Hyscience

March 18, 2010

Rahm Emanuel: 'Fake Bipartisanship' a better way

As Ramesh Ponnuru suggests, Republicans should file this quote away.

Posted by Richard at 5:28 PM| Comments

Re: 'CAIR Seeks to Censor Books on Radical Islam'

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is once again after our right to free speech and our right to know the truth about radical Islam.

If you've somehow forgotten what it is about radical Islam that CAIR doesn't want you to know about, take the time to watch the Fox News Network special that was dedicated to the film "Obsession:Radical Islam's War against the West."

Here's Part 1:

(Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.)

After watching all of the videos, note how nothing has changed and that the truth is now all the more evident since the series was aired back in November of 2006, and that there's obviously a reason CAIR doesn't want us to know the truth.

Posted by Richard at 4:44 PM| Comments

Saul Alinsky on the meaning of 'reconciliation'

Via Andy McCarthy:

I thought this was an interesting passage from Rules for Radicals by Obama's mentor, Saul Alinsky, on "reconciliation" in our "world of irrationality" - in which the pragmatic radical is instructed to work within the system to achieve revolution:
It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where "reconciliation" means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation[.]

Anyone still doubt where the Democrats get their ideology from?

Posted by Richard at 2:59 PM| Comments

Polls: Narcissist-in-Chief continues to tank (Obamacare along with him)

In a quick check of Rasmussen and Gallop, I see that our Narcissist-in-Chief continues to tank to his lowest approvals yet.

And in a Fox News poll released Thursday, 55 percent oppose the reforms being considered, while 35 percent favor them. Folks, you don't have to be a math whiz to see this is a 20 point spread against Obamacare. The poll also found that a walloping sixty five percent say to do nothing or start over.

It seems like every time this guy runs his mouth he sinks further down.

So keep on yakin' Barry, and keep takin' Congress down with you!

Posted by Richard at 2:30 PM| Comments

John Boehner (R-OH): 'This is Not About You Mr. President, it's about the American people'

Steve Foley calls attention to what should be everyones' quote of the day. It's from a press conference held this morning with House & Senate GOP leaders during which House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) dismissed our arrogant, Narcissist-in-Chief's sales pitch to rank-and-file Democrats that "the fate of this presidency" is on the line with the upcoming health care vote:

I'm sorry Mr. President, this isn't about you. It's not about the office you hold and it's not about the Speaker. This is about the American people and the health care system that they want for our country.

Steve has the full text.

Posted by Richard at 2:13 PM| Comments

Video: 90 Seconds to Gov't Run Healthcare

This NRCC ad puts the Dems' trickery and deception in a nutshell':

An explaination of the process Nancy Pelosi and Democrats are using to take away your healthcare.

Posted by Richard at 2:04 PM| Comments

CBO's latest score exposes Dems' chicanery (Updated)

Looking at the just-released preliminary numbers makes it perfectly clear that the Dems are, as usual, using tricks like these to pull the wool over what they believe to be a dumb American public.

And just how dumb do the Pelosicrats think the American public is? As a commenter at Hot Air aptly noted about the CBO's $940 billion price tag:

You can't make this stuff up.

A 10 year estimate for 6 years of the program.

Judging by the increases, you're looking at $940 billion just over the final 4 years.

So the actual first 10 years of the program it comes in at around 1.8 trillion.

And if the American public doesn't scream their heads off over this, that's how dumb we'll be.

Update: The reconciliation amendment is up and available on the House Rules Committee web site. So the clock is now ticking. (H/t - Daniel Foster)

Posted by Richard at 7:32 AM| Comments

Walgreens in Wash. State: No new Medicaid patients as of April 16

In what should be seen as a harbinger of what will become standard throughout the U.S. should Obamacare pass, Walgreens drug stores throughout the state of Washington will stop taking new Medicaid patients as of April 16, saying it loses money filling their prescriptions:

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition -- the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Simply put, drug stores cannot stay in business when they fill Medicaid prescriptions at a reimbursement rate that costs them money, just as doctors cannot afford to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients ( and are already refusing to do so) at reimbursement rates that cost them money.

In other words, good luck on finding a doctor or getting a prescription filled after Obamacare passes, if you have Medicaid or Medicare - especially after the associated $500 Billion in cuts.

