Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Headline of the day, “Greek” double entendre

Heh.

Advertisements

March 31, 2010 Posted by | headlines, humor | 1 Comment

Fox News ratings up; MSNBC, CNN way down

Oh, waiter?  Could I please get a double-order of Awesome, with a heaping helping of Awesome sauce?

Heh.

CNN continued what has become a precipitous decline in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010, with its main hosts losing almost half their viewers in a year.

The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.

Here’s the kicker, and please be sure to put down your beverage before reading this:

CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.

So sayeth the New York Friggin’ Times!  😆

Anywho, CNN isn’t going to change anything with their prime-time viewing.  What’s that about the definition of insanity?

March 30, 2010 Posted by | CNN, Fox News, media bias, MSNBC | 2 Comments

Dems to American business: Hey, could you please shut up about how ObamaCare is costing you a fortune

Caterpillar.  John Deere.  Verizon.  Valero.  3M.  The list of companies who will be socked with $100+ million tax bills grows every day, thanks to the passage of ObamaCare.  These businesses are letting everyone know about the tax hits.

How are the Dems reacting?  Why, by trotting these companies before Congress, of course!  Details:

Here’s the story:  one of the provisions in the new health care law forces companies to treat the current subsidies for retiree health benefits as taxable income.  This strikes me as dumb policy; there’s not much point in giving someone a subsidy, and then taxing it back, unless you just like doing extra paperwork.  And since the total cost of the subsidy, and any implied tax subsidy, is still less than we pay for an average Medicare Part D beneficiary, we may simply be encouraging companies to dump their retiree benefits and put everyone into Part D, costing us taxpayers extra money.
But this is neither here nor there, because Congress already did it.  And now a bunch of companies with generous retiree drug benefits have announced that they are taking large charges to reflect the cost of the change in the tax law.
Henry Waxman thinks that’s mean, and he’s summoning the heads of those companies to Washington to explain themselves.  It’s not clear what they’re supposed to explain.  What they did is required by GAAP.  And I’ve watched congressional hearings.  There’s no chance that four CEO’s are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.
Obviously, Waxman is incensed because this seems to put the lie to the promise that if you like your current plan, nothing will change.  But this was never true.  Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are basically going to see their generous benefits slashed, retiree drug benefits suddenly cost more and may now be discontinued, and ultimately, more than a few employers will almost certainly find it cheaper to shut down their plans.  If Congress didn’t want those things to happen, it should have passed a different law.
 
If Congress thinks that it made the right tradeoffs–or at least, justiiable choices–then our Congressmen should step up and accept responsibility for what they’ve done.  At the very least, I think we can ask that they refrain from trying to force companies to join them in denying reality by threatening congressional investigation of any company who dares to notify investors that this thing is going to cost them money.

“Shut up”, he explained.

Los Grandes Nostrils has a lot of gall.  American businesses have to use real-world accounting practices, whereas Congress does not.  When these businesses inform us as to the actual results of socialized medicine, they are told to keep their cakeholes shut.

Ace thinks the same way I do:

In fact, Waxman doesn’t want an answer to that; what he wants is for companies to hide these new, embarrassing costs illegally, so that Democrats don’t have to answer questions about them. And he figures harassment and the threat of punitive legislative action should be enough to give other companies the hint.

Memo to the Dems: No!  They do not have to keep the bad news to themselves!  And come November, there are two things that the Dems can do about this: jack and squat.

March 30, 2010 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, health care, shameful, socialism | Leave a comment

AP: OK, there’s no proof that Tea Partiers used the N-word, but guess what? There’s no proof they DIDN’T use it!

Apparently, Dan Rather doubles as “Michael Blood”, beat writer for the AP.

If you recall, Dan Rather tried arguing in 2004 that the Bush Texas Air National Guard memos may have been fake, but the story was accurate.  Moreover, he argued, those of us who called him on his forgeries never proved that Bush didn’t shirk his duties, which was the point of the memo.  In other words, nobody ever proved that the…forged documents’…content…wasn’t…wrong?

Here’s what I’m talking about, courtesy of Andrew Breitbart:

Conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart disputed accounts that tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets at black members of Congress amid the health care debate, although he didn’t provide any evidence.

