to be a police state to survive.

I don’t like the Patriot Act because it infringes on my individual liberty. It’s a prime example of a Federal government that has entirely too much power. If the Socialists had their way though, the power of government would expand exponentially. They are right about one thing, however, the American working class has started to rise up against the government int he form of the Tea Party. Instead of rising up and demanding a Marxist state; they are demanding liberty, freedom, and free markets. They understand that Capitalists don’t oppress people, governments do, with laws like the Patriot Act.

Say Good-Bye to Cap-and-Trade and Hello to Cap-and-Dividend

President Obama said in January 2008 that his cap-and-trade plan would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” since industries will be “forced” to retrofit their operations to fall under the strict new carbon emission standards. The cost of this retrofitting, like all business costs, is passed on to the consumer. These days, however, cap-and-trade has become increasingly unpopular among voters, especially during these tough economic times. Most people understand that it takes energy to produce things and you have to produce things to make the economy grow. The cap-and-trade bill would increase the cost of energy, which in turn would increase the price of production which means there would be less production and slower economic growth.

Last Wednesday, according to The Washington Post, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared that cap-and-trade was “dead.” While this is somewhat encouraging, I take the senator’s words with a grain of salt. Lately in Washington people have had a tendency to prematurely announce the death of bills. The health care bill was declared dead after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race, but still might get rammed through Congress this week. If Obama is going to appoint anymore Czars I think there should be a “Legislation Death Czar” to determine once and for all when a bill actually dies so we can stop talking about it. It’s also hard for me to believe that cap-and-trade is dead because Senator Graham, Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and Senator Joe Lieberman have been working on a bi-partisan Senate alternative to cap-and-trade that aims to set carbon caps on specific industries instead of creating a national target. This new bill won’t be called cap-and-trade but will still have the same effect on the specific sectors it targets, those sectors being: electric utilities, transportation, and industry.

While the new bi-partisan cap-and-trade alternative won’t put limits on the entire economy they will put limits on arguably three of the most important parts of the economy. Every individual and business uses electricity, transportation, and industry to some extent and the prices in these sectors will “necessarily skyrocket.” To solve this problem the politicians are considering giving pollution allowances directly back to consumers. They are calling this new plan cap-and-dividend, but make no mistake, this is just a wealth redistribution scheme. 

Fortunately, even this new cap-and-dividend plan will have a tough time making it through the Senate. Unfortunately, the Obama administration plans on using the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions which would have similar effects as a cap-and-trade bill except it will have been enacted by executive order rather than the legislation process.  

Why are any of these bills or executive orders even being considered when it is well-known that they will be harmful to the economy? Well, President Obama promised the world community back in December to cut U.S. carbon emissions 17% by 2020. Why 17%? Why 2020? You’re guess is as good as mine, but God forbid we break a promise to the world community.

All this nonsense is to be done in the name of slowing climate change. Nevermind that the IPCC has come under intense scrutiny lately for oversimplifying climate change information, or that the Climategate scandal has pretty much proven what many skeptics have thought all along, namely that the climate change “crisis” was all a fraud. Nope, new information or doubts about the scientific consensus don’t matter to Obama’s EPA or Democratic majorities. Perhaps these bill aren’t really about climate change?   

Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, said this about the senate bill: “What people need to understand about this bill is this really is a jobs bill, an economic transformation for America, an energy independence bill and a health/pollution-reduction bill that has enormous benefits for the country…”

If you buy that, I got some ocean front property in Arizona I’d like to sell you.

Obama: The Razzle Dazzle President

Many political commentators including Glenn Beck of Fox News and Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal have likened the Obama administration’s style of governing to the “Chicago Way” as described by Jim Malone, a character from the movie The Untouchables.        

 They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of your to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago Way.          

While I agree the Obama administration may use “bare-knuckle” tactics from time to time when engaging with opponents, as Ms. Strassel puts it, I don’t believe that the Obama administration is really all that tough. I think the Obama administration is inspired less by The Untouchables and more by Chicago: The Musical. Case and point, here’s an excerpt from the song Razzle Dazzle:         

 Give ‘em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle ‘em
Give ‘em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give ‘em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather ‘em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?      

…..         

Give ‘em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger ‘em
When you’re in trouble, go into your dance          

 ….         