Posted by Richard at 6:58 AM| Comments

March 17, 2010

Rasmussen poll: GOP opens up ten-point lead on generic Congressional ballot

The meltdown continues with the GOP now opening up a double-digit lead over the Democrats for the first time in Rasmussen's weekly survey, and it's the biggest lead ever in nearly three years of weekly tracking

Barack Obama's approval doesn't help. Rasmussen has his overall approval at 44%, and his disapproval at 55%.

One can only imagine how bad things are going to be for the Democrats if they ram through Obamacare.

H/t - Ed Morrissey

Posted by Abdul at 10:52 AM| Comments

Kucinich

Just now on Fox, heard Dennis Kucinich announce his decision to vote yes on Obamacare, as though there was any doubt what this liberal progressive was going to say. What struck me most though was that his speech sounded as though it had been written by the White House since it spent as much time praising Barack Obama as a messiah and defending the White House's socialism than it did addressing his decision. Hell, he even drifted to defending the WH's foreign policy.

Apparently, the ride on Air Force one was all it took to flip this loon's vote from a no to not just a yes, but a "I love Barack Obama and he is not a far-Left, radical socialist, trying to radically transform America" vote.

Posted by Abdul at 10:19 AM| Comments

NEMJ poll results show 46% of family practitioners will feel forced out of medicine if ObamaCare passes

If you needed yet another indicator that there will be far fewer medical practitioners to see patients should Obamacare pass, with long wait times and less care as even Barack Obama's doctor cousin has predicted, this is it.

Let there be no doubt; Obamacare can only result in rationed care, by both a shortage of providers andby government fiat.

Posted by Abdul at 9:57 AM| Comments

Hoyer tells straight out lie about WSJ poll results on health care support

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has a new tactic: telling straight out lies about what's in specific polls.

In other words, when truth hurts, change it to suit your own agenda.

Seems this is almost a disease among Democrats, with Barack Obama being the sickest among them.

Posted by Abdul at 9:41 AM| Comments

The 'Dark Side' of what the Dems are really saying about health care

As Monica Crowley aptly points out, the Democrats say one thing about Obamacare, but they mean something else - something much darker, and less visible to the naked eye. And its dangerous to both our health and our freedom.

The first assertion Crowley makes caught most of my attention:

As the health care "debate" reaches its farcical end, consider four assertions the Obama administration has made in its final attempt to persuade wary House Democrats to vote for the ungainly and loathsome Senate bill.

What does Mr. Obama mean when he says, "It's within our grasp"? Of course, on the surface, he means his vision of health care "reform." But he's talking about something else as well. Something bigger, darker and less visible to the naked eye.

He's saying that the fundamental remaking of America is within his grasp. He's saying total government control of your life is within his grasp. He's saying the radical vision only dreamed about by his philosophical mentor, Saul Alinsky, is within his grasp. He's saying that European-style democratic socialism is within his grasp. He's saying that radical progressivism is alive and well and that its promise of a command economy, a smothering state and dwindling of individual freedoms is within his grasp. (emphasis added)

That's what he was really saying. Remember: Alinsky's vision of moving America toward a radical model of wealth redistribution is Mr. Obama's vision.

It's within his grasp. He just warned you.

If you think for even a moment that Crowley's take is a bit of a stretch, think again. Obama has promised to "fundamentally transform America." And as for Crowley's suggestion that Barack Obama's vision is that of Saul Alinsky, one need only to read the words of Saul Alinsky's son to know that this is indeed the case. David Alinsky said on the eve of his father's 100th birthday, "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky..."

Saul Alinsky's worldview was that the United States is an oppressive and racist society where most people (the Have-Nots) are the victims of economic injustice with a future of despair. He wanted a radical change of America's social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. His goal was not to arrive at compromise or peaceful solution; his goal was to crush the Haves and transform society.

This is the world view of the man that now sits in the White House, who, along with like-minded Democrats in Congress, are trying to force Obamacare on the American people in a major step toward controlling every aspect of our lives and redistributing wealth from those that earn it to those who do not. It represents the darkest of the dark side of what the Dems are trying to force down the throats of the American people.

Readers should take the time to read Crowley's deconstruction of 3 other assertions made by the Obama administration. As she goes on to point out, now that we are at the health care endgame, Americans need to remember there is what Team Obama says, and then there is the unspoken subtext and the much more complicated truth.

Posted by Abdul at 8:13 AM| Comments

lgf On BBC

"Mainstream media doing a better job of fact-checking than right-wing blogs?"

Has Charles Johnson had some kind of mental breakdown, as Dan Riehl suggests?

Johnson's a bright guy, so what else explains his mental derangement!