It used to be that in journalism, as well as in a court of law, Logic 101, etc., you can’t prove a negative.  In other words, you can’t prove something didn’t occur.  You need evidence to show that something did occur.  If I were to say that Obama were a Martian, you would expect evidence from me to support that absurd claim.  Were I a reporter or a liberal (pardon the redundancy), I would retort “Well, you haven’t proven to me that he isn’t a Martian, now have you?”

As a matter of fact, Andrew Breitbart nails Rather’s mini-me, Michael Blood:

It seems to me, that perhaps Mr. Blood needs to provide evidence that he’s not biased.  How’s that, Mr. Blood?

Now, on to the assault on basic fairness: Is the AP now on record that the Tea Party activists who protest at these gatherings are ipso facto guilty of racism if someone accuses them of racism?  Is that all it takes?  Have there been any calls from the AP for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to prove that the protestors that day shouted the N-word?  Just yesterday, the AP referred to Ft. Hood terrorist Malik Nadal Hasan as a “suspect.”  Apparently, Hasan is afforded the right to be innocent until proven guilty, but tea party protestors are not.

Got that?  Tea Partiers, bad.  Ft. Hood terrorist, good.  Thanks for the clarification, AP.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

March 28, 2010 Posted by | bigotry, hypocrisy, media bias, Tea Party | 2 Comments

Crush Liberalism Radio on Monday, March 29, at 10:00 pm EST

Got back in a little late this evening, so Crush Liberalism on Blog Talk Radio will return tomorrow (Monday, March 29) at 10:00 pm EST.  See you then!

March 28, 2010 Posted by | Blog Talk Radio | 4 Comments

An amazing analogy regarding ObamaCare

Doctor Zero absolutely nails this one out of the park.  Here’s an excerpt, but do yourself a favor (unless you want to suck) and read it all:

Imagine a large condominium complex is meeting to consider a package deal with a cable TV company. Over eighty percent of the condo owners have their own satellite dishes, and are quite happy with the service. Some of them don’t bother to watch television at all, preferring to rent movies from Blockbuster or Netflix for entertainment. However, the condominium Board of Directors says they’re getting a lot of complaints from the residents who don’t have satellite dishes, demanding the condo association purchase a cable TV package, and fold its cost into the monthly homeowner dues.

The homeowners already pay extremely high dues, and they’re not happy with the quality of service they receive. They also notice that most of the people clamoring for cable television aren’t even homeowners – they’re renters, so they don’t pay the association fees directly. The condo owners already host regular movie nights at the clubhouse, which also has a well-stocked library, so no one is truly starved for entertainment. Still, the owners feel guilty that anyone has to make do without TV service in their home, so they invite a cable company to give them a sales pitch.

The cable company, BFD Communications, produces an incredibly complicated plan for providing cable television service to the community. The plan is thousands of pages long, and no one even claims to have read the whole thing. They spend the weeks leading up to the big board meeting pestering all of the residents with relentless advertising for their services, covering doorknobs and windshields with brochures. Their presentation at the board meeting is several hours long.

BFD Communications explains that purchasing their service will require a lifetime contract, which can never be broken. The condo residents will be required to deal exclusively with BFD for their entertainment needs – all satellite dishes must go, and even the library will fall under their control. The contract will include funding for a large corporate security force, which will ensure compliance by issuing fines for illegal satellite dishes, or attempts to smuggle rented movies into the development. As this feature of the contract is being explained to the homeowners, a large screen behind the BFD representatives is flashing slogans like “BFD Enhances Competition!” and “BFD Saves You Money!”

The cable TV contract will be fantastically expensive. Curiously, while it is a lifetime contract, the company refuses to discuss the fee schedule beyond the first ten years. An intrepid homeowner studies the contract and discovers the costs double after ten years… and this assessment was prepared by CBO Auditing, a firm which has underestimated the cost of every contract it has ever reviewed. The condo Board rules that only the ten-year projections matter, and the intrepid homeowner is asked to leave the meeting. …

Brilliant! Read it all.

March 26, 2010 Posted by | big government, corruption, health care, socialism | 2 Comments

Quote of the day, “Dem Senator admits ObamaCare is meant to enforce socialism” edition

When he’s not busy trying to get his mistress a job as a U.S. Attorney or getting drunk on the Senate floor, Max Baucus likes to pass the time waxing eloquent about ObamaCare (video link):

Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.

