Tag: Obamacare

Listen to Obama and He Tells You What He is Doing

http://news.yahoo.com/emerging-senate-proposal-focus-budget-battle-140124033–politics.html

When Obama complains about the House of Representatives he is telling you what HE is doing and not necessarily what the House is doing.

He starts his radio talk by saying that the lack of communication does not need to be this way.  Translation in reality:  Please ignore that I have repeatedly refused and still refuse to negotiate with the people’s elected representative. Instead, blame them because they have insistently asked me to have a conversation with them which I have insistently refused to do.

Then Obama goes on to say that the demands of the people’s elected representatives is extortion and he will not bow to their demands.  Translation in reality:  I will not allow them to do what is their constitutional duty unless they agree in advance to give me what I want.  Please ignore my repeated threat of veto and ignore my Senate spokesman Harry Reid’s refusal to allow the House to pass legislation.  Instead blame the Republicans in the House who are hostages some bogeyman called the Tea Party Movement.

Lastly, Obama prefers to deal with his democrat party majority in the Senate for a budget resolution.  That is because he is confident that Harry Reid will continue to force every bill sent over by the House is Dead on Arrival.  That is if Harry even allows the House bills to be entered into the Senate agenda and not thrown into the garbage as soon as the papers arrive.

Not it does not have to be this way.  As Obama says, the branches of Government should not be antagonists and shout each other.  Translation:  Please ignore that I constantly used negative names for the House leaders and elected representatives.  Ignore that I always blame them and former President Bush for all the problems I have created.  Ignore that I have run up a seven trillion dollars deficit in four years.  Forget that I bribed Senators Nelson and Landrieu with federal funds in order to get Obama Care to pass.  And forget that on every vote in the Senate all, that is 100 percent, of the Democrat Senators always vote for Obama, against the House in order to stop all legislation from being enacted.

So the lesson learned is that we should listen to Obama.  But not to look at those he accuses.  Rather, to take his accusations and look directly at him because his accusations tell us what HE is doing.

Health Care Law should be Separate

I note the inherent prejudice of the report, namely, that the reporter states that the Republicans refused to fund the government and then the reporter modifies the statement that “does not also repeal or delay the implementation of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform bill,…”  the reporter also notes that the House majority is Republican while he does not note that the Senate majority is Democrat.  Words are inportant and the word order used in a sentence influences the perceptions of the reader.  The reporter does not state the fact that the House has passed four funding resolutions that will keep workers working and keep government open.  All of house funding bills were rejected by the Senate.  As the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid said, “…the bills passed in the House which do not fund Obamacare are dead on arrival (DOA) in the Senate.”  Harry Reid is a Democrat.  Yesterday, the House passed another funding bill which would keep open all agencies closed by the shutdown.  However, because the house bill did not fund Obamacare, the Senate rejected it.  The House is repeatedly funding the government and keeping it open. The Senate is repeatedly defunding the government and closing it.  Hey, Obamacare is not functional yet.  It is planned to go into effect but the15 thousand pages of regulations need review and modifications.  History shows that taxes once inplemented and collected are never repealed.  Let’s take more time with the health care overhaul.   Let’s fund the government while we realistically approach this problem.  Please remember that it took a lot of bribery in the Senate such as the Nebraska bribe, the Louisiana bribe and the threats against incumbent Representative to get the health care law passed.  It also took Chief Justice John Robert’s extraordinary expansion, even rewrite of the law, to declare it constitutional.  We the people should demand that we separate from the current budget the health care law with it’s massive taxes, fees, fines and exemptions.  The health care law is too massive and too important to be lumped into normal congressional business.  It needs to be treated bipartisan .

childlessness Could Doom the Childless and the Nation

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/18/why-the-choice-to-be-childless-is-bad-for-america.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

 

This is a very extensive, interesting and insightful article on the “Childless Culture” of modern urban America.  Will there be enough children to replace those who are growing older and those who are dying?  If there are not enough children who will pay for the elderly?  If the childless generation succeeds, then they too will suffer.  For this writer, one area that the author of this article neglected, and probably could not gauge, was the effect of aging on those who are electing to be childless.