Posted by Abdul at 7:46 AM| Comments

Democrats ignoring health care reform's canary in the coalmine (Updated)

Breezing through an article today at the American Spectator by W. James Antle, III, several nuggets caught my eye. They're the comments of Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill who points out that what the Democrats are about to do to our national health care system is very much like what was done in Massachusetts with Romneycare (Cato calls it the "almost perfect mirror of Obamacare" and even political adviser David Axelrod essentially says this is the case), and according to Cahill, the Mass. system is not only fatally flawed but if the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform adopted in Massachusetts on a national level, "they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years":

Continue reading "Democrats ignoring health care reform's canary in the coalmine (Updated)"

Posted by Abdul at 6:48 AM| Comments

March 16, 2010

Heritage Foundation: Obamacare Slaughter Rule is without Precedent

According to the Heritage Foundation, contrary to the left's claim that because Republicans have done it in the past, then they can do the same - the Constitutional question is on the table and there is no direct precedent for the House to pass a reconciliation measure which deems a massive health care bill to have passed without a direct vote:

[...] Many on the left are relying on a Congressional Research Service Report (CRS) for the proposition that the Slaughter Rule has been used on numerous occasions. According to CRS, self-executing rules are a "two for one" that describes "when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up." Now many times this has happened to incorporate amendments before a bill receives an up or down vote or it can be used to get a bill to conference.

The self-executing rule can be used to deal with bills containing amendments added by the Senate. The CRS report cites a few examples of self-executing rules to "enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions." The first example CRS identifies is that "on August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less duration." The legislation to prohibit smoking on domestic flights was made part of another bill, then that other bill received a vote. This is very different, because the health care reconciliation measure will not be incorporated into the Senate passed version of Obamacare and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate for separate consideration. (emphasis added)

It would seem that even the Democratic leadership could discern the difference between prohibiting smoking on domestic flights and the massive "transformation" of our health care system with the federal government essentially taking over a sixth of our national economy; but of course we're talking about politicians who place their ideology ahead of common sense, precedence, and the will of the American public, so what's there to be surprised about!

Posted by Abdul at 4:07 PM| Comments

House Democrats want Obama's trip delayed again

This tells me that the Dems not only still don't have the votes, they're divided and struggling to get more, and need Dear Leader's help.

Related: Dead Congress Walking (The liberals are mad at the centrists, the centrists are mad at the liberals. Democrats in the House are angry at those in the Senate, and deeply suspicious of being betrayed. The centrists are also mad at Obama, for picking the wrong cause (health care and not the economy), doing it in the wrong way (big and expensive, not incremental and smaller), and pushing them to risk their careers in backing a cause and a program neither they nor their constituents want.)

15-25.Emery_.jpg

Image by Gary Locke

Posted by Abdul at 3:28 PM| Comments

Some Democrats were opposed to Slaughter-like solutions before they were for it

And, as Sister Toldjah quips, you'll never guess which three.

Calling it a flip-flop of epic proportions is an understatement. This is a jaw-dropping, head-slapping, eye-rolling, laugh-out-loud-rolling-on-the-floor, seriously sick flip-flop by the very people pushing this Constitution-busting, Democracy-fracturing, but apparently legal (though highly inappropriate) strategy.

Posted by Abdul at 10:50 AM| Comments

Townhall: 'Texas Kicks Out Liberal Bias From Textbooks'

The good news is that the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) just told liberals to stop "messing" with social studies textbooks and has ended years of liberals' revisionist history
imposed on our nation's public school students. The bad news is that it was allowed in the first place.

Phyllis Schlafly writes:

By a 10-to-five margin, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) just told liberals to stop "messing" with social studies textbooks.

For years, liberals have imposed their revisionist history on our nation's public school students, expunging important facts and historic figures while loading the textbooks with liberal propaganda, distortions and cliches. It's easy to get a quick lesson in the virulent left-wing bias by checking the index and noting how textbooks treat President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

When parents object to left-wing inclusions and omissions, claiming they should have something to say about what their own children are being taught and how their taxpayers' money is spent, they are usually vilified as "book burners" and belittled as uneducated primitives who should allow the "experts" to decide. The self-identified "experts" are alumni of liberal teachers colleges and/or members of a left-wing teachers union.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state's board of education, department of education and curriculum committees. Texas is different -- the Texas State Board of Education is elected, and the people (even including parents!) have a voice.

[...] After a public outcry, the SBOE responded with common-sense improvements. Thomas Edison, the world's greatest inventor, will be again included in the narrative of American history.

