Fun & Frivolity: Incredible Construction

To finish this week, I thought it would be fun to post a couple of time lapse videos that show some incredible construction. First is an F-18 fighter jet:

Ace of Spades helpfully provides this visual of the toys that come with the F-18:


Next we have a terrific sampling of time-lapse construction of none other than Disneyland:

Fun stuff!

Have a great weekend!

Dems Preemptively Save Kill More Jobs

This is becoming a depressingly regular occurrence (emphasis mine):

The Democrats are working toward some "unintended consequences" that are very, very obvious and the effects are going to be disastrous for our economy.

As the House Republican Conference notes,

Press reports indicate that Finance Committee negotiators may require employers that do not offer coverage to pay for half of the cost of any Medicaid beneficiaries employed by the firm, as well as the full cost of any "low-income" subsidies for individuals with income up to three times the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).

Groups from the Heritage Foundation to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have criticized the Finance Committee proposal, which could in practice lead to hiring discrimination against low-wage workers. For instance, a single mother would prove much less attractive to an employer from a financial perspective than a college-age student from a wealthy family—the former would cost the firm additional money in "fair share" contributions, while the latter would not.

In many cases, the cost of the "fair share" penalty may actually exceed the "pay-or-play" tax on businesses proposed in the House legislation. For instance, under the House bill (H.R. 3200) an employer who cannot afford to offer health coverage would pay $1,664 in tax penalties per year for a full-time worker making $10 per hour. If that employer were subjected to a "fair share" contribution equaling even half of the cost of insurance subsidies in the Exchange, the tax on that business would be significantly higher—as average subsidy amounts would total nearly $5,000 per year under most legislative proposals being considered. A "fair share" penalty of $2,500 would serve as a further disincentive to hire low-wage workers, as employers would be hit with high tax penalties on only a certain segment of the targeted workforce—individuals from poorer backgrounds.

As the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted, "the ["fair share"] proposal also could discourage the hiring of low-income people with disabilities who have no choice but to enroll in Medicaid" in order to obtain proper treatment for their disabilities.

All of this is obvious to people who've run businesses. But then the Democrats drafting this stuff wouldn't know anything about that.

Did you catch that?  Even liberal think tanks are hammering this policy!  You know it's got to be awful if that's happening.

Remind me again why it's the Democrat party that is supposedly on the little poor person's side...?

There's my two cents.

Recommendation: Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

I'm a bit late to the party on Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, which came out a while ago, but at the time my list of books to read really was that high.  Though the furor has died down somewhat now, I have to say I agree with it - this book is excellent!

For people who want a clear definition (or better understanding) of the conservative philosophy, it doesn't get any better than this.  Levin methodically lays out a map of conservative philosophy, defining it, explaining its goals, and revealing its motivations.  He also relates how conservatism was the primary philosophy of the Founders, and why America has become so prosperous and powerful because of that foundation.  Along the way, Levin contrasts conservatism with Statism, and shows how it is a deficient and bankrupt philosophy that runs counter to America's foundations and history.  Levin also applies conservative philosophy to several specific key issues, including faith, environmentalism, immigration, the Constitution and law, free markets and welfare, federalism, and more.  He cites study after book after research paper that shows how statism is destroying this country bit by bit, and how the proper application of conservatism restores it.  If you follow politics closely, you've probably already seen some of the data he uses to support his arguments, but for someone less politically geeky this is an outstanding primer on conservatism.

Levin finishes with a bullet point list of the things that conservatives need to do in order to return the nation to its conservative foundations.  Unfortunately, we are living at a time when statists are in almost complete control of the government.  As such, we have the opportunity to boldly contrast their ways with those of both the Founders and contemporary conservatives, and set America back on the correct path toward freedom, global leadership, and prosperity, and Levin's book is a great roadmap to follow.

DeMint Answers Biden's Challenge

In a recent speech, VP Joe Biden rhetorically asked of his critics, 'What would you do'? Fortunately, someone like Sen. Jim DeMint is around to answer:

Hot Air raises an excellent point:

DeMint does a good job of outlining some of those options, but the biggest gaffe from Biden is that no one bothered to ask that question in February. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid insisted on locking Republicans out of the process of creating the stimulus package. Republicans had offered a range of options, including backing another Democratic plan from Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID), which stripped everything out of Porkulus except funds spent in 2009 — and it would have cost a sixth of Porkulus. START would have focused entirely on short-term stimulus and left out a generation of the Left’s pet projects and wasteful spending, including $300 million on golf carts.