Now, these folk have living parents and often grandparents.  But grand parents and parents will die leaving the childless children without family.  Friends, yes.  But are today’s friends the same as today’s children who remain your children when you are old!  This idea of family as companions along the journey of life may be quaint, but I suggest a visit to a contemporary elderly life home, or a nursing home.  The people in these places often have families and yet, they cannot stay at home because of illness, frailty, behavioral problems, or simply because their children do not want to take care of them.

So, we posit the idea of millions of men and women who today could have children we imagine that they successfully carry out their childlessness.  So, imagine that they are now fifty or sixty.  They are weaker than they are now.  Some are sick.  Some are frail.  All are without grandparents, parents or children.  They are also either out of a job because of technological advances eliminating their employment, or they are forced to continue working until they are dead because of the increasing costs of urban singleton living.

Hey, they may indeed be happy.  But this is also true, there comes a point in biological life when it is no longer possible to have children.  So, the decision to be childless becomes, at that point, not reversible.  Hey, they may be used to being a “family” of one.  However, the socially hip scene changes with age.  The friends move away or die away.  The body degenerates.  So, what!  They may think that is not their problem.  And it isn’t.

As the article inferred, Obama will take care of them.  Oh, I forgot, he will be old too.  And surprise! Obama is married and has two children.  His retirement will be generous.  His wife is a successful business person.  And although his parents and grandparents are dead, I am sure he will have plenty of friends to keep him company as he grows older.  Maybe, using him as the  image for ourselves is not the best idea.  Well, to each his/her own.

Ryan Attacked by Media intent on defending Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html

The fact check is occasional but surprise that the occasion is Ryan.  Next the article calls attention to slight nuances but misses the big picture by claiming Ryan fudged when the article itself is fudging, for instance, the fact that Ryan voted against the final report is not the same as Obama ignoring the whole report.  The plant closing is a fact so let the fact stand by itself, the reported is arguing in favor of Obama and not just revealing the facts.  Was the place outside the plant and did Obama say that quote or not?  Having the reporter defend Obama while attacking Ryan isn’t reporting, it’s an editorial.  Yes, Congressmen do ask for federal grants for their States businesses, that is their job.  However, his letters were just that and not a promise to vote for something Obama wanted in return for money.  I think Obama got Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and others to give their vote to Obamacare in return for money- a nuance, yes, by a crucial one.  Atually, the third oaragraph about facts concerning medicare is an opinion of the writer since Ryan says the cuts will benefit future seniors and the writer disagrees.  Since it is the future, it is an opinion and the statement”…In addition, Ryan’s own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program’s spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.”  Is another editorial opt ed piece claiming to be fact checking but instead defending Obama.  Nothing wrong with facts and fact checking but sadly all fact checking is done to promote Obama. Nothing new here since 61 percent of Americans polled see that the media is unabashedly Democrat and biased in favor of the administration.

Paul Ryan in his Own Words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=8Bib7kKBhqs

This is a really great video and I do mean great.  Why?  Because it gives us Paul Ryan in his own words.  A lot of people are saying what they think Paul Ryan is saying.  Many others are giving us their opinions of what they think he is saying.  Today, even some of the panelists on Bret Braier (Fox) seemed not to actually know the facts about what Congressman Ryan believes regarding the fiscal crisis in USA.  Well, there is no excuse for not knowing exactly what Representative Ryan is saying because of You Tube.  There are hundreds of video’s of Mr. Ryan speaking at a host of venues and clearly articulating exactly what he says and definitively what he means.  Besides, Mr. Ryan is nice to look at, he has a pleasant voice and a dynamic style as he makes his case for fiscal responsibility.  Be informed and do not let others do your thinking for you.

