Confederate Yankee
March 17, 2010
Obama Tea Bags Kucinich for Health Care Vote Switch
The first rule about Air Force One Mile High Club is not to talk about Air Force One Mile High Club.
But it worked.
When reached for comment, the President said:
"mfoown mmm um hmm do ohhhhh..."
Congressman Kucinich later claimed the experience was the most fun he's had in the air
since the last time he was abducted by aliens.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:44 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That is a little too much Info, it might be correct, but still to much info.
Posted by: Picric at March 17, 2010 02:46 PM (oKOn9)
2
So one commie supports another. Quel la surprise.
Posted by: emdfl at March 17, 2010 06:25 PM (vwRFo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
AP: Goods News! Your Insurance Premiums Will Rise Under Obamacare
Even the Associated Press is forced to admit that Obama is purposefully misleading the American public on the costs of Obamacare:
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.
Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.
[snip]
"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."
The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, caveats got left out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:08 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you think unemployment is high now, wait until Obama Care is passed. 9.7% will jump to 19% overnight.
Posted by: Bill B. at March 20, 2010 09:04 AM (8kQ8M)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MA Treasurer: Obamacare Could "Wipe Out" The National Economy In Four Years
He should know. As he notes in Businessweek, he's living it:
The Massachusetts treasurer said Tuesday that Congress will "threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years" if it adopts a health care overhaul modeled after the Bay State's.
Treasurer Timothy Cahill -- a former Democrat running as an independent for governor -- said the 2006 law has succeeded only because of huge subsidies and favorable regulatory changes from the federal government.
"Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?" He asked.
In a nation of more than 300 million only half of us pay taxes, and Democrats would force upon us to pay for the health insurance of all. A child can see that simply isn't a sustainable model, especially with the debt load of existing entitlement programs weighing down on us.
Simply put, a vote (or a shifty and probably un-Constitutional "deeming"
in favor of Obamacare is irresponsible and unsustainable. We can only hope that Democrats in Congress are more loyal to their nation than Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
""Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?" He asked."
I thought this the moment I saw that Romneycare pushed many on to the Federal trough.
I cannot understand why this issue has not gained traction?
Posted by: davod at March 17, 2010 10:52 AM (GUZAT)
2
On the investing channel today, one of our fine congresswomen came on and said we need the bill as medical care was so expensive that it takes up 17% of GDP. Now there are two problems. First, the bill will increase the cost of medicine as doctors are going to unionize as they have had it with our government and once in a union you can forget about what medical care will cost as it will go out the roof (doctors are actually underpaid and have been so for 20 years). The other thing is the reason medical services our out of proportion is that we do not make anything. That is due to our government running off any business that would actually do something.
Posted by: David at March 17, 2010 10:55 AM (dccG2)
3
Isn't that the purpose of all of this? America's hate for it self played out on the world stage with no shots fired.
Posted by: hiscross at March 17, 2010 09:21 PM (R7hwR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hawaii Considers Birther Smackdown
Dear Birthers: Hawaii has had it up to here:
Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama's birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won't give up.
"Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy," said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health's Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.
So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.
But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday.
I've never quite understood the logic of those who claim Barack Obama was born somewhere other than the United States.
Claiming that he was born in Kenya is simply absurd and doesn't pass a smell test; why on Earth would a very pregnant woman with decidedly limited funds make an international flight to a third-world country so close to her due date? A competing claim that he was instead born in Canada is more plausible logistically, but you still run into the eternal question: why? Why would Stanley Dunham leave her husband and family while pregnant to go to another country to give birth?
Who does such a thing?
No doubt about it; Barack's mom was a strange duck who was just as nutty politically as her son grew up to be, but there is no indication she was insane. I don't see any reason to suspect she gave birth anywhere but in Hawaii, and I've yet to hear a single plausible explanation to the contrary.
Barack Obama is an idiot, and incompetent, and arguably an embarrassment to the nation, but he's
our mistake.
It's time to deal with that truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:50 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, let me explain. The State of Hawaii issues birth certificates to those who are not born there. That is why. And Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. He has only released an abstract of live birth. We need to see where he was actually born. Why is he refusing to release it? That is the question. Not about "birthers." Obama can end this controversy right now, but he refuses to do that. Why? Perhaps just to drive certain people to extremes, but those of us who are not extreme just want to see the original birth certificate. And I should note that the U.S. government does nto accept abstracts as evidence of birth in the United States. Just try and apply for a passport with one or apply for immigration benefits for a relative with an abstract.
The point is that Obama should release the original birth certificate.
Posted by: Federale at March 17, 2010 10:39 AM (thedx)
2
He won't release it because it reveals some other lie he has been perpetrating, or some other embarrassing detail.
The Cert he has released is not just made up, (contrary to the recent claim otherwise) it is based on that real one, but it not forced to reveal said embarrassment. He has lots of embarrassing details....like his college papers, and grades.
Posted by: JP at March 17, 2010 10:47 AM (VxiFL)
3
Look I don't really care one way or the other but I do care about the constitution and rule of law. The constitutional requirement is to produce a valid birth certificate and he has not. It does not say an equivalent or any such thing. So quite covering for this mess! With everything else OB and the Progressives are doing (especially this health care nightmare) I say we keep pushing until the (insert here with unprintable) does what is required to hold the office he is defiling!
Posted by: s4f at March 17, 2010 10:52 AM (u0FmQ)
4
"But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday."
10 and 20 e-mails a week. This is a problem?
Posted by: davod at March 17, 2010 10:55 AM (GUZAT)
5
s4f, the Constitution says nothing about requiring a birth certificate or any other specifically-titled document. Not. One. Word.
It merely states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Founders did not define "natural born" and left that up to Congress to define, which they did. They defer to whatever the states call their birth certificates.
Hawaii says Obama is legit. Everyone who matters agrees Hawaii has the final say.
It's over.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 17, 2010 11:01 AM (gAi9Z)
6
he's YOUR mistake......the international flight she took was after...to Hawaii......
Posted by: Ron at March 17, 2010 11:10 AM (cwBuu)
7
An adoption by Obama's step father is a better explanation for any confusion there may be about the birth certificate. Some states have very strict rules about releasing an original birth certificate when there was an adoption. It also fits the facts that he was known as Barry Soetoro in his childhood and perhaps even into young adulthood. There are legitimate issues about this period in Obama's life that get discredited by general association with the birthers' claims.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at March 17, 2010 11:48 AM (HwBga)
8
My son has a state department "Certificate of Birth Abroad" for a US Citizen (his mother has never been a US Citizen). I expect that is what John McCain has also for the same reason. My son was born in the 97th General Hospital in Frankfurt (a US Army hospital. He is considered a "natural born Citizen", John McCain born in the Canal Zone is considered a "natural born Citizen". There is no argument that his mother was not a citizen when he was born that I have seen so why does it matter? If it did matter, I would be on the "birther" side because I would really like the be rid of that "third world dictator in democretin clothing wannabe".
Posted by: RRRoark at March 17, 2010 12:19 PM (Y/4ua)
9
I suspect it's probably noted on his birth certificate that his religion (as is his father's) is "Muslim."
Posted by: flashman at March 17, 2010 01:40 PM (tsBuZ)
10
CY - Nothing will satisfy these folks.