“Mal-distribution”?  My spellcheck just exploded on that word.  Is that a Bushism or something?

But hey, where would you get the crazy idea that Democrats are socialists or anything?

March 26, 2010 Posted by | health care, quote of the day, socialism | 1 Comment

Castro luvs ObamaCare

If you want real proof that ObamaCare sucks and is nothing more than socialized medicine, look no further:

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

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

But hey, where would you get the crazy idea that Obama is a Marxist or anything?

March 25, 2010 Posted by | Castro, health care, Obama, socialism | 2 Comments

Stupak defends Planned Parenthood

Noted abortion mill Planned Parenthood found an ally in the formerly pro-life Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak.  From the Washington Times:

PICKET: Then how come you didn’t vote for Pence’s amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood back in 2009?

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

 At least two Planned Parenthood clinics exist in Mr. Stupak’s district. One is located in Petoskey and the other in Marquette. The services offered at each clinic are listed as follows:

In Marquette:

Abortion Referral
Birth Control Services
Emergency Contraception
General Health Care
Men’s Health Services
Women’s Health Services
STD Testing & Treatment
Patient Education
Pregnancy Testing, Options & Services

In Petoskey:

Abortion Referral
Birth Control Services
Emergency Contraception
General Health Care
HIV Testing
Men’s Health Services
Patient Education
Pregnancy Testing, Options & Services
STD Testing & Treatment
Women’s Health Services

Mr. Stupak seems to toe the line, given both of these clinics include abortion referral services. If he wanted to protect the sanctity of life, why agree to continue funding clinics that recommend places for women to have abortions? Planned Parenthood describes this referral service:

Planned Parenthood health centers in communities around the country offer you the health care you need. Our caring and knowledgeable staff provide a wide range of services — including abortion services. Health centers that do not provide abortion services provide abortion referrals.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Stupak is okay with this, but it is not surprising. He can say he is supportive of these clinics or the health reform act in the name of “access to health care,” because as far as he is concerned, his conscience is clear.

Overnight, Stupuke went from pro-life darling to pro-abortion amigo.

Like I said before, there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.

March 25, 2010 Posted by | abortion, shameful | 2 Comments

So, you think “health care reform” is all about health care, huh?

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) lets it slip what those of us on the right have been saying for years: socialized medicine is all about empowering government and controlling people, nothing more.

Dingell-berry was being interviewed by a Detroit talk radio show host about ObamaCare.  He says this about his elation of the bill’s passage:

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

Dick Durbin (D-IL) took time out from comparing our troops to Pol Pot and Stalin in order to weigh in, too.  Joe Scarborough asked him if taxing employers and small businesses in the middle of a recession with double-digit unemployment was a good idea.

Yes, if you’re making over $200,000 a year, you’re going to pay slightly more in taxes. It’s the cost, I think, of having the kind of America we want to have.

The kind of America who wants to have?  Big government statist authoritarians, naturally.

So the next time you hear what you think are wingnut paranoid conspiracy theories about how the feds want to control you via your health care, just remember the words of Dingell and Durbin, two Democrats who ushered in this monstrosity.  Be sure to thank your local Blue Lap Dog Democrat who voted for it, too, and tell him/her that Dingell has let the mask slip off.

March 24, 2010 Posted by | big government, health care, shameful, socialism | Leave a comment

Stupak traded his 100% lifetime pro-life rating for pork?

I’m sure this is all a huge coinkdink.

Supposed pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak may well have been bribed in order to buy his vote to support Barack Obama’s health care “reform.” //  Late Sunday, meticulous research by accountability-minded bloggers first brought to light a stealthy press release from Stupak’s own office this past Friday. The release announced a US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration grant in the value of $726 409 for three airports in northern Michigan, meant to go to maintenance and improvements; Stupak represents Michigan’s 1st district. Suspicions have only increased with greater fervor since Stupak represented the so-called “pro-life” bloc of Democrat holdouts who wanted greater protections against abortion provisions included in the Senate version of Obamacare when it went to the House. Yet Stupak sold out on Sunday when offered a legally meaningless “executive order” that will be overruled by judges anyway, as the pro-abortion language in the bill carries more weight. If true, Stupak sold his soul for very little; after all, at least Mary Landrieu got $300 million for her state in the Louisiana Purchase.