Did Robert’s Betray the Majority?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html  The core of this article is that John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court may have changed his opinion at the last-minute and joined the Obama Liberals to rewrite and uphold the Obama health care law which Justice Roberts called a Tax.  We will probably not know the answer but if his change of decision was last-minute and if it was merely to save the reputation of his tenure as Chief Justice, then he should resign.  Why?  Because a Supreme Court Justice should not, for purely personal reasons, change his convictions and his impartial judgement concerning the constitutionality of a law.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rationale of the ruling.  However, as a person with a reasonable mind, as the ruling was announced on TV I thought that Roberts wanted to save Obama.  Now, I understand that the article says he wanted to save his court.  It is bad enough, for him to save his court at  great financial cost to the nation.  But, I would add, that since the inauguration, when Robert flubbed the Oath of Office, he has been very sensitive to Barrack Hussein Obama as being the first black President.  When a man makes a silly mistake like the flubbing of the oath, he has a subconscious desire to “make it up to the other person”.  This could even be a subliminal urge that cannot be accounted rational.  It is instead highly personal and the non rational nature of Justice Roberts decison to uphold Obama care based on Robert’s use of the word tax as opposed to penalty evidences his need to make things right with The Man.  Very sadly, the entire nation must live with the foible of one white man’s need to ingratiate himself to a black man.  AND before you get all racist against my calling white and black, please remember the Congressional Black Caucus walkout, Eric Holder’s racism accusations against the entire House of Representative and starting with the Cambridge police incident, Barrack Obama’s statements that the white cops acted stupidly.  For any accusers, here is my take.  I now believe that it is in the best interests of America to talk about race frankly.  Therefore, when black Americans are allowed to consistently, persistently and regularly use the race card against white Americans, it is fair game for the White Americans to do the same to them. Maybe with a new frankness, we can finally get past the inordinate power given to black americans because it is held that only they can use the race card and no one else.  It is so stupid that as soon as a writer, like myself, points out black versus white, it is always regarded by our politically correct culture as being the white person who is racist.  Can a black person be racist?  Well, enough of that because it really is something that should not be necessary in a cultured, civilized and educated society.

Back to Roberts.  Could it be that the Chief Justice decided at the end to abandon the majority because he wanted to save Obama. The article seems to indicate that the opinion of Minority was actually written as the opinion of the “then” majority.  Could Robert’s have played the Judas at the last-minute?  Is that the reason for Justice Kennedy’s strident assertion in dissent that the Chief Justice changed the law and thereby actually revised it in order to make it constitutional?  Obviously, revision of a law is the prerogative of the House and Senate and not of the Court.

Another possibility- Could Robert’s have thought that he was saving the Congress and defending them in their legislative function.  If that is the case, then he legislated from the bench in order to save the legislature.  That is twisted to say the least.  But also stupid because the Dissent indicated that they were willing to strike down the whole law. This would have delivered the nation from the tyranny of a law which was purchased from Nebraska, from Louisiana, from Missouri and from Wisconsin with bribery,  a bribery using US tax dollars against the will of its citizens.

There is a cry from the Democrats that only now must we move on and leave things as they are.  This is pure politics.  There are good reasons for taking the fight against Obama care back to the legislature.  Not least of which is the Brief submitted by 26 State governments opposing the implementation of the tax.  Since Robert’s has declared the “mandate” to be a tax, the powers of the House and Senate are affirmed and the House can exercise those powers by constant attempts to repeal this unfair, unpopular and flawed tax.  Of course, the House will need to get past the uncompromising blockade established by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, who has declared all such proposed legislation to be “dead on arrival” and therefore not even to be considered by the Democrat Senate.

I said at the beginning that if the reasons enumerated here are true, then Chief Justice Roberts should resign.  I retract that opinion.  If they are true, let him repent of personal prejudice and confess, at least to himself.  The nation is not served by a obsequious Supreme Court  whose Chief Justice is afraid of the Black man in the White House and therefore is willing to abandon values, judgement and therefore Justice in order that The Man would not scold him.  Because, if that is the actual reason he decided as he did, then the Supreme Court is very severely damaged in the view not only of the partially informed public but of the legally trained who can only regard such a ruling as flawed beyond belief.

Advertisers Fail Their True Buyers Except Quicken Loans

Some companies indicate they’ll be sticking with Rush, though. “While we do not condone or agree with Limbaugh’s statements regarding Sandra Fluke, we respect his right to express his views, as well as those who disagree with him,” Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver said in an emailed statement. “As an advertiser, our goal is to reach a broad audience, which we accomplish by placing ads on a number of programs across the country representing diverse views.”