The other issue is that once she took her near-birth flight to Kenya, she then had to take out an announcement in a Hawaii paper of the birth...stating that it was in Hawaii.
Very clever of her to plan for her son's eventual Presidency run at his birth!
Utter nonsense. The closest thing to a controversy that I could see was that he supposedly had to give up his US citizenship as a child in order to attend school in Indonesia, but that seems to be a non-starter...
Orion
Posted by: Orion at March 17, 2010 03:23 PM (UnCdA)
11
orion.........put the bong down .......you've had enough!
Posted by: Ron at March 17, 2010 04:03 PM (cwBuu)
12
I say dig up the mother's grave and see if there's a jackal in it.
Posted by: Landru at March 17, 2010 05:13 PM (GHpB7)
13
CY, you are wrong on the issue of natural born citizen. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a State birth certificate makes you a natural born citizen, just as there is nothing that says someone has to produce a birth certificate showing birth in the United States. However to be President you must be a natural born citizen.
John McCain was a natural born citizen because when he was born, the Panama Canal District was part of the United States.
Being born in a military hospital in Germany does not make you a U.S. citizen, much less a natural born citizen.
The only debate is whether persons born abroad who derive citizenship are naturally born citizens. An Army base is not part of the territory of the U.S. Being born there and getting U.S. citizenship depends on your parentage and their marital status.
Now, again, I must point out that Hawaii provides birth certificates to those not born in Hawaii, therefore, a birth certificate from Hawaii is not proof of citizenship, unless the person issued that birth certificate was actually born in Hawaii.
The Constitution and federal law do not authorize the several States to naturalize or certify aliens as citizens. The birth certificate is only evidence that you were born in a particular place and to be a natural born citizen, that must at minimum show that the person was born in the U.S.
The abstract of the birth certificate that Obama released is insufficient to show he was actually born in Hawaii. We need the original to see if it was issued to him based on his mother and father's residency in Hawaii or based on actual birth in Hawaii.
Is that too much to ask? Why is he hiding it? Some suggest it is some crazy political judo move to show that his opponents are crazy and obsessive and that he will show it at an opportune time. Fine, that is one theory, but he still has yet to prove that he was born in the United States.
Just show the certificate and the issue will be over. Don't surrender on this issue before the facts are in.
Posted by: Federale at March 17, 2010 05:35 PM (thedx)
14
Ron: ??
*I* need to put the bong down? Are you a 'birther' then? If so, then you believe that the State of Hawaii, Obama's mother, and the Hawaiian newspapers are involved in some grand conspiracy to lie about Obama's place of birth, and evidently has been since the day he was born?
And **I** need to put the bong down? Dude. Give it up. He's President. Get some more nachos, play some Cream and relax...soon it will all go away.
Orion
Here's the images of the newspaper annoucements:
http://images.google.com/___res?___url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg&___refurl=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php&usg=__Ls_pIE4jIPlW6ADl6XWW-LKIX4U=&h=1024&w=790&sz=278&hl=en&start=1&itbs=1&tbnid=iVqZVoaDyttdVM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DObama%2Bbirth%2Bannouncement%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1
Posted by: Orion at March 17, 2010 06:10 PM (UnCdA)
15
I believe that he was born in Hawaii but that the birth certificate shows who the real father is. If you read any of Jack Cashill's work you will know that not one person that knew the Mom or the Husband BHO sr. knew they were "Dating" or ever heard of a wedding. Not one of their friends attended nor knew of any such ceremony. Less than two weeks after her birthing, Mom went to Seattle and entered into college. She had no job, no planned place to live and no relative to look after Yobama. Doesn't any of this raise any doubts about his story? One simple explanation is that BHO jr was born earlier and not by BHO sr. Another fact to back this up is four years later two people who knew BHO sr.from Hawaii went to Kenya and ran into him and he didn't ask about his ex-wife or his son one time during their stay. Doesn't sound like any Dad I have ever known.
Posted by: inspectorudy at March 17, 2010 11:34 PM (Vo1wX)
16
I'm a confederate, so on one hand obama is the best thing to come along since lincoln, states rights wise. He's done more damage than the ANV could hope to do to the yankees. On the other I don't like being told lies and that's all what this is about. Look at what you said in your post; "The other issue is that once she took her near-birth flight to Kenya, she then had to take out an announcement in a Hawaii paper of the birth...stating that it was in Hawaii.
Very clever of her to plan for her son's eventual Presidency run at his birth!" What kind of $!*# is that? In 1961 or now just having u.s. citizenship is something anyone born outside the country would want. That's a talking point that outs you as an obamatroll... Statements from paid off hacks from the state of hawaii = 0. obamas mother also filed for a hawaiian colb for his sister born in indonesia. You can't really blame her, anyone would want the best for their kids. What good is a kenya bc? Once a colb was issued, birth announcements are sent and are treated like any regular birth, by the birth records office to the newspapers. So what evidence is there? A scanned image of a colb with numerous alterations,-0. A phony backdated selective service draft registration card,-0. He traveled to pakistan but on what passport? Wasn't issued one until he was elected to the senate. Why would mccain's bc be investigated and not 0?... The presidents of the past have special places that are enshrined...I've been to oahu...perhaps you could tell me where to look for barry's place. Maybe he was born at matsumoto's while his ma was getting shaved ice. Or how about a stork dropped him in for a soft landing on the slopes of diamond head. The dole pineapple center! Naaah, I'm not sure it was there in 1961. The hospitals show 0. Myself or anyone else could spend years looking, there is just no records other that newspaper clippings from 49 years ago...
Several years ago I had to prove my identity to the Mass. RMV for a out of state license conversion. It would be quite comical to see their reaction if all I had was a colb from hawaii genuine or not. But according to you there's no problem with 0, whatever he says; (earthquake in hawaii anyone). Maybe your nachos have BT corn mixed in, it's not a bong at all.
What's wrong with Cream? Eric Clapton sounds fine, very talented. "Love of Dixie" from Ole Miss is more my style... When hawaii started to issue colb's they went into the backdoor us citizenship business. If the opportunity exists for people to take advantage of a situation they will!
Posted by: Ron at March 18, 2010 05:05 PM (cwBuu)
17
You said "The State of Hawaii issues birth certificates to those who are not born there. That is why."
But Hawaii does not release birth certificates that say on them "born in Hawaii" unless there is proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and Obama's birth certificate--the official Certification of Live Birth--says on it "born in Hawaii." And the facts on that document were confirmed twice by the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii.
You also said: "And Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate."
Obama has not refused. He simply cannot release the original birth certificate because he does not have it. He only has what Hawaii sent him, and Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
However, the Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate, and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department.
Posted by: MartinStone1 at March 22, 2010 12:05 PM (HsR8p)
18
Ron said: "Obamas mother also filed for a hawaiian colb for his sister born in indonesia. "
No she did not. There is no birth file for Obama's sister in Hawaii.
Posted by: MartinStone1 at March 22, 2010 12:07 PM (uj/eI)
19
Lucky for us all that martinstone1 has access to hawaiian birth records, sorry your mistaken...obamas sisters colb was used to forge the images presented to the public. I repeat, try using it at the MA. RMV...
SO, let's see, how could a person like Ann Dunham (and later BHO when he was an adult) exploit Hawaiian "birth certificate" law?