What makes Stupak look really guilty in this matter is the very fishy timing of his sudden about-face, especially when you consider the recent timeline of his public statements on his stand on abortion language in the bill. As late as this past Friday, the 19th, Stupak was a firm “no,” even going and speaking to FNC’s Greta Van Susteren in reiterating his unreliably pro-life bloc of Democrats’ opposition to Obamacare. Then, though, came the press release later in the day, but also on Friday about how his northern Michigan district would get a cool $726,409 for airport improvements.

Now, fast forward to Saturday when Stupak wasn’t that vocal anymore—as he had consistently been in the days before his bribe, er, I mean, “grant” for his district—on how he’d vote. Finally, that brings us to  Sunday when he revealed how he’d sell his soul for a mere, useless piece of paper, an “executive order,” strengthening limits on abortion. As the National Right to Life Committee reasoned so very convincingly, the order doesn’t overturn any of the pro-abortion language in the bill, and courts will enforce a bill over an executive order. …

He’s totally against federal funding for the slaughter of unborn babies.  Unless his district can get some new goodies, in which case, what’s a few more fetal carcasses, right?  Good luck selling that one at the Pearly Gates, Stupork.

March 23, 2010 Posted by | abortion, corruption, health care | 1 Comment

Quote of the day, “Conyers’ constitutional ignorance” edition

Too bad it was his wife that went to prison.  After all, she’s not the one wreaking havoc on the entire nation.  Quoth the Detroit dolt:

During an interview Capitol Hill Friday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “The individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”
 
Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

There’s just one small problem with conyers’ explanation:

The word “good” only appears once in the Constitution, in Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the Judicial Branch, not the powers of Congress. Article 3, Section 1 says in part: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

As far as “nothing unconstitutional”?

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

This dude is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he doesn’t even know the law of the land?  Wonderful.

March 23, 2010 Posted by | Constitution, Detroit, health care, socialism | 4 Comments

Two Indiana Democrats commit political suicide for ObamaCare

Congressman Brad Ellsworth, into his second term as a House member from a red district, isn’t running for re-election.  That would explain his vote for ObamaCare, since the electorate couldn’t retaliate against him in November.

Oh, but they can…and they will.  He’s running for the U.S. Senate, the seat being vacated by Evan Bayh (who also told Indianans to s#ck it and voted for ObamaCare in the Senate).  How’s President Hopenchange working out for Ellsworth?  Not too well.  Details:

Two of the three top Republican hopefuls for the U.S. Senate in Indiana continue to hold double-digit leads over Democratic Congressman Brad Ellsworth. Ellsworth supported President Obama’s health care plan in a state where opposition to the legislation is higher than it is nationally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds former Congressman John Hostettler with a 50% to 32% lead over Ellsworth, a current House member who voted with most other Democrats on Sunday to pass the health care plan. The survey was taken last Wednesday and Thursday nights. Fifteen percent (15%) remain undecided in that match-up.

Ex-Senator Dan Coats now posts a 49% to 34% lead over Ellsworth, with 12% undecided.

Ellsworth runs best against the third GOP contender, freshman State Senator Marlin Stutzman. In that match-up, Stutzman leads by just seven points, 41% to 34%. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided.

Unless there is a major shift if perception of the health care plan, Ellsworth may face a big challenge convincing voters in the state why he voted for the President’s plan. Just 35% of Indiana voters favor the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, while 63% oppose it. This is well above the level of opposition found nationally. These findings include 21% who Strongly Favor the plan and 54% who Strongly Oppose it.

What a moron!  “My state really, and I mean reaaaaaaaaaaallllllly, hates ObamaCare.  I want to represent the entire state in the Senate.  Hey, I know!  I’ll vote for the bill that my fellow Indianans despise!”

As for the other Hoosier huckster, Baron Hill realizes he probably fell on his sword:

Said Representative Baron Hill, an Indiana Democrat, “I feel like I am walking the plank.”

