EXTRA, EXTRA! Read All About It!

All Hail to our new Editor-In-Chief!

09/21/09 09:00 AM ET

Obama said, "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

Did I hear that correctly? They can't make a profit and so the taxpayer foots their bills? That doesn't make me happy or feel very comfortable that the Federal Government will now control newspapers and influence the content too. Oh well, there goes the traditional adversarial role that the free press has enjoyed for over 200 hundred years to question our government's actions.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin's Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D). (Both Liberals)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had played down the possibility of government assistance for news organizations, which have been hit by an economic downturn and dwindling ad revenue. I can understand why the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other liberal publications are having such a rough time these days because of their political bias. To be fair and balanced to those printed papers, besides the drift towards immediate access to news from the Internet, cable, radio and Kindle, it is truly the economy, but also those papers figuring how to retool the way they deliver news too.

In early May, Gibbs dodged the issue and said that while he hadn't asked the president specifically about bailout options for newspapers, "I don't know what, in all honesty, government can do about it." I don't believe Gibbs for a minute after learning on July 28, 2009 they picked Mark Lloyd for Federal Communications Commission Czar. (See "In 5 Minutes it's Gone", my Aug 16 Blog on this guy)

Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing trends in reporting -- especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election. Who elected Obama as the National Minister of Information here?

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," Obama said.

Again, Obama, a politician, is lecturing the American public on honesty and putting stories in context. Hello, National Health Plan, TARP Bailout, Auto Bailout, Insurance Bailout? Save your stories for your newspapers and insert them in the funnies section.

You Better Know about Cap and Trade

If you will recall, the Cap and Trade Bill was passed in a big hurry by Obama. Everyone talked about the "Carbon Footprints" that we all make by our lifestyle choices, i.e., car miles = gasoline usage; heating & electricity = fuels consumed; clothes or food you buy = energy is utilized in manufacturing, etc. As you can see, this so-called "Carbon Tax" is a surtax on everything you personally use to force you to use less by imposing this Federal Tax Law or you pay more.

Now, did you know this same tax bill has still a bigger impact on your life? It contains the "Carbon Tax" on imported goods into the United States and that adds to your personal tax burden further. In Obama's Stimulus Bill the "Buy American" provision further limits imports from being bought in the United States which increases more cost to Americans. The big Labor Unions' anti-trade views dominate the Democrat Congress and liberal think tanks and protectionism is now justified. This is the cornerstone of Obama Trade Doctrine, by a President that is ignorant who does not look at the past 80 years of trade history and realize it is very wrong.

During the Depression years of 1929 to 1939, FDR had these same policies and late in his administration they were finally rescinded which turned world trade around that went forward until now. The reality now is that it will be "every country for itself" during a major global recession, so get ready for the next war, the "Global Trade Wars"!

Obama - Second Verse The Same As The First

September 13, 2009 - 60 Minutes - NBC Network.

Steve Kroft interviews the president at an important time in his presidency at the White House.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5307949n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

You can see the whole interview by clicking on the link above. In reviewing the entire interview, it did not bring up anything really new than what has already been said at the house speech this week. I found two points in passing that Obama made as amusing and dangerous too.

On Steve Kroft asking about the cost of his Federal takeover programs as perceived by the voters and Obama defined as "the folks taking in the sticker shock". The other when Steve Kroft asked about the outburst in his speech along with the course interaction between both political parties and Obama said "figuring out civility is interesting and a work in progress."

Both comments were sophomoric and naive showing a true lack of Presidential experience or Executive understanding on why voters have reacted to these over-the-top costs and the outrage that is fueling their frustrations about a President and Democrat party that is not listening to them.

A word of caution here, Obama's comment of "figuring out civility is interesting and a work in progress" can be interpreted as his next step is to quiet opposition through the "Fair Practice Doctrine" that is being worked on in the background presently by our new FCC Czar.

As of July 29, 2009, with no public fanfare, Obama did anoint Mark Lloyd your new Federal Communication's Czar. He will dictate all terms through Official Executive Federal Orders issued without any consultation of the American People who are expected to obey without their approval for total Federal Controls of all Communications Airwaves and its content.

"Localism" is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses. How it is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever is doing the enforcing. It can mean something benign like airing local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they don't like.

In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter - use the "localism" requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to (very liberal) public broadcasting.

My 08/16/2009 Blog has the complete blog about this media takeover. Listen to Mark Levin's audio link on that blog too.