• file for a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth", using affidavits from herself and her mother saying he was born in Hawaii ...
• convert the "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" to a "Certificate of Late Birth" as state law allows...
• convert the "Certificate of Late Birth" to a "Certificate of Live Birth," with comments in Block 23, "Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration"...
• and then BHO uses the "Certification of Live Birth," which was created and first used in Nov 2001, to hide any prior alterations or modifications!
Did it happen THAT way? It's anyone's guess. BUT because the Hawaiian "birth certificate" program is SO freakin' loose, it's quite possible, with other variations possible as well.
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate," that required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.
3. The language of the statute clearly applies to births in the days of the Territory of Hawaii, so also births in 1961.
What is wrong with the image on the colb?
1. The image contains digital signatures of Photoshop
2. Only one side of alleged COLB shown (COLB is two-sided)
3. Missing second-fold line while first fold-line is shown
4. Missing the embossed Seal of Hawaii
5. Missing the State Registrar's signature
6. Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text data
7. Original text was removed by pasting a layer of background over them
8. Different text was typed onto a text layer and merged with background layer
9. Pixel blocks of text data are different from the data headers
10. Heavy and unnecessary sharpening of the whole image, except for the border
11. Border was created as a separate layer and merged with other layers
12. Border pattern is more blurred than the background
13. Border pattern more transparent than those on genuine scans
14. Top and bottom black border bars have less pixilation than text
15. Border bars are more black in color than any of the text
16. Absence of green, background pixels inside the border bar text
17. White lines between border bars and pattern (both sides)
18. Image colors are very different from scan images of real COLBs
19. Lack of pixilation in black rectangle covering certificate number
20. Different blocking artifacts from JPG compression found across the image
It's Invalid!
Bring in the latest news about 16 different social security numbers including one from a guy born in 1890.....which may be just the tip of the iceberg regarding the fraudulent "0"s past......he should be removed from office immediately...50 years in Leavenworth sounds ok...it won't fix all the damage that's been caused...but by all means keep defending this liar.
Posted by: Ron at March 22, 2010 04:14 PM (cwBuu)
20
You said: "obamas sisters colb was used to forge the images presented to the public."
Obama's sister, who was not born in Hawaii, does not even have a file in the Hawaiian birth registry. This has been proven by a birther, Leo Donofrio. She does not have a Hawaiian COLB.
All the allegations of forgery are complete baloney. Only two guys who will not give their names have claimed that it is a forgery. No government agency has said anything or taken any action. No expert who has given a name has said that the document was forged, no former expert with the FBI or Treasury said anything. The McCain and Hillary campaigns did not claim that the document was forged.
INSTEAD, the officials in Hawaii--who are members of a Republican governor's administration--have said twice that the facts on Obama's official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are confirmed by the original document in the files.
You said: ""Delayed Certificate,"
The two officials did not say that there was a delayed certificate in the files. They said that there was an original birth certificate. In 1961, it was not possible to put a foreign birth certificate in the files.
Further regarding any delayed birth certificate or Certification of Hawaiian Birth: They required a delay of at least a month before they could be filed. Yet the dates of the birth announcements in the newspapers (filed by the government for births in Hawaii) indicate that there was not a delay.
Further still: Even delayed birth certificates are not allowed to say on them "born in Hawaii" unless there is a witness who confirms birth in Hawaii. Obama's birth certificate says "born in Hawaii" and it was confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration.
There is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother (step-grandmother actually) did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in "America, Hawaii."
Posted by: MartinStone1 at March 23, 2010 10:28 AM (ZP2xU)
21
so martinstoned1 who in the jedgarbldg did you tick off to get your current assignment...trolling around the internet looking for bloggers who don't believe the obamastory...instead of wasting taxpayers money hassling people who have looked at what's out there for evidence and are able to arrive at a diiferent conclusion than what gov. "officials" are telling everyone to believe...shouldn't you people be out looking for whitey bulger?
maybe you could head up a crack forensic team, spend weeks in the Pali tunnel scraping samples off the walls looking for obama dna. There used to be a giant pineapple water tower in honolulu...maybe it happened there!
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/list/celebrity-categories.asp?FD=birthplace&ID=Honolulu,%20HI this link about obamas sister claims she was born there.
the donfrio case was thrown out.
whoever you are I don't like liars whether from some gov agency or obamanuts...his "history" has all been sealed from public view...Why?
Posted by: Ron at March 23, 2010 05:40 PM (cwBuu)
22
You said: "instead of wasting taxpayers money hassling people who have looked at what's out there for evidence and are able to arrive at a diiferent conclusion."
What evidence? I have cited evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. He has the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. It no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html.) And the facts on that birth certificate were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii.
Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.
YOur link does not link to anything that discusses Obama's sister. She was born in Indonesia. She does not have a Hawaii COLB or even a Hawaii birth file, as the research of Leo Donofrio has shown.
These are FACTS, not lies. And, by the way, I am a private citizen. I am not being paid. I assume you are not being paid, well I'm not either.
If you simply refuse to accept the facts, that is okay for your dream life. But it doesn't convince anyone.
Posted by: MartinStone1 at March 25, 2010 03:24 PM (mFD2q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 16, 2010
Attack Thwarted On Lenin's Corpse
Rest easy, liberals... Lenin wasn't hurt.
The man, named as Sergey Karpentsov, is quoted as saying he wanted to let loose a volley of bullets at Lenin's carefully embalmed corpse, one of the Russian capital's most popular and ghoulish tourist attractions.
"My main demand is the quick bulldozing of the mausoleum which contains the body of the anti-Christ," he said. "I wanted to open fire on the tomb with an assault rifle but I was advised not to do that in case the tomb is armour-plated."
[snip]
Police say they spotted Karpentsov behaving strangely near the mausoleum and that he viciously beat a police officer who confronted him before shooting and wounding the man.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:55 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
"Agents of Incompetence Series" Noted by Field & Stream
This may not be that big a deal to many of you, but growing up I devoured every issue of Field & Stream as it came in. Their writers were (and are) superb, and of those, David E. Petzal has always been one of my favorites.
So I thought it was very cool this morning when I found out Petzal had written a post on
The Gun Nut that linked approvingly to my "Agents of Incompetence" series at Pajamas Media.
And now, we have our friends in the U.S. Customs and their pals in the ATF, who have impounded 30 M4-replica Airsoft rifles, claiming that they can be converted to real M4s. This story comes our way courtesy of reporter Bob Owens, and it has to be read in full to be appreciated. Go to it by clicking here, and if you don’t drink now, you will afterward.
Pretty cool, to me at least. If you didn't see the series yet, you can catch it via the links below:
Agents of Incompetence: ATF Seizes Gun Shipment Labeled 'Toys' — But They Really Were Toys
Agents of Incompetence: ATF Seizes ‘Toys,’ Then Touts Their Danger (Part II)
Agents of Incompetence: Customs, ATF Dodging All Questions About Toy Guns (Part III)
I sent in a Freedom of Information Act this morning asking the BATF for all communications, documentation, video and photographic evidence, along with a record of emails and communications between BATF and CBP.
Considering the Obama Administration's
track record with FOIA I can't say I'm confident I'll get the answers I seek, but it it worth trying, all the same.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:26 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Such behavior on the part of the government descends into self-parody. Unfortunately, the government has no sense of humor, irony or parody. In this, and in many other parts of the government, we're seeing something much more dangerous than mere incompetence and stupidity.