Schoolchildren will no longer be misled into believing that capitalism and the free market are dirty words and that America has an unjust economic system. Instead, they will learn how the free-enterprise system gave our nation and the world so much that is good for so many people.

Liberals don't like the concept of American exceptionalism. The liberals want to teach what's wrong with America (masquerading under the code word "social justice") instead of what's right and successful. The SBOE voted to include describing how American exceptionalism is based on values that are unique and different from those of other nations.

The SBOE specified that teaching about the Bill of Rights should include a reference to the right to keep and bear arms. Some school curricula pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

Is this the week democracy dies in America?

AJStrata says this is the week that democracy dies in America, and given what we're seeing the Democrats attempting to pull-off in Washington this week, it's hard to disagree with his argument:

[...] (the) need to fake stories and make up lies to sell this crazy liberal scheme and confiscate our personal health care is why democracy is dying in America. Congress is despised, with less than 20% support and 75% of America in opposition. People want them fired - all of them. And yet they mindlessly continue to push for the destruction of our health care.

And to get there, they plan to destroy our constitution. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are big on talking about an up or down vote on health care. Real big. All they moan about is getting a vote for their proposals. Something they were free to do (and lose on) for over a year now. But that is all really a lie my friends. There will be no vote:
After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.
To boil down on past all the misinformation, the Democrats will let their members vote on what they wish was in the bill, but illegally bypass reconciliation by saying that means they passed the Senate bill with all the stuff they don't like.

It is all a lie, because the Senate cannot go to reconciliation until the President SIGNS the senate bill. That mess has to become law first, then they may get around to fixing it. They will not vote, they will put on a show and then switch the bills out from under are dumb noses. How slick these people are!

Most of us are resigned to the reality DC is completely out of control and needs to be dismantled. Government now exists to please itself, not work for the people. It is still our country, and we will take it back this November. But right now all we can do is watch the fools tear it apart in their mad quest.

Read it all ...

AJ is essentially suggesting that democracy dies when representative government fails, and clearly, the Democrats' health care debacle has now brought us to a point at which the majority party has clearly decided to force its ideologically-based will on the American public. And they are doing so with, as Jennifer Rubin describes it, a bill that is so noxious that lawmakers have to pretend they aren't voting for it in order to, well, vote for it. Hence:

[...] "We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn't want to vote for it."

Even Nancy Pelosi is trying to keep things vague, suggesting it may not come to this. But it is coming to this, because a desperate president and the equally desperate Democratic leadership fear losing, so they resort to tricks, backroom deals, and parliamentary sleights of hand. That's in large part how the bill got to be so unpopular. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem intent on doubling down, so why not load up on the procedural gimmicks? At some point -- now would be as good a time as any -- saner Democratic heads may prevail and wonder why their leaders must shred the Constitution in order to pass a bill that's supposedly such an electoral winner for their side.

In other words, our elected officials no longer heed the will of those that put them in office, our representative government has essentially failed, and yes, should Pelosi and Obama get this bill passed, we are likely to look back on this week as the week that democracy died, or at the very least, began to fall apart in America.

Posted by Abdul at 8:36 AM| Comments

Re: Hugh Hewitt: Key Democratic Blogger Tells Us How To Direct Fire (Game Plan)

Hugh Hewitt put a brief post up last night that needs to be passed around and used as today's game plan for stopping Obamacare:

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight blog --the best of the lefty bloggers by far-- lets us know the ten key Democrats on whom to lean (and to whose opponents your contibutions should be directed if they vote "yes" on Obamacare):

You can use the House switchboard via 202-225-3121. Call them all. Pledge to help their opponents if they vote "yes" on Obamacare.But also keep the pressure on this list, especially the Ohio five.

Keep in mind that there's far more conservatives in America than liberals (who make up only 21% of the population) and that the majority of Americans do not want Obamacare. In other words, theres far more people on the side of stopping this monstrosity - so let your voices be heard and overwhelm the far-Left's collective of unions, socialists, and misinformed Democrats. Also, help your friends be more informed and not mislead by the outright mis-truths and mis-representations of Nancy Pelowi and Barack Obama.

So, melt those phone lines, fax lines, and email addresses. Your life, health, and economic well-being could very well depend on it - and this is no exaggeration. (You can also not only send a letter to your elected Representative but also to The Blue Dog Democrat Coalition, whose 58 members hold the fate of Obamacare in their hands, simply by clicking here and filling out the form.)