Instead, the Obama administration backed the steamroller tactics of Pelosi and Reid — and America got flattened. Biden wants to know what else they could have done. They could have started by listening to Republicans when it counted, not just ask rhetorical questions to cover for Biden’s admitted misreading of the economy.

They could also try reading a history book, or maybe an Econ 101 textbook, too. Some people think those might have helped.

There's my two cents.

Black Panther Case Reveals Suppression Of Justice In Department Of Justice

If you recall (here), there was an incident on election day last fall where some Black Panthers were arrested for physically threatening and intimidating voters if they didn't vote for Barack Obama.  There was no ambiguity on the case; it was a guaranteed conviction for the DOJ.  But, when it came time for the trial, the DOJ dismissed the case, essentially volunteering to lose a case they were guaranteed to win (here).

In effect, Barack Obama approved of voter intimidation.

This incident has not gone away, despite the lack of appropriate media coverage.  Quin Hillyer at The American Spectator reports:

The establishment media lap dancers for Obama are, of course, mostly ignoring the story about the Justice Department dropping the already-won, voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers, but at the Washington Times we have been holding, or is that Holdering, the feet of Justice to the fire of righteousness. I dug up this MySpace page of the Panther who is simultaneously a Democratic poll watcher, Jerry Jackson. Kerry Picket did a great job listing the highlights/lowlights of this sicko web page. Reps. Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith have been doing an excellent job at keeping the heat on as well. Earlier editorials on the topic are here and here. Oh, and here. And kudos to the Election Journal, which I THINK was the first one to break the news that Panther Jerry Jackson AGAIN was a poll watcher four days after his case was dismissed.

Overall, this case, combined with Walpin-gate, about the fired AmeriCorps IG, shows SO much more corruption and cover-up of legitimate law enforcement or investigatory functions than ANYthing the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department did, that it really is outlandish for the establishment media to mostly ignore the stories, But here we are, again today, with the Washington Post giving big play to the story about the fired Bush-era US Attorneys -- or, I should say, what basically should be a non-story. (Since the Post requires a pain-in-the neck sign-in every time you visit the site, and I can't be bothered to look up my friggin password, I won't bother linking to today's Post story.)

Anyway, this Panther story has legs, and even Inspector Clouseau could figure out it's important. Which makes Clouseau a hell of a lot smarter than the establishment media.

This is entirely within the norm for Barack Obama.  He's a product of ACORN, an organization guilty of voter fraud, intimidation, strong-arming, campaign violations, and other forms of racketeering and illegalities.  As such, he's going to overlook every bit of ACORN-like behavior wherever he sees it.  Hillyer rightly points out that this is corruption and suppression of legitimate law enforcement at the highest levels of government, and simply cannot be excused nor accepted.

Even worse, Jackson was given credentials to become a poll-watcher again, just days after being released:

I'm sure you'll be stunned to learn that the sweetheart settlement Holder's Department gave these defendants does not require them to refrain from election activities. So of course Jackson, the alleged menacing racist who is also -- surprise! -- a Democratic party operative, is right back in business again:

Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was credentialed to be at the polling place Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling watcher, according to the Philadelphia city commissioner's office. A check of his MySpace Web page shows similar taunts. It also shows him in numerous poses with a variety of weapons. Records show Mr. Jackson obtained new credentials as a poll watcher "at any ward/division in Philadelphia" just days after the charges against him were dismissed.

(Emphasis added.) But Holder wants you to know his DOJ means business. The settlement includes an injunction against the nightstick-wielding Samir Shabazz: He is prohibited him from displaying a weapon at a polling place . . . until 2012. And the Department bravely warns that it "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."

I must say this is a new one on me. Is Holder saying that if Samir Shabazz wants to swing his nightstick at, say, the 2014 mid-terms, that's cool? When I was a federal prosecutor, DOJ sort of assumed that people were already forbidden from doing things that were illegal -- we didn't tell bank robbers (after they were actually prosecuted rather than having charges dismissed), "And hey, no more robbing banks for the next three years, 'kay?" That was understood -- for three years and forever. 

Behold what hope-n-change hath wrought.

There's my two cents.