All that keeps any government from descending into tyranny is the common decency, respect for the Constitution and the law and character of those fallible human beings who are the government. After all, when the government violates the law, who will investigate and punish them? When agents of the government understand, as more and more are, that they are above and beyond the law, we descend into tyranny. They may rest assured that they can get away with anything that comports with the current administrations leanings because the POTUS considers himself to be above and beyond the law.
If our "protectors" will seize toy guns, at what will they stop?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 16, 2010 12:46 PM (qjRSd)
2
congrats on the field and stream,
"If our "protectors" will seize toy guns, at what will they stop?"
apparently not much...
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/299249.php
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at March 16, 2010 08:29 PM (60WiD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
You Can Lead the House to Slaughter, But You Can't Make Them Think
The political tension and suspense is building on Capitol Hill as Democratic leaders try to find ways to bribe, blackmail or bully enough House Democrats into casting their votes for Obamacare. If they fail to muster enough votes, House Democratic leaders are considering a short-circuiting of the required voting process through procedural trickery that could force a Constitutional crisis (or not).
We've been looking at health care reform for over a year, but all Congress has come up with is the underhanded theft of a sixth of the economy, supplanting it with yet another unfunded bureaucracy that will follow Social Security and Medicare into insolvency and potentially trigger national bankruptcy.
If I were to speak to Representatives today who was still trying to decide how to vote on this pending legislation, I'd ask them to answer the following questions for themselves:
- Will imposing more bureaucracy improve patient customer service and satisfaction?
- Will imposing more bureaucracy be more likely to increase or decrease the quality of care?
- How much will the imposition of this new bureaucracy slow the research and development of new treatments and cures?
- What is the probability that this new bureaucracy would provide services less expensively and more efficiently than the private sector?
- Can you assure us that you completely understand the implications of taking over one-sixth of the nation's economy?
It is very hard to believe that any Congressperson could truthfully conclude that forcing Obamacare upon Americans would result in better customer service, better care, and the continued drive to find new cures in a cost-effective manner, without posing a significant threat the nations' economic future.
They therefore have to conclude that this is horribly flawed legislation, and it most be voted against if the best interests of their constituents are really what Representatives have in mind.
The only question now is whether House Democrats will show integrity and stand up to their cynical leaders, or if they will instead cave to an ideological agenda that compromises the trust of their constituents.
I fear the later, but would love to find myself surprised by a rare display of spine.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:53 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If the House "deem" the health care bill to be passed without actually voting, coming November we'll "deem" them to have voted yes.
Posted by: Tiby at March 16, 2010 04:21 PM (UICYs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 15, 2010
More White House Duplicity: Cancer Patient Not Threatened With Home Loss
Obamacare has been an incompetently-run, dishonest enterprise from the beginning, so I guess it should come as no surprise that just as the President has lied about lied about the dire need for this flawed legislation, he's lied about the lack of options for his newest political prop:
Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama's push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.
Though Canfield's sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she'll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is "racked with worry" about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.
Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said "all indications" at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.
[snip]
...Sornberger said that even if Canfield doesn't qualify for charity care or Medicaid, "there's probably eight to 10 options that a patient has" to find payment.
"It doesn't stop there," he said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:51 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I found some aspects of the bill that might be interesting. What they are calling preventive care is the big control. You have to go through a family doctor for all issues. This is like an HMO, and explains why the primary doctors are backing the bill. Thus, if you have issues like your heart, you are out of luck on seeing a cardiologist. This puts the care of most everyone in the hands of the least educated, and generally less intelligent of physicians.
Posted by: David at March 16, 2010 08:41 AM (dccG2)
2
Why the heck am I spending $350 a month for health insurance if all I really need to do is "worry about losing my house?"
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 16, 2010 08:56 PM (IKKIf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dear Mr. President: Thank You For Creating Natoma Canfield's Problems
When Barack Obama delivers his upteenth "the time for talk is over" speech about Obamacare in Ohio today, he will try use the story of cancer patient Natoma Canfield as a heart-wrenching anecdote to justify the government seizing control of 20% of the nation's economy. What he will not do is explain is tell the truth about what Natoma Canfield cannot find affordable insurance, which is a problem that he and his fellow politicians artfully created.
In what appears to be White House boilerplate, there are stories being run by various
legacy media outlets today lamenting Ms. Canfield's condition and her loss of insurance.
Once again, President Obama and his serially dishonest allies will try to slander an insurance company as being heartless and greedy, a soulless, profit-seeking entity that exists to wring as much money away from people as possible before tossing this infirm away as a discarded husk. In today's particular bit of theater, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield will play the villain, but only the name changes from one episode to another. Democrats have latched on to the strategy of trying to convince Americans that it is the insurance companies at fault for higher health care.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Like any major industry in the United States, the health care industry exists to provide a much-needed service in exchange for profit, and it employs millions of Americans towards that end. Those employed directly or indirectly by the industry are your friends and neighbors, sons and daughters. 1 in 6 jobs is related to the health care industry.
The insurance industry is a major component of the health care industry, and a vital part of making health care affordable by sharing costs. But health care insurance is becoming less affordable for many Americans. That we can't deny. What politicians—and liberal Democrats in particular—are desperate to conceal is the undeniable fact that they are directly responsible for making health insurance so expensive by creating barriers to competition and driving prices up.
What Barack Obama will not mention in his speech in Ohio today is the truth. He will not lay the blame for the rising cost of insurance at the feet of his fellow politicians and bureaucrats that have created mountains of laws and regulations that have crippled the ability of insurance companies to compete with each other in a free market system for your dollars. He will not admit that his allies have created blockages to bringing your health care costs down. Red tape, callousness, inefficiency and bloat are the signatures of government intrusion into the private sector, and power-hungry politicians such as Mr. Obama are the root cause of the increasing price of insurance. They are not the solution.
Barack will not mention this truth. Barack cannot
acknowledge this truth. In the bizarro insular world he inhabits, more government is good. Bureaucracy equals efficiency. Tight government control is superior to individual initiative, ingenuity, and drive.
When Barack Obama uses Natoma Canfield as a prop today, he will see her as justification for intrusion, not as a person. To him,and those like him, Canfield represents a dim and anonymous Public That Must Be Taken Care Of instead of individuals with dreams and aspirations. In his perfect future world, she and we will be numbers in the system to be cost-justified and managed from cradle to grave.
If Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the Democratic party were remotely interested in decreasing the cost of health care and increasing its quality, they would be creating a bill of deregulation, freeing companies to seek efficiencies and compete for your health care dollars across state lies, undercutting each other to as they compete for your business much as Geico competes with State Farm competes with Allstate for your car insurance.
Has anyone you know ever been bankrupted by the cost of car insurance?
Wouldn't it make far more sense to let health insurance providers have the freedom to compete that car insurance companies have?
But Barack Obama isn't in Ohio to make insurance cheaper for Natoma Canfield. He hasn't been on a year-long campaign of subterfuge to make coverage better, or the process and bureaucracy less tedious. Obamacare isn't about any of those things.
Above all, Obamacare is about growing government, asserting control, and forcing submission to an ever-growing nanny state. Barack Obama is in Ohio today to tell the world he knows better than you do what you need.