“In the short term, it’s going to cost me,” Hill said. “It remains to be seen whether or not people will see the benefits that are in the bill 10 years out.”

Translation: My constituents loathed this bill, but I drank the Obama Kool-Aid, so I pulled the plug on my career.

Oh, well.  I’m sure Barry O will hook them up with a plum administration job after their impending November defeats.  Birds of a feather flock together, no?

March 23, 2010 Posted by | corruption, health care, Obama, shameful | 1 Comment

Quote of the day, “We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!” edition

From Alcee Hastings (D-FL), member of the House Rules Committee:

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) Florida, a member of the House Rules Committee, made one of those gaffes that is defined as speaking the truth when he really ought not to have. Hastings articulated the   approach the Democrats are taking for health care reform.

There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ’em up as we go along.”

John at Powerline gives a refresher on Hastings, if you didn’t already know:

Hastings was once a federal judge, but he was impeached–it is hard to articulate what a difficult, cumbersome process that is–because he solicited bribes from criminal defendants. That is, he approached the criminals and told them that he would let them off if they paid him. That’s a little extreme, even for a Democrat. Hastings’ efforts to make himself rich in this criminal fashion came to light and he was investigated. He responded to the investigation by committing perjury.

As a result of his multiple crimes, Hastings was removed as a federal judge by the United States Senate, one of the few times in history that has happened. Here is the really astonishing thing: instead of going to jail, Alcee Hastings went to Congress! Democratic voters were not in the least concerned that he is a criminal of the most verminous sort. On the contrary, they elected him to represent them in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District! That, really, tells you all you need to know about the depravity to which the Democratic Party has sunk.

The last refuge for scoundrels?  Why, the Democrat Party, of course!

March 23, 2010 Posted by | corruption, quote of the day | 1 Comment

ACORN going out of business

Ever the optimist, ain’t I?  Glass is half-full, yada yada yada.

Anywho, in light of the abdication of their constitutional and representative duties by our elected officials, consider this somewhat of a palate cleanser.  From the Old Gray Hag:

The community organizing group Acorn announced Monday that it would close all its remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1.

The organization is “developing a plan to resolve all outstanding debts, obligations and other issues,” said a statement released by the group.

Acorn has been battered by criticism from the right and has lost federal money and private donations since a video sting was publicized last fall. Acorn employees were shown in the videos advising two young conservative activists — posing as a pimp and a prostitute — how to conceal their criminal activities.

In reaction to the videos, the Census Bureau ended its partnership with the organization for this year’s census, the Internal Revenue Service dropped the group from its Voluntary Income Tax Assistance program, and Congress voted to cut off all grants to the organization.

In recent years, the group has also been dogged by mismanagement and criticism — mostly from conservatives — for its handling of voter registration drives. …

Yeah, we’re kinda funny about not wanting dead illegal aliens and their pets voting, and multiple times at that.  That’s just how God wired us, I suppose.

Anywho, funny how the NYT, while writing ACORN’s obituary, seems to imply that us mean ol’ conservatives are to blame for ACORN’s demise. Good point. I mean, conservatives held a gun to their heads and made them commit vote fraud and try to conceal criminal activity, even activity as vile as child sex trafficking. Definitely our fault that ACORN did that. For those of you on the left, the prior three sentences were examples of sarcasm.

If God can dispose of a corrupt, vile organization like ACORN, there is hope that He will transfer the power structure currently polluted by the putrid cretins of the Democrat Party to the non-Marxist grown-ups.

March 23, 2010 Posted by | ACORN | 3 Comments

Stupak trades in pro-life credentials, proves beyond doubt that there is no such thing as a “pro-life Democrat”

Bart Stupid is  has thrown a 30-year “pro-life” record down the health care crapper.  Excerpt from FNC story:

The National Right to Life Committee argued that seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions in the Senate bill are unchanged.

“The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says,” the group said.

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group was revoking its “Defender of Life” award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala.

“We were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform. We will no longer be doing so,” Dannenfelser said. “Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health care bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.'” 

And for what?  For assurances from the Senate and from B.O. that his anti-abortion language will appear at a later time, yet to be determined?