This Says It All

I know I said I wasn't going to cover the beer summit anymore, but this picture says a whole heckuva lot about the general state of affairs in this country:

This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped  Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

I think this picture says even more.  I think it perfectly illustrates the principle divide in this country - the elites versus American citizens.

Crowley -- as Thomas Lifson says above, the sole class act in the picture -- is a working American with an exemplary record who was just doing his job before he found himself accused of racism and at the center of a political firestorm.  In contrast, both Gates and Obama took deliberate cheap shots at the first opportunity, accusing Crowley (and all cops) of racism and stupidity, and have still not fully backed away from that slander despite the photo op beer summit.  Gates and Obama are supposed to be friends.  And yet...who is helping Gates down the stairs?

Crowley.

This, to me, is the primary problem in America today.  On the one side, we have elites who, in their arrogance, recklessly accuse and destroy anyone who doesn't share their ideology.  On the other side, we have normal, hard-working Americans who are doing their jobs, making the country work, and genuinely willing to help others.  Even if it means helping the very same people who accuse them of the lowest of deeds.

Yes, this picture says a lot.

There's my two cents.

Dems Desperate To Fund Abortion With Your Tax Dollars

How desperate?  Very:

Yesterday afternoon, House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the House health care overhaul bill to allow for federal funding of elective abortion coverage for those enrolled in the "public option," to mandate that every regional Health Insurance Exchange contain at least one private insurance plan that offers abortion coverage, and to permit taxpayer subsidies of those private insurance plans and others that cover elective abortion.

The Capps amendment passed 30-28, with E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Capps, and 28 other Democrats voting in favor of mandating (and allowing taxpayer funding to be used to subsidize) abortion coverage.

Taxpayer dollars do not currently pay for, or subsidize, insurance plans that cover elective abortion services. This amendment, if the health overhaul bill to which it is attached is passed and signed into law, would alter that policy, using the tax dollars of every American - pro-life or pro-choice - to subsidize abortion coverage (and, by extension, abortion services).

Late last night, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) responded to the Capps amendment's passage by proposing an amendment of his own. Pitts's proposal would have prohibited the federal government from requiring any insurance plan — including the "public option" — to provide coverage for abortion (with the three chief exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother).

E&C passed the Pitts amendment by a 31-27 vote, with Waxman among the "Yea" votes. However, after the votes were in and the amendment passed, Waxman decided he wanted to change his vote, and so brought the amendment back up for "reconsideration" and a re-vote.

The second time around, Waxman voted against the amendment to prevent abortion coverage from being mandated in health insurance plans. He also convinced Blue Dog Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) to switch his vote from Yea to Nay, and pulled conflicted Blue Dog Zack Space (D-OH), who had managed to sit out the first round of voting, back into the debate. Space, who voted in favor of the Capps amendment earlier yesterday afternoon, succumbed to pressure from Waxman and cast his vote against the Pitts measure.

The result was a 30-29 defeat of the measure — a reversal of the initial outcome, and the Democratic preservation a health care overhaul bill that not only allows, but mandates, taxpayer-funded abortion coverage and services.

Take your pick of thinks to get angry about here...holding a second vote because the first one didn't turn out the 'right' way? contorting standard process to blatantly serve their agenda? strong-arming just enough people to brute force his way into 'victory'? forcing taxpayers to pay for a procedure they abhor?

If you live in the district of Waxman, Gordon, or Space, I'd suggest you let them know what you think about this foul act of political rape.  If you don't, I suggest you spread the word amongst people you know that this is how the Democrat majority operates, and that this is how desperate they are to accelerate the slaughter of the unborn with your tax dollars.

There's my two cents.

Plunging To New Depths

How about that?

Americans reject the radical in the White House...
Obama's approval numbers have dropped 42 points since January.


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 28% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. That’s the lowest rating yet recorded for President Obama.

Is the policy anchor finally being hung around the neck most responsible? I hope so, but we still need to make sure it rests firmly and securely.

There's my two cents.

Shazam: An Obama Program Actually Works!

Can you believe it? I know, it's a shock:

Unlike pretty much every other Hopenchange economic policy, not only did this one work, it worked better than expected. And yet, I can’t help thinking there’s a lesson in the fact that a centrally planned program budgeted to run through the end of October went bust in, er, seven days. That’s some miscalculation — not unlike the miscalculation that promised unemployment no higher than eight percent once we pinched that $787 billion loaf known as the stimulus. And naturally, the program came buried in so much bureaucracy and paperwork that some dealers gave up on it despite the amazing business it drummed up.