But Obamacare isn't the solution.
Obamacare is the cancer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:24 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Right on. Anyone who believes that the President is truly interested in keeping the free market system going and ensuring that consumers have good choices--particularly with reference to the health care industry--is about as confused as is Harry Reid when he calls our federal income tax "voluntary."
May our senators and representatives be unwilling to follow Mr. Obama's duplicitous lead.
Posted by: Michael (Constant Conservative) at March 15, 2010 10:15 AM (djEcW)
2
The health insurance industry has joined a long list of American industries villified by the Democrats. Energy, pharma, doctors, non-union auto companies, Wall Street, Fox, chemical companies, lumber companies, developers, airlines, farmers, tobacco, fisherman, firearm manfu, cable companies, bloggers etc etc etc.
Not suprising the lawyers are OK.
Posted by: Rick at March 15, 2010 10:41 AM (GmIEI)
3
She had a choice all right: pay $8,400 for a high deductible policy or pay the mortgage and taxes on her home. She chose to keep her home and take a chance on her health - bad choice (though her insurance company might have dropped her anyway when she got leukemia). Only in America!
btw I do know someone who had to declare bankruptcy because of their child's medical bills. Unfortunately they couldn't get coverage because of her "pre-existing condition." The fact that YOU don't personally know anyone who has had this problem is totally irrelevant.
The utter heartlessness of many allegedly "Christian" conservatives continues to amaze me!
Posted by: Tom at March 15, 2010 12:27 PM (4zfGV)
4
Tom you are a puts.I personally had to declare bankruptcy because an insurance company oked a sergery and then denied it claming pre-existing conditionan and I still dont want the goverment taking it over becouse they would only make it worse.and to tell you what relly sucker at the bankruptcy hearing the hospitle or the docters made a clame aginst us!!!!
Posted by: Rich at March 15, 2010 02:26 PM (siQqy)
5
Tom, your reading comprehension is sub-par. The reference I made was that no one goes into bankruptcy because of car insurance. I know this because I wrote:
Has anyone you know ever been bankrupted by the cost of car insurance?
Wouldn't it make far more sense to let health insurance providers have the freedom to compete that car insurance companies have?
The implication was that if health insurance companies had the freedom to compete that car insurances companies do, that costs would drop tremendously, and would perhaps greatly lessen the number of people filing health-related bankruptcies.
But continue your conjugal relations with that fowl.
It suits you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 15, 2010 02:35 PM (gAi9Z)
6
In spite of all the tear jerker stories, medical care now is better for most people than it will be in the not to distant future after this bill passes. Doctors will generally be of lower quality and be less caring than they are today as the inevitable nine to five mentality takes hold and the less qualified are sucked in to fill the competence vacuum. The rich and politicians especially will still do OK but even they will suffer. Caring for strangers is not a genetic trait.My free advice is to find a good doc now, even if you have to pay, stay with them and show some loyalty. They are going to be in short supply and you will not be able to command their services, no matter what the prince of lies in the White House promises you.
Posted by: mytralman at March 15, 2010 02:50 PM (j0lZ4)
7
ment to say DID NOT make a clame insted they wrote it off as a loss!
Posted by: Rich at March 15, 2010 03:08 PM (siQqy)
8
Delving into OT... Wasn't Obama The One that wanted to talk to everyone about everything? Didn't he want to negotiate, without preconditions, with Iran?
Why are Republicans the only ones he wants to stop talking to and stop negotiating with?
He wasn't so sanguine about ending talks when GWB told Saddam that, "Time for talk is over".....
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 15, 2010 03:23 PM (FJRFk)
9
Are you aware that if a doctor give free care to someone in the US that he has broken the law? In fact, some doctors have been prosecuted for just such an action. I know of a doctor in Mississippi that tried to avoid the Medicare hassel by just charging the minimum amount for visits. The result, he was convicted of Medicare fraud. That despite the fact that he did everything proper.
The problem that we have with our medical services in the government. When an old buy comes in for any procedure, the government does not come close to paying the cost of his care. Our friends at Harvard thought up this concept in the 80's. As a consequence, all of us have to pay greater and greater amounts for health care as a hidden tax. Why do the politicians want this bill? There are several reasons, but it has nothing to do with this poor woman and the fact that she can't obtain insurance. One reason is that despite the fact that government run insurance does not pay its part, they are going broke. Much of this is due to their obsession with watching for fraud and the numerous regulations. This likely adds about 30% to the cost of medical services. Ths pols thus want to get the premiums from those of us who are healthy and apply this to the continued care of the elderly. At the same time, they will be reducing care options for the elderly.
But consider, the Dems know they are going to take a big hit in the coming elecitons. So why push the issue? These people could care about you. They are thus setting a stage for much greater power and control than ever before. If they get control of health care, then they can dictate just about anything.
And Tom, we are concerned about the poor lady that Obama talks about. The problem is that he could have passed a two page bill one year ago with 100% backing that would take care of her and others. Why didn't he do that?
Posted by: David at March 15, 2010 04:43 PM (jHK8i)
10
She is a housekeeper. I want to know if she pays income tax on her earnings. Bet ya a cookie she hasn't.
Also, if she couldn't afford to keep her policy when it was $500/month, how is Obama's discounted group policy going to help her? She still wouldn't have been able to afford it, she still would have dropped the coverage and she still would have needed the operation on the taxpayer's dime.
Look, I don't like paying for my health insurance either. No one does. But it's important to so I and millions of other Americans pay our premiums monthly. Would I like to keep the monthly premium and instead buy a large screen tv? Or go on a cruise? Heck yeah, but that would be a bad move. Hard to feel sorry for someone who knows she is at risk, drops her coverage and then...boo hoo...can't afford the operation. I agree that coverage can be expensive, but heh, here's a new concept for those who need more money...get a second job! (Here ya go - try this: http://www.Professions.Com )
C'mon! Why are we wasting our time on this? Don't we have two wars to fight with Iran building a nuclear bomb?
Posted by: john paul at March 15, 2010 09:45 PM (7V5Zs)
11
Tom...please do not argue points, on a blog where people can't even spell their insults correctly. Rich? It's "PUTZ", not puts. "Hospital", "Surgery", "Against", "Ok'd",
"Claiming", "Really", and "Because", and other words, were also misspelled. Perhaps you should be arguing to reform Education (Ed-u-kay-shun), as it's shamefully obvious that the system has failed you.
I will agree that Ms. Canfield is being used, but look at the facts. It's going to be charity or Medicaid that assists her now. That's out of our pockets, and doesn't solve the problem of coverage. I checked...she hasn't used money for cruises, either. Where DO you (John Paul)get the nerve to imply that? Do YOU pay your insurance, or is it provided and negotiated by your employer?
As for the insensitivity of inviting her to "get a second job"...how assinine can you be? The woman might be doing all she can, and all you can ask is why, between horrific illnesses, she can't work harder. What a jerk.
Finally, I've experienced the finest heath care with excellent insurance. Still, we were taken within $300 of complete ruin. I worked THREE p/t jobs, while being the only caregiver my husband had. Had to fight for disability, too. Couldn't get help, because we owned a home and (former) savings. My husband worked from the his hospital bed, two days after colon surgery. Once you've traveled this road, you'd want a bit of reform, too.