Here’s the thing, though: Stupak intended on making sure ObamaCare would pass, even if his abortion concerns weren’t settled.  Video proof is here, from a town hall last year with Stupunk.  He says he wants abortion funding prohibited, but he won’t stop the bill from passing.  So if he winds up voting “No”, it’s only because Queen Nancy released him to vote that way, since she browbeat enough Dems into submitting and supporting their pyrrhic bill.

There is no such thing as a principled pro-life Democrat.  Stupuke just proved it.  When push comes to shove, these people are Democrats first, and everything else second.

March 21, 2010 Posted by | abortion, health care, hypocrisy, shameful, socialism | 3 Comments

Pelosi: I pray to St. Joseph that he helps us pass this baby-killing legislation as “life-affirming”

Now she’s taunting people of faith.  That’s all this (video link) could be.  From San Fran Nan’s cakehole attached to that botox-riddled grill of hers:

Today is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, particularly important to Italian-Americans. It’s a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America, and that’s exactly what our health-care bill will do. … Every order that you can think of was there [on a list of endorsements], saying they wanted us to pass this life-affirming legislation.

I’m sure God will be pleased, no?  For those of you on the left, that was a sarcastic and rhetorical question.

March 19, 2010 Posted by | abortion, Catholics, Christianity, health care, Pelosi, shameful | 2 Comments

Quote of the day, “Dem Congressman admits his party is a party of thieves” edition

I guess there really is, at times, honor among thieves.  While meeting with constituents regarding the federal takeover of the health care industry, Tom Perriello (D-VA), a man who is likely on his way out in November, had this to say (video here):

If you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.

Got that?  It’s our fault that we don’t stop these generational kleptomaniacs from themselves!

March 19, 2010 Posted by | corruption, health care, quote of the day, shameful | 2 Comments

UPDATE: Obama: The Louisiana Purchase helps the victims of the earthquake in…Hawaii?

UPDATES BELOW.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?  What is this socialist tool talkin about?  Quoth The One in his interview with FNC:

OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.

BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?

OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though. Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. (CROSS TALK) OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe. Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those.

First of all, it’s a friggin’ lie that “we have removed” the special provisions like the Cornhusker Kickback and Gator Aid.  They were vote buyoffs to get the Senate to pass ObamaCare, which it did…and now that very Senate bill is sitting in the House’s lap!  Now while B.O.’s proposal may have been to eliminate those vote buyoffs, that’s irrelevant, because his bill isn’t the one that the House is considering to cram down our throats.

Now, on to the part where I make fun of this Mensa scholar…

If he was talking about Haiti instead of Hawaii, then how in the Sam Hill does passing ObamaCare or using Landrieu’s vote buyoff help the people of Haiti?  I mean, unless Haiti is one of those 57 states I didn’t know about, this does jack squat for them.

If, however, he actually meant his “birth state” (and no, I’m not referring to Kenya, which I think is not the 57th state…yet), then Gateway Pundit finds a slight problem with his statement:

In 1868 there was a major earthquake in Hawaii that killed 77 people. In 1975 an earthquake in Hawaii killed 2 people.

Seriously…what in the blue Hades is this guy talking about???

Also, as Gateway Pundit mentions, B.O. said in this interview that “that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help.”  Yet another damnable lie.  Texas and Mississippi were states that were both affected by hurricanes (i.e. “natural catastrophes”) and declared to be major disaster areas…yet neither were covered by  this provision of which he speaks.  The provision refers to one state and one state alone: Louisiana.  And why not?  Louisiana was the only state along the Gulf coast who had a Senator ripe for a buyoff.  Sens. Cornyn and Hutchison (TX), as well as Wicker and Cochran (MS) were firm opponents on ObamaCare.  But not Landrieu.

Anywho, do you ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, our President doesn’t exactly adhere to the truth very often?

UPDATE (03/18/2010 – 2:30 PM): Reader C-Note (lurks, doesn’t comment) sent me an e-mail reminding me of the 2006 earthquake in Hawaii that registered a 6.7 on the Richter scale.  Since I’m not Dan Rather, I’m not going to pretend I’m not wrong.  However, if that’s what B.O. was talking about, he’s either wrong or lying about the Louisiana Purchase covering Hawaii.  See, the LA Purchase’s language says that a state where “every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act” qualifies.  Not every county in HI received federal assistance, so the LA Purchase does not cover HI.