Medicare for Dummies

When American political discourse has reached the point where a congressman shouts “You lie!” at the president during a nationally televised address, it must be a sign that the stakes are running pretty high. The political cost to Democrats will be enormous if nothing passes. Such a failure would demoralize the Democrats and energize their opposition and lead to losses in 2010 midterm elections. So, this huge train wreck is going to happen; it is only a matter of how big.

Just like ACORN workers getting a brothel funded, another Community Organizer is getting his program funded too. I must take my hat off to the WSJ for their editorial. Some things are said so well that they bear repeating:

Wall Street Journal Editorial - Medicare for Dummies - 9/11/2009

Associated Press

President Barack Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2009.

Mr. Obama called for "civility" in debate even as he calls the arguments of his critics "lies." So in the spirit of civility, we won't accuse the President of lying about Medicare. We'll just say his claims bear little relation to anything true.

As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding "one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period," in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called "waste and abuse." Perhaps this is related to the "waste and abuse" that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.

Apparently this time Mr. Obama means it, though he said this doesn't mean seniors should listen to "demagoguery and distortion" about Medicare cuts. That's because Medicare is a "sacred trust," and the President swore to "ensure that you—America's seniors—get the benefits you've been promised."

So no cuts, for anyone—except, that is, for the 24% of senior beneficiaries who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, which Democrats want to slash by $177 billion or more because it is run by private companies. Mr. Obama called that money "unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies—subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors."

In fact, Advantage does provide better care, which is one reason that enrollment has doubled since 2003. It's true that the program could be better designed, with more competitive bidding and quality bonuses. But Advantage's private insurers today provide the kind of care that Mr. Obama said he would mandate that private insurers provide for the nonelderly—"to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventative care."

Advantage plans have excelled at filling in the gaps of the a la carte medicine of traditional Medicare, contracting with doctors and hospitals to coordinate care and improve quality and covering items such as vision, hearing and management of chronic illness. If seniors in Advantage lose this coverage because of the 14% or 15% budget cut that Mr. Obama favors, well, that's "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama did also promise to create "an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." That kind of board is precisely what has many of the elderly worried about government rationing of treatment: As ever-more health costs are financed by taxpayers, something will eventually have to give on care the way it has in every other state-run system.

But Mr. Obama told seniors not to pay attention to "those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program."

This is a partisan swipe at one of the best GOP ideas to rationalize the federal budget, despite Mr. Obama's accusations that his opponents want to do "nothing." This reform would get Medicare out of the business of spending one out of five U.S. health dollars, and instead give the money directly to seniors to buy insurance to encourage them to be more conscious of cost and value within a limited budget. Democrats would rather have seniors dance to decisions made by his unelected "commission of doctors and medical experts."

Obama vs. Big Bad Insurance Companies

"The battle is all over except the shouting when one knows what is wanted and has made up his mind to get it, whatever the price may be" - Napoleon Hill

"The time for games has passed,'' Obama said in last night's speech on the floor of the House, "the season for action'' is upon us.

Obama is sure right about the "The time is for games is passed" because he has already played them on the voters at the beginning of August, 2009 and what you are seeing is just smoke and mirrors now. All the Senators and Congressmen on both sides know its a sham too. Why don't you?

It is absolutely amazing how the American Public has been totally misled by Obama into these national debates to believe that he is fighting off the big, bad, insurance companies and their greed. He is actually doing the side show routine to distract you while the stage is set for the final act. In fact, you have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of this final act. Hey fool, you are there to only clap and applaud at the end that it was a job well done.

Instead, while you read the following article, it shows how big government has already cuts its deals far in advance of when the "final" decisions are to be made in the senate. Why hasn't Obama mentioned these deals in his town hall meetings?

This article was published back on August 6, 2009. And you ask, why bother having any town hall debates? It's because of the Shouting!......because that's all there's left to do. Wait a little later on and everyone can howl at the moon! Do you feel a little more foolish and used yet?

Obama and The Health Insurers have already won!

Read on how UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit.

An article in Business Week tells the whole story.

By Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein

As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.

Executives from UnitedHealth certainly showed no signs of worry on the mid-July day that Senate Democrats proposed to help pay for reform with a new tax on the insurance industry.

Instead, UnitedHealth parked a shiny 18-wheeler outfitted with high-tech medical gear near the Capitol and invited members of Congress aboard. Inside the mobile diagnostic center, which enables doctors to examine distant patients via satellite television, Representative Jim Matheson didn't disguise his wonderment. "Fascinating, fascinating," said the Democrat from Utah. "Amazing."

UnitedHealth wowed the pols with its high-tech mobile diagnostic center.