Tom? Follow me to the exit. One cannot argue with the insane. But it's fun to tweak their noses.
Any misspellings on my part, are typos. What's YER excuse?
Posted by: DEB at March 16, 2010 01:21 AM (ILjOi)
12
My wife had cancer surgery in 2008. We had no health insurance because of job loss and retirement. We could get no help because I, on Social Security and a VA pension, made too much money to qualify. I am slowly paying off those bills every month and have reduced them to less than 20,000. They will take $10.00 to $20.00 a month, trust me it is so. I am still against obamacare even though I recieve my care through the VA. It is not socialized medicine, it is something I earned with sweat and blood and tears.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at March 16, 2010 05:56 PM (/Lk0g)
13
A little nugget for you from north of the 49th. To all those worried about governmnent run health care, here's a real story. I am a 55 year male who had 4 stents inserted in my coronary arteries following a heart attack. I was airlifted to Vancouver (400 miles away) the day after being admitted to emergency. I didn't have to pay for anything and yes I can go to any doctor or any hospital in British Columbia. As for taxes, I earned $60,000 in 2008 and paid $10,000 total in taxes with just a $4300 retirement savings plan contribution as a tax deduction. Do the math. Give your money to a for-profit insurance company or pay the tax to a government that is actually accountable to the voters? Maybe Americans are so sceptical because they no longer believe they live in a democracy. Very sad
Posted by: BenFranklin at March 18, 2010 12:11 AM (yXhzb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 12, 2010
Blunt Enough for You?
A little honesty on the Democrat's death panel from one of their own trying to stop it:
"Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered." The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, "are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party."
What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."
Maybe Democrats can find a nice token of appreciation for those who abort their useless, too costly children.
The last bunch enamored with this concept desired a little more pageantry with their savagery. They liked passing out yellow stars to their victims.
Democrats treat the unborn with even less respect. Just a figure on a ledger.
One they would prefer to round off as a mistake.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:08 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Remember what Frank Burns said to Margaret Houlihan when she was breaking off their affair? "But Margaret! You're so...convenient!"
Posted by: pst314 at March 12, 2010 09:11 PM (XP0Bd)
2
Waiting for those same whiny progs to show up over here; 5, 4, 3, 2, ...
Posted by: emdfl at March 13, 2010 07:58 PM (vwRFo)
3
Any member of Congress who votes for socialized medicine ( and no I won't use the weasel words "health care reform") cannot be pro-life. They cannot be, to use another weasel term "pro-choice". They are pro-abortion.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at March 16, 2010 12:10 AM (vd5XT)
4
Love the Big Red 1 clip
No matter what happens, those who vote for this abortion are the lowest of the low.
Posted by: PhyCon at March 16, 2010 07:15 PM (08LWY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shock: CNN Promotes Sanka Party
Talk about a "made for TV movie."
CNN is
touting the Coffee Party as an alternative to the Tea Party movement, noting the number of CP followers on Facebook already outstrips that of the Tea Partiers.
Funny, I don't recall hearing of any actual Coffee Party protests. As for the group out of central casting that CNN interviewed, I thought they were as diverse as any pair of film directors organizing their
third fake grass roots campaign could hope to find.
Update: On second thought, calling them the Kopi Luwak Party is probably more appropriate than Sanka, considering their desire to swill
massively overpriced crap that no person in their right mind would ingest, and which would bankrupt anyone who swallowed it regularly.
Update: More on one of the CP members from Tim at
Left Coast Rebel.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:28 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think some fun can be had with these boobs using the Chock-Full-O Nuts coffee brand. Perhaps crashing their next soiree, with everyone bringing a can as a token of support.
Posted by: Landru at March 12, 2010 06:06 PM (GHpB7)
2
I dug deeper into one of the characters profiled in the piece. It's a must read - http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/03/cnn-highlights-leftist-radical-stacey.html
Posted by: left coast rebel at March 12, 2010 06:18 PM (f0PPf)
Posted by: Veeshir at March 13, 2010 10:06 AM (6AITe)
4
I read on another blog that only 30 people showed up to the St. Louis Coffee Party - which included those already in the coffee shop.
Posted by: Reuel Sample at March 13, 2010 03:11 PM (QGMR/)
5
I can't believe the "coffee party" site. Note the racism in the picture and the explanation of the people. They indicate in no uncertain terms that Southerners are backward and ignorant. I guess we are as I can not understand why people are fighting so hard to give up their freedom and bankrupt the country. Maybe one of those smart Yankees can come down here and explain it so me. Make it real simple as I can't understand any of the concepts that our great president puts forth.
Better yet, just let us go our own way like we wanted to in 1860.
Posted by: David at March 13, 2010 03:29 PM (jHK8i)
6
CNN is a joke, they are promoting the coffee party worse then MSNBC, the obama network. And you wonder why the ratings are slipping faster than the coffee can tip out their coffee cups
Posted by: robert at March 14, 2010 08:43 PM (DYQlv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
You Know What We Need To Pass Health Care? Bundling in the Government Takeover of Student Loans
The Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate to force through an attempt to drive banks out of the student loan business, so someone decided they could avoid debate and defeat by adding the loan legislation to Obamacare's health care rationing scheme.
Democrats believe that what will make America a better place is turning it over to bureaucrats, and are so enamored with their superior beliefs that they intend to ram them through any way they can, no matter how duplicitous. One can only imagine the other items Democrats have hidden away in their economy-killing boondoggle.
They simply must be stopped, before they bankrupt us all after seizing every bit of freedom and self-determination they can.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:25 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Our benevolent masters have big plans for us - http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Debt_bondage
"In certain cases, student loans can be viewed as a contemporary form of debt bondage. In some jurisdictions, student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and are often handed out without regard to the probability that the recipient will ever secure a wage which allows them to repay the debt."
Posted by: scp at March 12, 2010 12:50 PM (zf6OM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Howell Raines: Why Can't I Be You?
Howell Raines, who championed advocacy journalism in the name of liberalism at the Times during his brief stint as executive editor, is lamenting the fact that the kind of journalism he practiced hasn't succeeded in quashing all alternative viewpoints.
Of course, he phrases it
a bit differently:
One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?
Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals.
If Raines had a "professional conscience" there is the distinct possibility that he would still be the executive editor of the New York
Times instead of posting grouchy op-eds on the pages of his old competitors.
But Raines was by any measure a horrific editor with a fear-based leadership style, and a Stalinist penchant for purging those who did not
bow down to him:
According to insiders, Raines is the kind of 1950s-style autocrat who manages through humiliation and fear. Aside from right-hand men Gerald Boyd and Andy Rosenthal and a core of loyalists, morale is said to be at a new low. There are many rooms in that palace and nobody sees the whole picture. But, says one source, "the old timers who lived through the worst of [former executive editor] Abe Rosenthal say they have never seen anyone be so arrogant, so petty, so mean. Vindictiveness is in." Another source says, "It's no longer about managing down. It's about paying obeisance to the king." Among cognoscenti, 43rd Street is now known as the "republic of fear."
It is very much in his nature for Raines to call for the heads of those who would have ideas that do not conform to his own, or those who do not bow down to his latest infatuation with a silver-tongued fraud. Luckily, America caught on to Barack Obama far faster than they did Jayson Blair.
As always, the autocratic Raines will be the last to figure it out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:32 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
A campaign without precedent in modern history?