March 18, 2010 Posted by | corruption, economic ignorance, Fox News, health care, Louisiana, Obama | 3 Comments

Quote of the day, “Self-executing rules SUCK!” edition

Which right-wing nutjob said this on the floor of the House?

I have said on this Floor before when you did not allow us to offer substitutes that you didn’t have the courage of your convictions.

I have said on this Floor before when you didn’t allow us to offer amendments that you didn’t have the courage of your convictions.

Now you not only don’t allow us to offer a substitute, you don’t allow us to offer amendments, you don’t even have the courage to PUT YOUR OWN BILL ON THE FLOOR.

The public probably doesn’t understand that. THIS IS A RULE, NOT THE BILL. We’re not debating the bill…

Why? To muzzle us, and to muzzle their folks who they don’t rely on to vote on the substance of this bill but HOPE AND PRAY they’ll get enough of their people on the procedural end of this bill to carry the day.

That’s unfortunate. Eighty-two billion dollars of deficit that Americans are going to have to pay for. My children are going to have to pay for. My grandchildren are going to have to pay for. And we don’t even have the courage to PUT THE BILL ON THE FLOOR, but this rule roosts…

That would be…Steny Hoyer (D-MD).  In 2003.  When the GOP majority used it for a routine (yet, in my view, still reprehensible) and bipartisan manner related to an increase in the child tax credit.  Hoyer was bellowing (rightly so, in my view) about the procedure being used to usher in $82 billion of tax credits…a pittance compared to the $1 trillion+ spending being crammed down our throats by he and his ilk today.

Anywho, what does Hoyer say about this tactic today?

“It is consistent with the rules,” Mr. Hoyer said. “It is consistent with former practice.”

Fargin’ hypocrite.

March 17, 2010 Posted by | corruption, health care, hypocrisy, quote of the day | Leave a comment

Quote of the day, “Obama’s economic ignorance” edition

Under ObamaCare, not only will your premiums go down (despite what Dick Durbin says), but your employer will actually be getting a fat paycheck from the insurance companies!  Quoth The Won:

How many people are getting’ insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands?  A’right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000%, which means they could give you a RAISE!

3000%?  Really?  Let’s crunch the numbers, shall we?

If you currently pay $5000 per year in health insurance premiums, a 50% reduction would mean you pay $2500 per year.  A 100% reduction means you would pay $0.

A 3000% reduction means that Aetna/Blue Cross/BigEvilHealthInsuranceBoogeymanDuJour would give you health insurance plus pay your company’s owner $150,000…and that’s just for your health insurance, let alone all of your co-workers!

You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear B.O. just pulls numbers out of his nether regions!  Then again, 98.4245% of all numbers are made up on the spot!  😆

March 17, 2010 Posted by | economic ignorance, health care, Obama, shameful | 1 Comment

Quote of the day, “Holder thinks bin Laden deserves same trial as Manson” edition

Good grief!  To think this leftist tool is our A.G.!  From Breitbart.tv (video at the link):

Fox News: [Attorney General Eric Holder] said the “apt” comparison is to mass murderers like Charles Manson, who is currently serving a life sentence for orchestrating a killing spree in the 1960s. Trying to explain the analogy, Holder said mass murderers like Manson still reserve the right to go before a jury and have the charges against them proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow.  Just “wow”.  😦

March 17, 2010 Posted by | Holder, religion of peace, shameful | 2 Comments

Slaughter solution bitterly opposed in 2005…by Slaughter!

She fought it in 2005 with San Fran Nan when the GOP was busy using the Constitution as Charmin.  But today?  Not so much.

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here’s the argument they made:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

“Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.” (Emphasis added)

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

  • Nancy Pelosi
  • Henry Waxman
  • Louise Slaughter

If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it’s the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.

Hey, I’m not saying she’s a hypocrite or anything!  I’m just saying that she acts one way when it suits her fancy, then acts the opposite way when she suits her fancy.  OK, now that you mention it, that does make her a stark raving moonbatty hypocrite.