Impressing fiscally conservative Democrats like Matheson, a leader of the House of Representatives' Blue Dog Coalition, is at the heart of UnitedHealth's strategy. It boils down to ensuring that whatever overhaul Congress passes this year will help rather than hurt huge insurance companies.

Obama Care - Seize Power & Limit Rights

Michael Connelly who is a Constitutional Lawyer and has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the effects on our Constitution. It's a broader picture than just health care reform. In six short paragraphs, the mystery behind Obama Health Care is explained.

This legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with or regulate health care. The paragraph below is really frightening.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal health care information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have health care insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

Many more pages could be written about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable at the least.

China Agreed to Buy IMF Bonds

Why should you care about the International Monetary Fund?

Read about WHY from the Official IMF website in the paragraph below.

The work of the IMF is of three main types: Surveillance involves the monitoring of economic and financial developments with provision of policy advice aimed especially at crisis-prevention. Lends to countries with balance of payments difficulties, to provide temporary financing and to support policies aimed at correcting the underlying problems. Technical assistance and training in its areas of expertise to strengthen the international financial system and preventing and resolving crises of standards and codes of good practice in its areas of responsibility, and to the strengthening of financial sectors. The IMF also plays an important role in the fight against money-laundering and terrorism.

Since the mid-20th century, the de-facto world currency has been the U.S. dollar. In March 2009, People's Bank of China, however, called for "creative reform of the existing international monetary system towards an international reserve currency," believing it would "significantly reduce the risks of a future crisis and enhance crisis management capability." and suggested that the IMF's Special Drawing Rights, a currency basket comprising dollars, euros, yen and could serve as a super-sovereign reserve currency, not easily influenced by the policies of individual countries. Obama disagreed saying the U.S. dollar is too strong now. What is behind Obama's comment, "too strong now"? Hmmn... Did Obama's comment carry any weight at all? Read on.

On July 10, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a “united future world currency.”

“Here it is,” Medvedev told reporters today in L’Aquila, Italy, after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “You can see it and touch it.”

The coin, which bears the words “unity in diversity,” was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of G-8 delegations, Medvedev said.

The question of a supranational currency “concerns everyone now, even the mints,” Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready. I think it’s a good sign that we understand how interdependent we are.”

Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the U.S. dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the G-20 meeting in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.

The Chinese connection: China expects to sell off $2 Trillion in foreign-exchange reserves to buy IMF bonds to reduce its exposure to the U.S. dollar. Extending the IMF practice where members make their contributions in their local currencies, China demonstrated its developing financial strength. Using the yuan, China is the first nation who agreed to purchase $50 Billion in bonds in IMF Special Drawing Rights, the super-sovereign reserve currency funds.

Could it be that if a country wanted to buy goods and services from China that they could borrow the yuan from the IMF, pay interest and use the yuan instead of the U.S. dollar as the trade currency? Hmmn......

Good-by United States States Dollar. Hello, Welcome to your new IMF World Order Monetary System enabled by Barrack Hussein Obama, Ben Beranke and Timothy Geithner.

Just a Question: Why is the United States the largest borrower of IMF Funds in 2009? $37.2 Billion or 17% of available funds. (The closest countries behind are France at 7% and Germany 5%) You did not hear about this yet? Hmmn.......

Chess Anyone?

In a sense, the litigator thinks of a case as linear, with a clear beginning and end while the trial lawyer looks at his case from the end game. By now, every voter should acknowledge that all moves by Obama, a Harvard University lawyer with lengthy Civil Rights trial experience, should be considered expert in "end-game" tactics. Obama never wastes any play, knows the expected outcome of each and aims all moves toward the final stages of the chess game to win.

Obama wants to pass his Federal Public Health Option Bill intact. So, has Obama devised an end game plan? I believe it is already in play. Obama has appointed a cabinet of 44 Czars now with 7 more to be added, none elected. Obama's strategy is to leak certain Czar profiles to keep his opponents crazy and busy running after these empty suits., i.e., Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. Obama is genius because he can then throw another Czar under the bus every week as he continues on with his socialist programs behind all of the brouhaha.

Meanwhile, Obama realizing falling poll numbers relate to his package for a Healthcare Bill legacy has Speaker Peolosi float the "Trigger" option inside Obama's new "Bi-Partisan" Healthcare Insurance Bill package. Speaker Pelosi warns the Insurance Industry that if it cannot regulate itself, then this "Trigger" will fire off the "Public Option" inside this bill. Speaker Pelosi does not mention who mandates the "Trigger" to be pulled. What, is this a Trojan Horse?