Howell how quickly you forget the campaign of the New York Times, under your leadership, to delegitimize George W. Bush. Sounds like editorial Alzheimer's has captured your puny brain cells. What a putz.
Posted by: Mike Myers at March 12, 2010 11:12 AM (ktYjH)
2
Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists
How machiavellian for Ailes to use actual reporting and truth, instead of propaganda and spiking inconvenient facts, to undermine Obamacare. Reporting things like Rep. Ryan pointing out the blatant lie in reporting a 10 year cost for a 6 year charge, Cornhusker Kickback, coverage for illegal aliens, and abortion coverage truly reveals the biased nature of Fox News. A real journalist would have hidden all those inconvenient facts and only paraphrased White House press releases.
Whenever one wishes to see the modern Left's playbook, all you have to do is to look at what they accuse others of doing. The Left cannot imagine actually reporting the news or having a real debate so they project their dishonest machinations onto everyone else.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 12, 2010 11:48 AM (I5shO)
3
You have to laugh when any of these media nitwits complains about insufficient water carrying for the Dems. Their absolute disgust that someone actually dissents is hilarious.
Posted by: bandit at March 12, 2010 12:52 PM (SHPL6)
4
The same Howell Raines who counseled John Kerry to lie in the 2004 election:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/02/uselections2004.comment
Posted by: zhombre at March 13, 2010 10:25 PM (vUWth)
5
Raines thinks he is a big gun but maybe he doesn't read the papers since he SHOULD have known that a much bigger gun, Barack Hussein Obama, declared a War on Fox last fall. It lasted about four weeks and ended in a rout not seen since Egyptians were turned back from Suez. And O was at the height of his power then. What is killing these morons and what they are trying mightily to correct, is that even with their great intellects and moral rectitude, they STILL must function as business enterprises. And they are failing rapidly and yet more rapidly there. Hey, at least Raines got his golden parachute. His successors at the helm will receive none when they pull themselves from the wreckage, barring a King Georbe-esque madness enveloping Carlos Slim.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 14, 2010 12:03 PM (ilvYd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 11, 2010
Signs of No-mentum
I haven't given it much thought myself, but Michelle Malkin brilliantly skewers Barack Obama when she notes that his "time for talk on health care is over" tour just keeps going.
Poor baby. It sounds like the job is just too much for him sometimes, doesn't it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:08 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: wolfwalker at March 11, 2010 11:21 PM (0u1Dr)
2
What he meant of course was that it was time for everyone ELSE to stop talking, in other words, shut up.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 14, 2010 12:05 PM (ilvYd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Holder, Wrote, Hid Brief in Support of Terrorist Plotting to Kill American Civilians
Attorney General Eric Holder, you are scum:
So the Attorney General, while he was in private practice at a firm that openly bragged about its "pro bono" representation of numerous Girmo detainees, chose during our war with al Qaeda to file a brief on behalf of an al Qaeda operative who tried to kill lots of Americans. So he argued that such people ought to be treated as criminal defendants swaddled in the Bill of Rights rather than enemy combatants detained for interrogation and war crimes commissions. So what? What, are you, like, saying that the positions Holder voluntarily took as a private lawyer zealously representing unpopular clients might shed some light on the policies he would implement in the completely unrelated role of top Justice Department official.
Apparently Holder "forgot" he wrote such a brief, repeatedly, up until and including the time more than a half dozen attorneys in Justice were criticized for representing terrorists.
Of course, what really has potential to get him in hot water is the fact that he refused to disclose the existence of the brief during his confirmation hearings.
Pundits have asserted in the last month that Obama was looking for an excuse to push Holder "under the bus." I wonder if someone in the White House might have been part of getting this significant nondisclosure brought to light.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:22 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Love your thinking! It makes you wonder what top Dems have on Obama that will enable them to throw Obama under the bus when the time comes.
Posted by: BHG at March 11, 2010 04:02 PM (DCV44)
2
Ya think maybe a copy of his birth certificate, BHG, heh, heh?
Posted by: emdfl at March 12, 2010 07:11 PM (vwRFo)
3
"Hot water"? HAH!
We are allowing the Dems to govern by their own rules, where they violate the Constitution and we call it silly names. Holder should not be in "hot water" - I was in "hot water" as a kid when I stayed out beyond curfew or backtalked my parents!
The Republicans should declare Holder's confirmation null and void, and demand that he be charged with perjury - he was under oath before the Senate was he not? And they should be on every damned talk show hammering that home until Hell freezes over! No Republican should make a speech without mentioning that the Attorney General of the United States was confirmed through perjury! How the hell else do we fight the pernicious theme the MSM runs with 24X7 about how Republicans are corrupt?
Dammit, doesn't anybody here want to save America from these crooks? Then get off your asses, Republicans, and raise hell!
Posted by: sherlock at March 12, 2010 09:10 PM (jdXw+)
4
I like the Sherlock approach. Really, any serious adherence to the oath of office would require any elected official to turn to rebellion and brigandage under these crimes if they weren't all basically colluding but it is not too much or too soon to label Holder a traitor in the strict Constitutional definition of that term. Nor Obama either or anyone involved in jihadi lawfare or the John Yoo fiasco. But Democrat traitors in office elective and appointed is nothing new. In fact, it is the norm and has been since the New Deal.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 14, 2010 12:10 PM (ilvYd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Little Tyrants
It seems the more power so-called liberals think they have, the more control they want:
If State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has his way, the only salt added to your meal will come from the chef's tears.
The Brooklyn Democrat has introduced a bill that would ban the use of salt in New York restaurants - and violators would be smacked with a $1,000 fine for every salty dish.
"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food," the bill reads.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:59 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good grief - make this person sit through the entire season of "Worst Cooks" from Food Network. Salt is required to make stuff not taste bland.
Perhaps we should leave him alone in a room with Alton Brown instead....
Posted by: Jeff Shultz at March 11, 2010 12:14 PM (zGCLY)
2
Salt is needed for life. This ass wipe wants to kill you by banning salt.
Posted by: Stephana at March 11, 2010 02:26 PM (olUEe)
3
Some symapthy, his father had heart pronlems and died.
But not much. Salt may (or may not - other factors decide) exacerbate hypertension but has been shown to cause it only for a tiny percentage of that small number of those with a certain genetic pre-disposition in their background. Think hemophilia.
And think of the children! Perhaps not those of NYCity, but those of Des Moines. Table/cooking salt is iodised (or, with sea salt, already has iodine) to prevent thyroid problems.
Posted by: John A at March 11, 2010 02:27 PM (LEb+F)
4
John,
Salt in your food has never, ever been linked to a disease state except for situations in which there is a lack. Table salt in excess has been associated with hypertension and real disease in very selected individuals. Those with heart failure and renal failure are put on certain selected diets. To restrict salt as this nut wants to do is beyond comprehension.
Many people wonder were this junk comes from. In this case I know. You can thank the American Heart Association. They have been trying to take more of a proactive stance in order to prove their relevance.
The same situation exist for cholesterol and dietary fats. There is little to indicate that these substance have a factor in disease. In fact, a Harvard trial called the Hope Trial indicated that low cholesterol diets were associated with consequences. Expect this to be the next shoe to fall.