Congratulations to a true freedom loving, constitution respecting, American company and to spokes person Paula Silver for clearly stating what should be obvious to all namely “….we respect his right to express his views as well as those who disagree with him…As an Advertiser (see above)..”

Who are the callers to sleep Eze and the other advertisers who stopped advertisements or affiliation with the hugely popular Rush Limbaugh show.  I very much doubt they are regular listeners to his three-hour program.  I suggest instead that these are what are known today as “political drones” who are paid to complain or if not actually paid, they are people who sit before their computer screen eight or more hours a day in order to attack their political, social, or religious opponents.”

The existence of these kind of chronic E mail hacks, is known by just about everybody, except those advertisers who do not have the native intelligence nor the Internet savvy to understand that the so-called “firestorm” of protest about the Limbaugh comments was generated by people who never listen to his program and therefore would not buy their products anyway.  The mere fact that the news reports indicate that all Limbaugh advertisers received the same deluge of E mail complaints and telephone protests tells us that this was merely a coordinated sociopolitical motivated attempt at intimidation.  That even the Speaker of the House of Representative Mr. Boehner was subjected to this obviously organized barrage and that he responded to it tells this writer that the so-called outrage is phony.  Also the idea that President Barrack Hussein Obama called her to thank her for standing up for women’s rights is a clear indication that this supposed spontaneous public outcry is a sham.

Why do I care?  Actually, I do not know this woman.  I do not care what she does with her life.  I do not care if this makes her famous, like Joe the Plumber or not.  However, I do care that major USA corporations are so ill-informed concerning the American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to have sex or not to have sex, that they easily fall victim and become accomplices to those who would change our social/religious/political values by Internet intimidation.  That is worrisome.

Limbaugh Innocent But Are Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, David Letterman, and Rachel Maddox?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10561783-boehner-calls-limbaugh-remarks-inappropriate

The uproar over this so-called outrage is a lot of wind about nothing.  I listened to the Limbaugh show and although I found Mr. Limbaugh’s analogies a little surprising, he in no way called the person individually a slut.  What he did is what a lot of social commentators do and that is to use satire for effect.  He also used hyberole for effect as well.  And although sometimes Rush Limbaugh’s hyperbolic satire is uncomfortable, it is not done as a personal attack, has no personal animosity to it, and often highlights the silliness of our society as the society deals with such concepts as birth control and abortion.  What I heard Mr. Limbaugh say was that a student at Georgetown Roman Catholic Law School said that on a coed campus, students have such active sex lives that the cost of contraception can run over one thousand dollars a year.  Then, Mr. Limbaugh stated that the student felt that it is the responsibility of society and health insurers to pay for such contraception.  Then Mr. Limbaugh carried it further to wonder if under Obama Care therefore, it is the citizens who pick up the tab for the promiscuous students who have such active sex lives that contraception is so expensive.  By extension therefore, he mused if a student who has regular sexual encounters with fellow college students could be called a slut?  He then went forward to wonder if all the male counterparts are also, Johns.  Then he extended it to the idea if the citizens pay for the contraception, then are the citizens the pimps.  Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh did use the student’s name repeatedly and said he could  do so because her statements was on the public record.  I mentioned Jon Steward in the title because of his comments concerning President Bush during Mr. Bush’s Presidency.  I could also refer to the highly personal and offensive remarks of Keith Obermann over Mr. Bush’s manhood and masculinity during the time Mr. Bush was President of the USA.  I also recall highly personal and offensive remarks made against Mr. Bush by Rachel Maddox when she was on TV.   Neither Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, nor Rachel Maddox intended their remarks to be hyperbole or satire. Rather, those remarks and the nightly crassness of David Letterman during the Bush Presidental terms were intended to be personally affronting and mean-spirited criticism of our elected President.  This writer is sorry that Speaker Boehner felt it necessary to add his voice to this tempest in teapot high dungeon drama.  It also amazes me that in a time when the word F–k is regularly used in music and when many Rap songs refer to women as whores, bitches and objects  deserving of violent abusive rape  it is obvious that the “slut” outrage is politically motivated and intended to portray as bigots those who do not want to pay for others people’s contraception