Obama keeps his eye on the end game. Do you? Check, Check Mate! Hmmn...........

LA Times Reports Bias Again

September 3, 2009 - Actual Release (My comments in bold parenthesis)

Here's a weird little piece of late-breaking news about the nation's healthcare reform debate:

A 65-year-old man at a Wednesday night California rally supporting President Obama's embattled reform ideas had a finger bitten off during a scuffle with Anti-reform protesters. (It first appears that the Pro-Obama protester had his finger bitten off by the Anti-Obama protester - read on)

Ventura County sheriff's deputies were called to Lynn Road and Hillcrest Drive in Thousand Oaks near Los Angeles, according to TV station KTLA.

There, an estimated 100 supporters of Pro-healthcare reform affiliated with MoveOn.org had gathered as part of a nationwide array of pre-Labor Day rallies to attract attention in support of Obama's reform plans currently before Congress.

Instead, the rally attracted the attention of a group of Anti-healthcare-reform protesters across the street. (Is that a bad thing ?)

Initial police reports say that one Obama Pro-protester moved into the group of Anti-protesters. ("Moved", hardly, he actually had to run across a major eight lane Boulevard to reach those anti-health-care protesters across the street to pick a fight)

Some angry words were exchanged. One protester punched another, a witness told KTLA. (The Anti-Obama supporter threw the punch according to witnesses on live on-the-air radio telecasts because of the overt swearing and threatening action of the Pro-Obama supporter)

A scuffle ensued. And the Obama Pro-protester had a finger bitten off by the Obama Anti-protester. (Not the Truth)

L.A. Times Retraction:

OOPS! Conflicting later reports indicate the biter was actually the Obama Pro-Healthcare proponent and the now nine-fingered man an Obama Anti-Healthcare opponent.

Oh well, there goes truth-in- reporting down the drain again and into the gutter again with bias in the Los Angeles Times. Do you think everyone read the news retraction after it was released with the actual story> Hmnn........

A Trigger or A Switch? Which is it?

The U.S. Government must have the ability to turn off all non-military Internet access while allowing U.S. Governmental Agencies unfettered use that would prevent terrorists from communicating during any assault or so that scenario alleges. As Obama puts it, he wants to have the "trigger" to pull if the United States has another "terrorist attack" and also he adds "other national disasters", disasters not defined as yet by statue, law or actual prior experiences. Obama further offers that it would be restricted and solely used for those purposes only.

This overreaching policy change to our free speech rights through Internet access was floated yesterday at a White House press with little fanfare. So typical of the voluminous Obama babble that constantly flows out of the White House, it almost got missed and is being proposed as an amendment to some bill. What does it really mean?

I believe that it means the end to Free Speech on the Internet for any persons considered by the U.S. Government as terrorists, i.e., persons disagreeing with political figures, persons advocating protests against government ideas, persons blogging anti-government sentiments, persons organizing movements to inspire others to support their positions, persons disseminating educational information to the general population, ad infinitum. Man, those persons sound like American Citizens who enjoy their Freedom of Speech, not terrorists.

The United States has not been attacked since 9/11. If Obama feels that his plans to protect the United States from Terrorism is better than his predecessor, then why does he need this extraordinary measure? Sounds a lot more like his scare mongering again for the $787 Billion Stimulus Package for Obama's Depression to take over private industry.

Now, Obama wants to tramp on Free Speech Rights to control the Internet that the President has no Executive Powers over by any Federally mandated laws at this time. Does Obama want a "Trigger" or does Obama want a "Switch" to turn the Internet off and on at his will? Hmmn..........

Where's the Depression?

Despite the Obama rhetoric that the current recession is the worst since the Great Depression, it is greatly overstated and highly misleading. Simply put, the Obama administration wanted to make it appear as though it saved us from an imminent disaster and used this recession as a pretext for arguing this change. Obama chose to heap his enormous $787 Billion Stimulus Package on the United States people in order to redistribute income. It worked!

According to the to Allan Meltzer, Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon Institute, we were never close to the 25% unemployment rate in 1932. It should be pointed out that your only safety net then was a soup line. Furthermore, many economists believe this current recession will end before much of the government money takes hold. Whoops Mr. Obama, what's your rush to go out and spend even more and confiscate more American industries?

Many pundits are asking for another stimulus package. The more responsible answer is to demand that the Obama administration revise its fiscal policies and scrap what remains of the stimulus package, reduce corporate tax rates to increase investment, increase productivity by not increasing regulation to lower business costs and enact lower tax rates for all taxpaying citizens.