RedState has more:

The problem is that participating car dealers are currently on the hook for the trade-ins that they made in good faith, but have yet to see any of the deals signed off on by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. There are problems with the online system, you see.

Of course there are. It’s a government program, remember?

[Minnesota Auto Dealers Association vice president Scott] Lambert said the government has created a program that’s “so big and cumbersome that it can’t find a way to accept anything. We’re sending in good, reliable deals.”

It’s nerve-racking for the dealers, he said, because they have given the customer $4,500 and now the dealers need to be reimbursed.

Note that the program started on July 1, they only published the actual rules Friday, and they’re still working out how to get the dealers their money. If you’re shrugging over that, consider this: what’s essentially happening here is that car dealerships are giving $4,500 interest-free, unguaranteed loans to the federal government… and the determination of whether or not those loans get paid off is more or less going to be at the discretion of mid-level bureaucrats at the NHTSA. Even if they do repay every loan, it’s apparently going to take time for the system to smooth out; it’s an open question whether it’ll straighten out before the official end of the program in November. And the car dealerships - the only producers of goods in this particular equation, and the ones that the government is ostensibly trying to help - get all the headaches.

In a strange sort of backwards way, this completely validates conservative philosophy. What do conservatives say is the best way to generate economic recovery? To put more money back into the hands of the American people, right? Well, this program does more or less just that. Sure, it's taking it out of their back pocket first (Cash-for-Clunkers is funded by taxpayer dollars), but it then hands an extra $4500 to anyone who wants a new car. Bingo! Can we please apply this success to the entire economy now? How about a fabulous new tax cut that puts money back into the hands of the American people?

Ah, that was a nice diversion. Now let's come back down to earth. Considering the government has miscalculated on a $1 billion program and completely failed to properly administer it, let's just imagine how things will go with the multi-trillion dollar health care takeover, the multi-tens-of-trillion dollar economy in general, and the priceless security of our national defense...!

On second thought, let's not.

There's my two cents.

The Ridiculous Beer Summit

I am honestly and truly disgusted by the overblown coverage of Obama's so-called beer summit. I refuse to fully report it, as I think it's nothing more than a stunt to make Obama look magnanimous despite the fact that he's the one who stoked the racial flames on this one. It's completely ridiculous, and doesn't deserve the excessive coverage it got. If you want to know what's going on, go here.

For my part, I will only echo this sentiment from Powerline about the general subject:

I do have one more reflection on the matter (though not about myself). As "race men" go, Gates has always been viewed as relatively sensible, as opposed to, say, Cornel West. Indeed, as E.J. Dionne reminds us in a worthwhile column, Gates once criticized "race politics" as a "court of the imagination wherein blacks seek to punish whites for their misdeeds and whites seek to punish blacks for theirs, and an infinite regress of score settling ensues."

Barack Obama, for his part, was going to be a post-racial president. As such he would lead us out of the "race politics" Gates (and the rest of us) finds so sterile and counterproductive.

Yet when the rubber met the road, Gates didn't hesitate to level baseless charges of racism in an extremely aggressive manner. And Obama didn't hesitate to attack the white police officer before he had the facts.

This suggests to me that, as far as African-Americans are concerned, "race politics" will continue unabated, as if Obama had never been elected president.

Sadly, this is exactly as predicted by conservatives long before the election.

There's my two cents.

Conspiracy Theory Fun House: Hillary 2012?

Hmmm...

Hillary Clinton says running for office isn't on her "radar," but she still has an eight-person political team and sports two overflowing campaign war chests.

Her team transformed the former Democratic White House contender's massive campaign debts into a $3 million mountain of political cash, according to federal fund-raising records through the end of June.

Despite Clinton herself denying it, here are some other interesting bits from the article:

Democratic operatives were surprised at the size of the operation. "She's got eight?" said one Democrat. "Can I get a job there?"

By comparison, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is up for reelection next year, had just three people on staff last quarter.

But analysts said as long as Clinton has a campaign committee with millions of dollars in it - dormant or not - she has weight in the political world.