Consider that now this can only be a reality with the passage of a law. Under Obamacare it will be in the form of regulations that are passed down in the name of preventive medicine. Finally, preventive medicine does nothing other than enriching your doctor.
Posted by: David at March 11, 2010 04:07 PM (jHK8i)
5
Another organization that you need to watch is the Academy of Pediatrics. This organization is as socialist as it gets. They will try to push through any bill that supposedly helps children. The problem is that many of their positions are not healthy. One good example is drainage of the middle ear. Doctors put tubes in to help with this as I am sure many of you are aware. According to the Academy, this is wrong unless a child has something like 16 infections in one year. By that time, the ear is non-functional. Concepts like this will be part of Obamacare.
Posted by: David at March 11, 2010 06:13 PM (jHK8i)
6
This legislator has a total ignorance of food science. Salt is essential in both cooking and baking. Bread made without it isn't the proper texture or taste. Almost every cookie, pastry and cake recipe calls for a pinch of salt, too. It actually makes the final product taste sweeter. Chocolate chip cookies made without salt are bleh!
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at March 12, 2010 11:02 AM (HwBga)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What Did Pelosi Know About Massa, And When Did She Know It?
The Washington Post is reporting this morning that Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi's office had been alerted to allegations of predatory behavior by (now former) Democratic Congressman Eric Massa back in October of 2009.
Did Pelosi sit on this information for months before the House Ethics investigation?
Quite frankly there simply isn't enough information in the public eye yet to know who knew what, when, but
if Pelosi's office was aware of Massa's predatory behavior towards young gay staffers, she needs to be the focus of her own ethics investigation. If it is found that she was indifferent to Massa's hunting of staffers for sexual assaults, then she should resign her Speakership, and perhaps her seat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That line of reasoning would apply to a Republican, but of course there are different rules for a Democrat. About the only way that would happen if it were used as an excuse to get rid of Pelosi, which many Dems would truly like to do. No matter how ideological, they can see she is burning down the House for no gain.
Posted by: Tregonsee at March 11, 2010 09:52 AM (nPMZJ)
2
I saw this guy on Glen Beck. Within 5 minutes you know he is nutter than a fruit cake. The people in his district should be fined or put in jail.
Posted by: David at March 11, 2010 04:09 PM (jHK8i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Agents of Incompetence, Part III
Watch this news report closely, and you'll notice the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the BATF's Seattle Field Division attempt the insert the Airsoft gun's magazine in the gun backwards before finally getting it right.
According to an ATF whistleblower blog, this same Special Agent was demoted two levels to his current level for incompetence, and has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars... and that's just before this latest incident.
The stench of a BATF cover-up is growing stronger.
This article may be the last planned installment in my three part series (here are
part 1 and
part 2 if you missed those) at Pajamas Media, but there is so much done wrong, so badly, by these two federal agencies that I have a feeling that this story is far from over.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:05 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What a total crock! If the gun would blow up if a true bullet were fired, then the ATF guy has an agenda going for him. Let's find out what that agenda is, and we will know a lot more about ATF than we do now.
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 11, 2010 01:16 PM (IKKIf)
2
I think the agenda was to get some air time and be able to file a successful report, making himself look like another Elliot Ness.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 11, 2010 02:27 PM (O9Cc8)
3
TimothyJ, it (at least the barrel) would become so much shrapnel if fired after replacing the works with those of an actual firearm. And if you remove the barrel, you basically are left with only the replacement parts and a stock - so why not ban the fully-legal parts, or stocks/grips? Oh, wait, weren't folding stocks part of the scary-looking-weapons ban...
Posted by: John A at March 11, 2010 02:37 PM (LEb+F)
4
The receiver on the airsoft guns are zinc. Lower tensile strength than aluminum alloy. If they made it work, the gun will explode on the very first shot. The magazines from the airsoft guns used a very different feed mechanism than its real-life counterpart. You have to gut the damn thing and make new springs, feed lips, followers and possibly a new floor plate to make it even work. This is just off the top of my head. Heck, some freely available online manual(s) has fewer steps and clearer directions.
Do they even require these guys to know anything about guns before they apply for a job?
BTW, I was on a particularly notorious site on their "weapons" board the day before I came across this bit of news. There was a thread about converting airsoft guns into a real one. As far as I know, the dude who claimed that it was possible was told off by many on the forum as being an uninformed human (they were using harsher terms). That particular thread was deleted later on as per the practice of that site. Don't know if that has any bearing on this. Maybe the dude used the discussion on that particular site as a basis for the claim. I'm just a little curious as per the timing of that discussion and all this new info.
Posted by: Sean the Maggot at March 15, 2010 04:50 AM (+p38F)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 10, 2010
Atlantic - Naval Massa Had Keen Interest in Main Masts and Poop Decks, Too
Other than commenting on how politically incompetent it was for Democrats to force him out at a time they did in the Health care debate, I've pretty much avoided the story of (former) Congressman Eric Massa, the Democrat apparently run out of office in a gay sexual harassment scandal involving his own aides.
It now appears that Massa's interest in his fellow man goes back at least to his Navy days, when he was repeatedly rebuffed by junior officers for his attempts to play
hide the torpedo with them.
Massa's bombastic, self-serving (and entirely amusing) excuses for his forced retirement
means the end of the House ethics complaint against him. I sincerely hope that other investigations into his behavior are forthcoming to make sure his is not a predator.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Slaughter's House Rules
Unable to competently draft a health care rationing bill that Democratic majorities in the House and Senate can agree on, House Rules Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is attempting to concoct an unconstitutional rule that would consider the bill voted upon, even though it is has not been:
The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.
The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter's scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply "deeming" the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.
They are attempting to declare victory without a vote, governing by fiat.
Please pay attention, my fellow Americans.
Governments that begin trying to rewrite rules that have worked for hundreds of years in order to seize a temporary advantage quickly become drunk on that power if they are allowed it, and the result is always unpleasant.
Slaughter's subversive House rules are just one avenue that leftists are pursuing in a frenetic quest to seize as much power for themselves as possible before many of their number are thrown out of office in November. The problem, of course, is that if they find that they can simply rewrite the rules to suit them, then even the sting of electoral defeat may no longer be a threat to their ambitions.
Watch them closely.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:59 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I expect that this will be a 24 hour wonder, and then disappear. However, just suppose they went ahead and did this. It would of course be fast tracked to the SCOTUS. If the vote were anything other than 9-0 against, we would have a good list of justices to impeach. Not joking here.
Posted by: Tregonsee at March 10, 2010 04:36 PM (hyEA8)
2
At this rate this administration is going to end in Civil War.
Posted by: God Help Us at March 10, 2010 07:51 PM (vPFjg)
3
Your scenario is very scary, Tregonsee, because if there were an impeachment trial of justices allowing such a scheme, the trying body would be the US Senate. And I don't think that would go so well for Liberty.
Posted by: MikeM at March 10, 2010 07:58 PM (n8jTy)
4
SCOTUS would invalidate any attempt to enforce a "law" that hadn't been signed by both houses, even if it is more like 6-3 (a wise Latina and a justice who prefers Euro law would certainly support eliminating all those pesky Constitutional law)
Posted by: iconoclast at March 11, 2010 12:23 AM (O8ebz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 63 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.2732 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2629 seconds, 111 records returned.
Page size 108 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.