Posted by Abdul at 7:58 AM| Comments

Awesome video: Stupak as Braveheart stands against Obama and Pelosi

Via StandwithStupak.com (Notice the faces):

Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic Leaders have gone back on their word. They refuse to remove abortion subsidies from the healthcare bill.

Rep. Bart Stupak has steadfastly opposed these attempts to hijack healthcare reform with big bailouts for the abortion industry.

Stupak is standing strong on principle and refuses to roll over.

"Even if [the Democratic Leaders] don't have the votes, it's been made clear to us that they won't insert our language on the abortion issue," said Stupak.

But Stupak says Pelosi is trying to strong-arm the 12 pro-life Democrats aligned with Stupak. The pressure is extremely intense and Pelosi is willing to win at any cost.

"I am a definite 'no' vote," said Stupak. "The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we're all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions."

The Unions are even promising to recruit primary challengers against anyone who refuses to support this pro-abortion healthcare bill.

We can't stay silent. There's too much at stake. These men and women need our help!

H/t - Nice Deb, who also points to this statement by Cardinal Francis George, OMI: The Cost is too High; the Loss is too Great:

Posted by Richard at 12:52 AM| Comments

The bottom line for Democrats who vote for the Slaughter rule

Ramesh Ponnuru cuts right to the chase in delivering the bottom line for the Democrats should they follow through with their plan to follow the Slaughter strategy; the American public will not be fooled and the Dems are essentially handing the Republicans their strategy for the 2010 elections:

Opponents of Obamacare have recently been talking about how outrageous the Slaughter strategy is. I agree with them. But there's another point that's worth making more than Republicans have: It's not going to buy the Democrats much political cover, and might make their situation marginally worse.

Any House Democrat who votes for the rule that allows the Senate bill to be deemed passed will be voting for the Senate bill. A foreseeable consequence of that vote is that the Senate bill may become law while some of the fixes the House votes for do not. It is entirely fair for Republican opponents of any House Democrat who votes for the Slaughter rule to tie him to the Senate bill. Republicans will be able to say, fairly, that such a House Democrat has voted for the Senate bill - kickbacks and all - and tried to hide the fact. Republicans may as well point out now that that's exactly what they're going to do.

Posted by Richard at 12:44 AM| Comments

Must-watch videos: Rep. Paul Ryan slams reconciliation, Slaughter solution, backroom sleazy deals behind HCR - Fox News' Jim Engle esposes Obama's lies about Medicare

This video is actually more than a slam, it's a smack down, and it truthfully addresses the real mis-truths, costs, and dangers behind Obamacare (H/t - Sister Toldjah, with more commentary and links):

Ryan also wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post today and he pointed out, among other highly troubling issues, that the HCR demonstrates that the debate is not about healthcare:

[...] Despite claims of transparency and calls for a "simple up-or-down vote," there is nothing simple about this process. This convoluted legislative charade demonstrates how far the Democratic majority has wandered from real health-care reform and cost control, employing any means to achieve political victory.

[..] This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules. The CBO said last July that "requiring employers to offer health insurance, or pay a fee if they do not, is likely to reduce employment." The mix of mandates and higher costs will drive Americans into government exchanges, with an ever-enlarging number reliant upon taxpayer subsidies for their care. The architecture is designed to give the government greater control over what kind of insurance is available, how much health care is enough and which treatments are worth paying for.

[...] If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology.

Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy. (emphasis added)

In this absolutely must-watch related video, Jim Engle of Fox News corrects the Democrats "Fuzzy Math on Health Care" while exposing Barack Obama's bold faced, straight-out lie in which he states: "The most insidious argument they're making (Obamacare opponents) is that this would somehow hurt Medicare; this proposal makes Medicare stronger, it makes the coverage better, and it makes the finances more secure, and anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed or they're trying to misinform you."

Watching the video it becomes perfectly clear that Mr. Obama is the one that is either terribly misinformed, trying to misinform America, or is purposefully lying in order to sell his disastrous health care bill. Take the time to watch the entire video (begins with brief ad).

Posted by Richard at 12:12 AM| Comments

March 15, 2010

America 'hearts' conservatism

Frank Fleming cuts right to the chase: "America hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, thus making liberalism very unpopular."