So, let's don the tinfoil hat and speculate a bit.  Barack Obama has completely fouled up all of the hope-n-change warm fuzzies that swirled around the Democrat party last fall.  He has wrecked the economy for generations to come, voluntarily disarmed some of America's most advanced defense systems, proven his utter ineptness on national security and foreign policy, and placed many Democrats in red-leaning districts in some serious heat.  Aside from the most Kool-Aid drenched Obots, many Democrats are showing some distinct signs of unease at what Obama's done.  Independents are fleeing the Democrat side of the house in droves, proving that they've already had enough of his distinctly non-centrist policies.

Now, what would happen if Obama fails to pass two of his signature legislative priorities (cap and trade and government-controlled health care)?  And what if the poll numbers continued their downward spiral over the next two years as the results of Obama's policies take firmer effect on the American people and their pocketbooks?  What if -- God forbid -- we get hit with another major terrorist attack, especially something directly due to Obama (closing Gitmo, killing missile defense, allowing North Korea or Iran to pursue nukes, etc.)?  Could the argument then be made that Obama had his chance and whiffed?  Could the argument be made that Obama's policies have had a dramatically negative effect on the Democrat party at large, and thus needs to be removed for the greater good (and boy, wouldn't that be some delicious irony for the Socialist-in-Chief)?

Is it really that much of a stretch for Hillary -- a battle-hardened, experienced, and proven politician -- to step up and say that she's the future of the Democrat party?  She could draw many of those Indies back and give plausible cover to Dems who voted for Obama and experienced buyer's remorse for a palatable alternative.  If the GOP makes huge gains in 2010, if the economy doesn't recover, and if the buyer's remorse continues growing, is it really that impossible?  Hillary seems to be keeping at least one toe in the doorway, anyway.  It seems like one of the few things that you can count on with a politician is that if they go out of their way to say they're not considering a run for higher office, you can bet they're considering a run for higher office.

Hillary 2012?  It's more than a little crazy...right...?

There's my two cents.

Obamacare Staggers Forward...Kind Of

Here's the latest on Obamacare:

Democratic leaders in Congress are angry about healthcare. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is lashing out at insurance companies:

"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Harry Reid blames the Capitol Hill media:

"Reid said reporters created a fictitious deadline of a successful vote by the August recess, and downplayed the fact that the chamber won't meet that mark.

"That is a deadline that you created," Reid told a group of about 75 reporters. "It's not like we don't have a product. Significant progress has been made … The mere fact that this wasn't done by last Friday or by five o'clock doesn't mean we're not going to get a quality product."

I bet there aren't many people in Congress who are looking forward to the August recess trip home, but I agree with Karl that the Democrats are just beginning to fight.

I'd say this is significant progress - at least the Dems aren't (wrongly) blaming Republicans anymore.  Regardless, without a united Congress, Obama's efforts to nationalize health care are pretty much stalled.  In the Senate it's a no go until at least September, period.  There's still an outside chance at a vote in the House prior to the end of the week, but even that looks unlikely.  The rub appears to be the far-Left Dems versus the really-far-Left Dems.  The Blue Dogs are supposedly concerned about the enormous spending that will be involved, so the first major compromise was a bit of pork trimming to make them happy, along with talk of removing the 'public option' (which was actually just re-naming the 'public option' to something else, not really removing it), but now the other side is getting angry about even that:

Via Glenn Thrush, "about 50 House liberals"--enough to defeat the bill in the House if Republicans joined them--have signed the following letter:

We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates—not negotiated rates—is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do anything to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.

To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to lower-and middle income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal Costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.

We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.

What they say is completely wrong, of course, but this should give you some idea of the vehemence with which they feel it is their rightful place to dictate all health care decisions to the American people.  A wee bit scary, huh?

The greater point is that there is a huge amount of internal turmoil inside the Democrat party right now.  Since the Republicans are actually holding firm on this one, there's no hope of pushing it through with GOP support.  It will be interesting to see which Democrat group backs down (translation: gets forced into submission) first; regardless, they'll probably all have to 'suffer' through a long recess at home, with their constituents battering down the doors in anger at the very attempt to take over health care.