Give ‘em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle ‘em
Show ‘em the first rate sorcerer you are
Long as you keep ‘em way off balance
How can they spot you’ve got no talent
Razzle Dazzle ‘em         

President Obama’s entire campaign was nothing but Razzle Dazzle. Hope and Change? That’s how he beaded and feathered his supporters. They couldn’t see because of the sequins in their eyes. Sequins like his iconic Hope poster, his fake seal or those Greek columns at the DNC convention. And who could forget “The Office of the President Elect?” This was all nothing but Razzle Dazzle. It worked beautifully during the campaign and the reaction was passionate; the hocus pocus worked.     

 As President, Obama and his team tried to continue the Razzle Dazzle that worked so well for them during the campaign, but it didn’t work so well in his first year. With almost unprecedented  majorities in both houses of Congress, President Obama and the Democrats should have been able to pass anything they wanted, but only managed to pass the failed stimulus bill. With his approval numbers sinking, a disastrous midterm election year forecasted for the Democrats, and recent Republican victories in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, the Presidents’ team realized they needed to re-tool their Razzle Dazzle. The Politico’s Mike Allen explains how they intend to do it:      

“Reform is the new Change.” They are changing their language to make us think that they aren’t trying to “fundamentally transform the United States” quickly, but rather trying to take incremental steps to ”fundamentally transform” the country.    President Obama will also travel across the country preforming dog-and-pony shows ”a series of small but highly visible policy debates that clearly put the Democrats on the side of  middle-class families.” If the Democrats were really on the side of middle-class families wouldn’t Obama’s first year policies demonstrate that? Haven’t the Democrats always claimed to be on the side of the middle-class? Why does he have to do a bunch of stump speeches to prove this?   

President Obama also plans to place a new emphasis on his “transparency agenda” by giving the American people “a very important sense that they have influence and control, and access to information.” Would you rather have a “sense” that you have influence and control in Washington or would you rather have “actual” influence and control in Washington? This is a joke. The Obama administration will simply continue to put out Soviet style charts and other propaganda on their websites and call it “transparency.” 
 

President Obama is a big government guy. He can use whatever rhetoric he wants and do as many dances as he wants, this fact will not change. He will continue to increase the size and scope of government either through legislation or through executive order. He will never explicitly say that that’s what he’s doing, but that’s what he’s doing. He tries to get away with it using Razzle Dazzle, but more and more people are starting to wake up to this. As Dick Cheney said as CPAC, “Obama is a one term President,” and he should be remembered throughout history as the Razzle Dazzle president.

Get Ready for a Health Care Shortage

President Obama released a new proposal for health care today. You can read his proposal on www.whitehouse.gov. The main purpose of this proposal is to combine the ideas of the House, the Senate, and the Republicans into one…something. I’m not sure if this is a bill that will be voted on, an executive order, or just something to talk about at the bipartisan summit on Thursday. Regardless, it is full of bad ideas.

This ‘new’ proposal will still force ask everyone to buy health insurance. According to the proposal,  ”In order to lower costs for all Americans and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, all Americans who can afford to purchase insurance will be asked to.” (emphasis mine)  It then goes on to say that, “To help bring costs under control for all Americans and cover all Americans with pre-existing conditions, all Americans who can afford insurance will have the responsibility to purchase it.” (emphasis mine) So which is it? Do we “have the responsibility” which implies that we don’t have a choice and will be required to buy health insurance, or will we be “asked” which implies we have a choice to refuse? Orwell would be proud of this kind of doublespeak. President Obama opposed this idea on the campaign trail and many have raised questions on the Constitutionality of forcing people to buy particular products from particular companies. Unfortunately, our leaders in Congress like Nancy Pelosi don’t take the Constitutional concerns about this proposal seriously.   

Be that as it may, the worst idea of the whole proposal is a new “Health Insurance Rate Authority to review and rein in unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.” The Health Insurance Rate Authority will basically be a price control panel. What will happen (most likely) is that this panel will set price ceilings on health insurance. Economics 101 tells you that when you put a price ceiling in place, a shortage will occur. This doesn’t mean that we will have less health care resources, it just means that there will be less health care providers willing to provide health care at a price fixed arbitrarily by the government. You need only ask someone who lived through the “gas crisis” of the 1970s. Price controls were enacted and there was a huge gas shortage which led to long lines at the gas stations and some gas stations setting limits on how much gas people could buy. The same thing will happen with health care. Is this what we want? I hope not. What good is having cheap or free health care if you have to wait for weeks or months to see a doctor, get test results, or have a surgical procedure? I would much rather pay a higher price to get medical care when I need it just like I would much rather pay a few more cents a gallon not to wait in line at a gas station.

There may be some good ideas in the President’s proposal, but forcing people to buy health insurance at prices set by the government is the type intrusion that will destroy our health care system. The Health Insurance Rate Authority is the new Death Panel.