March 16, 2010 Posted by | corruption, health care, hypocrisy, moonbats, Pelosi | 2 Comments

Quote of the day, “Pelosi doubles down on passing bill FIRST and THEN addressing it” edition

Not content with having made a buffoon of herself the first time, San Fran Nan decides to double down on her idea to pass first, ask questions later.  Details:

In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. “Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a ‘debate’ with Republicans over ‘what is the balanced role that government should have,’” writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, “We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have.” Again, in Pelosi’s scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed.

Un. Friggin’. Believable.

March 16, 2010 Posted by | health care, Palin, quote of the day, socialism | 3 Comments

NYT photo: Obama, cross, etc.

Once again, I ask: They don’t even try and pretend to be objective anymore, do they?  And these vermin want to accuse Fox News of cheerleading for a political party?

Nope…no liberal media bias!

March 15, 2010 Posted by | health care, media bias, Obama | 3 Comments

ObamaCare’s suicide bombers (metaphorically speaking)

Here’s hoping that the Bu$hitler McRummyburton moonbats get their hemp boxers in a bunch over this political cartoon by Michael Ramirez:

March 15, 2010 Posted by | big government, health care, Obama, socialism | 6 Comments

Crush Liberalism radio this Sunday @ 10:00 pm EST

Phones open this week.  Feel free to call in.  This week’s main discussion will be the abuse of the Constitution by the Congressional Democrats, and more…Sunday night on Crush Liberalism radio!

See you there!  🙂

March 13, 2010 Posted by | Blog Talk Radio | Leave a comment

Andrea Mitchell, “objective journalist”, begs Dem Congressman to “get this for” Obama

While the disgraced former editor of the Old Gray Hag, aka NYT, goes off on how Fox News props up one party and doesn’t do “real journalism”, Andrea Mitchell shows us what Raines means by “real journalism”.  Cue Mrs. Allen Greenspan’s begging Elijah Cummings (D-MA) here:

Bottom line, what happens if you don’t get health care for this president?  This is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, for his legacy.  He’s invested so much in this in this first year. You’ve GOT to get this for him!

Nope…no liberal media bias!

March 13, 2010 Posted by | health care, media bias, Obama | Leave a comment

Rep. Slaughter attempts to slaughter the Constitution

If you ever needed proof that the left is incapable of governing, look no more.  The same dolt who droned on about a woman being forced to wear her dead sister’s dentures because there’s no ObamaCare (despite the fact that ObamaCare won’t cover dental) is now wiping her wrinkled moonbat backside with the Constitution.  Details:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said. . . .

House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.

“We’re well beyond that,” Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.

In other words, Slaughter and Pelosi maintain, the House can pass the Senate bill without having to vote on the Senate bill!  That way, the Stupak block won’t be on record as having voted for a pro-abortion Senate bill.

So what does the Constitution say about this?  Article 1, Section 7 (emphasis mine):

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

That’s how a bill becomes law.  Both Houses must have a majority vote of Yes or No on a bill.  Not on a rule, but on a bill.

In other words, this is illegal.  While the Supreme Court is loathe to step in when it comes to House and Senate rules, they are more than eager to step in when those rules clearly violate the Constitution.  Notes Leon at Redstate:

This mechanism, of course, is referred to in Constitutional and legal shorthand as “bicameralism plus presentment,” which stands for the basic premise, stated above, that before a bill can become law, that bill must be passed by BOTH chambers of Congress and be presented to the President for either his veto or his approval.

…Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.

And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact. They already know the American people don’t want this bill. They know by now that what they’re trying to do is illegal. The question now is whether they still have the shame to care about either.

Exit question #1:  Doesn’t this blueprint show that Pelosi doesn’t have the votes in the House?  If she did, such an illegal move wouldn’t even be contemplated.

Exit question #2:  Does the question now go from “Will the Republicans win the House?” to “How big will their majority be?”

March 11, 2010 Posted by | Constitution, health care, moonbats, shameful | Leave a comment

Dick Durbin thinks Obama is a liar

How else to interpret this?

Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.

Considering President Oprompter told us that premiums would go down, Durbin the Turban implies that B.O. is “not telling the truth”, which is affectionately known in some parts of the country as “lying through one’s teeth”!

March 10, 2010 Posted by | health care, Obama | 3 Comments