Another interesting update is that the AARP has endorsed Obamacare, though they haven't pointed to a specific piece of legislation as the one they prefer.  This is rather interesting since it is old folks who will likely bear the brunt of the inevitable rationing that will start killing people who aren't worth the cost of their health care.  Philip Klein reveals just how that endorsement came about:

I've been reporting on AARP's cozy relationship with the Obama administration, particularly on health care. While the group insists that it hasn't endorsed a specific bill yet, it has been echoing White House talking points on just about every aspect of the health care debate. And just this Tuesday, the group, which purports to represent older Americans, hosted a staged "townhall" meeting with pre-screened questions allowing President Obama to promote his health care proposals. But a new Pew poll, which is bad for Obama in general, highlights just how out of touch AARP is with its own membership on the health care issue. Taking a look at the full report shows strong opposition to health care plans currently being discussed in Congress among the 50-plus crowd, which is AARP's membership base. While Pew found that within the 50 to 64 age group, a slim plurality of 45 percent supported the current proposals compared to 41 percent who opposed them, among the over-65 set, just 29 percent were supporters, compared to 48 percent opposed. In fact, those above retirement age were more opposed to current health care proposals and less supportive than any other age group. The bottom line is that AARP's full-throated support for the Democratic health care agenda stands in stark contrast to the actual sentiments of older Americans, which range from tepid support to fierce opposition.

Basically, this is similar to how the AMA as an organization endorses Obamacare while actual doctors oppose it.  It's what happens when unions or union-type political organizations get too deeply entrenched in bureaucracy and lose touch with those they supposedly represent.  Funny how we're seeing that happen a lot nowadays, isn't it?

Another bit of irony today is that Obama's own physician is opposed to the plan.  For what it's worth.

So, what happens in September?  We'll probably see continued plummeting of support for the plan, but that won't stop Obama and the Dems from trying it anyway.  Why?  Because they don't care - they feel they are entitled to dictate your life to you.  That's why this is such a critical issue, and that's why there can be absolutely no reprieve in the opposition to this bill, even though Washington is on vacation.  Above all, we must keep the pressure on.

There's my two cents.

Wanted: A New Version Of Change

I think Barack Obama is hoping for a new version of change, because the old one appears to be running out of gas quickly:

Latest from Rasmussen: he's not only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 28% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. That's the lowest rating yet recorded for President Obama (see trends).

He's losing liberals out of the "Strongly Approve" group. They thought they had a mandate and majorities in the House and Senate. Oh wait, they kinda did. It's just that Obama is such a bumbler they haven't been able to make anything out of it.

Card-check? Checked out.
Cap-and-tax? Stalled.
Healthcare? Stalled.
DADT & DOMA? Still the law of the land.
Guantanamo Bay? Still open for business.

For the Left, "Obama" is synonymous with "failure." And for the Right, his name is synonymous with "socialist." That's not a recipe for electoral success.

Remember, the President will never again have the support, the opportunity that he had during these six months past. This was his chance. He blew it. When he realises it, he's going to recalibrate his goals and his message. We've got to be ready for him.

Though Rasmussen is generally (in my opinion, and according to the 2008 election results) the most accurate, he's not the only one:

He's down to 52/41 in Gallup and dropping like a stone over the past 10 days thanks to Gatesgate and his health-care clusterfark, and in Rasmussen he's already below the line at 48/51. And that 48 isn't real hard, either:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 28% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. That's the lowest rating yet recorded for President Obama.

But it doesn't even stop there:

Two numbers jumping out at me in the newest polls. 1) Obama's approval rating on the economy is down to 38% in this Pew survey; 2) and in the WSJ poll, only 48% say Obama can be trusted to keep his word. That's amazing, and shows he's paying a price for governing so differently than he campaigned and for his literally incredible claims on the stimulus and health care. I was looking around for ideas for a prediction to make on the McLaughlin Group last weekend and a friend on the Hill suggested: "Obama will be at 50% by September." At this rate, he could be at 50% (or below—see Rasmussen) by the end of next week.

Bad news, indeed (for him, that is...for America, it's GREAT news!).  Want some historical perspective?  Here you go:

Barack Obama's pubic approval rating has fallen faster than presidents from George W. Bush to Jimmy Carter, based on a RealClearPolitics review of historical Gallup polling.

Until Obama, Carter was the last president to begin his term in the high 60s. Carter first polled at a 66 percent approval rating. He did not reach Obama's present territory until mid September, when he hit 54 percent.  Carter fell lower in late October--51 percent. And that fall occurred after the Carter administration was branded with scandal, following the Bert Lance affair.