And that's why, as Fleming writes, America Loves Conservatism:

[...] Americans hate being pushed around in the form of government expansion or a bunch of liberal elites spending hundreds of billions of dollars when it's quite obvious none of them have the economic know-how to run a hot dog stand. And that's Americans everywhere -- even in Massachusetts! The recent election made that inarguable; the number one complaint of those voting Republican was the Democrats' health care takeover. Democrats worked hard toward achieving that holy grail of liberalism, and it got them the most stunning defeat since ... well, ever.

[...] So America loves conservatism and hates liberalism, but which has been the greater factor recently? The two do seem pretty intertwined, because a big part of conservatism is hating useless people who are convinced they should run everything, i.e., liberals. Still, if I had to pick one as the more powerful force in politics, it would be hatred of liberalism. While everyone hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, most people don't care enough to join a political movement and wax on philosophically about the principles of conservatism. Then again, not caring is actually kinda conservative. Still, it's not like you can build a consistent movement out of that and keep people interested when they have their own lives to deal with.

The best strategy to keep the public engaged is to expose liberals for what they want to do. Liberals will always try to hide it, but if people see clearly what liberals' goals are, they're going to hate those and want to smash them. That will always be true while America is still around. Unfortunately, as we now see, the easiest way to do that is to put liberals in charge.

Obama foreign policy failure: Ties between Israel and US 'worst in 35 years'

Via the BBC, Israeli media have reported that Israel's ambassador to the US has said that relations between the two countries are at their lowest point for 35 years.

This further substantiates our earlier post today in which was pointed out that Barack Obama's inept foreign policy is most definitely on the verge of losing the world.

Given the administration's propensity to diss our friends and embrace our enemies, it's little wonder that the U.S.- Israel relationship has deteriorated to the point that it's the worst in 35 years. The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial piece today titled, Obama's Turn Against Israel (subscription required - text via Ynet) that exposes the insanity of Obama's foreign policy:

... the Obama administration "has endorsed 'healthy relations' between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the US of 'colonialism,' and publicly apologized to Muammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for 'a jihad' against Switzerland."

However, when it comes to Israel, "the administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation," wrote the article entitled "Obama's Turn Against Israel."

Not even "repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama - from calling the announcement 'an insult to the United States,'" stated the opinion piece.

"Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it's difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern allyâ€¦ If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the US might react to a military strike on Iran.'

The financial newspaper took an opposite stance on West Bank settlements than that adopted by the Obama administration: "As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians."

"This episode does fit Mr. Obama's foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it's Israel's turn," ...

None of this should have come as a surprise, however. As Ed Lasky wrote back in january 08, one seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates.

This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.

As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship.

Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain.

Read more and find out the extent of Jeremiah Wright, Jr.'s, George Soro's, and another fundraiser's anti-Israel, anti-Semitism influence on Barack Obama, as well as the long list of Obama's anti-Israel advisors.

Related: The Source of Obama's Anti-Israel Policy (A must-read perspective from a Black, Harvard Law School Graduate, and former leftist Democrat, who, like Obama also has Muslims in his family)

Posted by Richard at 1:22 PM| Comments

The 'Great Reneger'

I found this over at Wizbang... and I'd also like to give it the fullest of endorsements:

Borrowing from Wizbang's post:

... for those of you inclined to read more into this than common sense would allow, I bring you Dictionary.com's definition of the word Reneger:
...to go back on one's word: He has reneged on his promise.
In other words, you race-baiters and Sharpton/Jackson/Olbermann wannabees... take a damned hike and peddle your nonsense to the gullible... it won't play here. (emphasis added)

And if you folks on the far-Left don't like it, you can go screw yourselves. I'm fed up with all your race-baiting nonsense - especially given what we're seeing from our racist-in-chief!

Posted by Richard at 1:07 PM| Comments

Re: Whip Count at 191-Y; 203-N: w/ 4 Priority Democrats To Target

Via Dan Riehl, FDL has it that the latest whip count for ObamaCare stands at 191 for, 203 opposed. They also suggest these four below may be turns from No to Yes. If they're in your District, call them, fax them, and email them. After all, they work for you, too.

Clyburn took the unusual step of naming four former Democratic opponents who he's hopeful are preparing to vote for the reform legislation: Reps. Brian Baird of Washington state, Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and John Boccieri of Ohio.
"That's four people right there who voted no before," Clyburn said. "Why don't we talk about them? Everyone's talking about who we might lose."

You can also not only send a letter to your elected Representative AND to The Blue Dog Democrat Coalition, whose 58 members hold the fate of Obamacare in their hands, simply by clicking here and filling out the form.

Posted by Richard at 12:38 PM| Comments