Gallup reports today that Obama has a 52 percent public approval rating, a new low. Yesterday's three-day Gallup average was 53. The day before, 54. Feels like a slow bleed is underway. Obama may recover. Presidents do. But these are bad numbers by historical standards.

Obama began his presidency at 68. He hit 69 the following day. That means he's dropped 16 points since day one.

So in less time than Carter, Obama has fallen more.

Both W. Bush and Bill Clinton reached the low 50s sooner than Obama. W. Bush hit 53 in March; Clinton hit 51 within a month of his inauguration. But W. Bush and Clinton began their presidencies with approval ratings about 10 points lower than Obama. And indeed, Obama has therefore fallen faster than W. Bush as well.

Here are some conclusions from RCP:

In other words, Obama's got problems. Health care has come up against the rocks and the cop and prof race debacle has also likely taken some toll. Then there is the unemployment rate, almost assured to soon reach double digits.

In the end, approval rating also concerns symbolism. Once a president falls below 50 percent he can no longer say he has the majority of the public behind him--a knockdown blow for a president's legislative ambitions.

All I can say to that is: THANK GOD!!!

Obama's radical Leftist policies are getting him into trouble on two fronts.  For those on the Right, he's proven to be far too liberal, and many people who gave him the benefit of the doubt (and their vote) are now regretting it, especially from moderates and Independents.  But, as the pushback is mounting on the Right and in the middle, Obama's also having more trouble with his far Left base because he's becoming less and less effective and messiah-like.  As AoS mentions above, most of his signature issues have been failures or at least stalled out; the wackos finally have their shot at re-making the country the way they want it, and they're distinctly unhappy about the process bogging down so much.

Make no mistake - Obama has already done immense damage to the country, and if it all came to a halt right now we'd have an incredibly difficult time pulling out of this mess.  The longer Obama continues pushing his agenda forward, the more difficult that recovery will be, and at some point it will become impossible to restore the America of freedom and prosperity that we have known for the past 200+ years.  Where is that point?  I don't think anyone can know that for certain until we look back in the mirror.  That's why these dropping poll numbers are so important - we have to act NOW, to stop this radical Leftist agenda NOW, and to prevent as much of it as possible from becoming entrenched.  The sooner that happens, the less pain we as a nation are going to suffer.

There's my two cents.

Busting The Organic Food Myth

I KNEW IT!!!  Doug Bandow at The American Spectator reports:

Okay, to be fair, organic food isn't likely to make you less healthy.  But it isn't likely to make you more healthy, either.  Reports Reuters:

Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

Want to "go green"?  Sure, if that's what you are into.  But please stop lecturing the rest of us about the alleged benefits of doing so. 

'Nuff said.

There's my two cents.

How Specific Was That Prophecy?

This is simply too intriguing to pass up:

Hmmm...

My initial thought, as I've blogged about before, is that Barack Obama is most certainly NOT the anti-Christ. There are many reasons for that which I will not rehash again. I confess I find it highly coincidental that these verses would reveal the precise name of any person living 2,000 years in the future; to me, that gyration smacks of the kind of contortions that numerologists go through to 'prove' anything they want to prove.

However, you all know that I do believe in the concept of the Rapture proceeding the 'end times' of the Earth, and that a disturbingly and increasingly high number of Biblical signs are pointing to those events happening sooner rather than later. This video should cause us to stop and think about those signs. Things like Israel being established as a nation, a Russian-Iranian alliance forming for the first time in world history, miraculous conversions of Muslims to Christianity happening on a mass scale (no, you don’t hear about this in the media, but it’s happening on the ground by the thousands), Israel being increasingly isolated (another commenter pointed out that the entire Obama administration is very anti-Israel, and a definite coldness has fallen between the U.S. and our long-time ally), rising anti-Semitism all over the world, Israel discovering a huge new source of oil and natural gas that will likely propel it to incredible new wealth, and many more.

This particular video may be a little wacked out, but I would encourage any proper skeptic to look at the evidence before shrugging the general concept off as religious nonsense.

Check out Joel Rosenberg's Epicenter or Dr. David Jeremiah's What in the World is Going On? for some answers.

There's my two cents.

More Excellent Anti-Obamacare Videos

Paul Ryan Cleans Infobabe's Clock

Hot Air posts this video of Paul Ryan dissecting a liberal infobabe's whiny and baseless assertions, stating this:

Nothing here you haven’t heard before but it’s so rare these days to stumble across an engaging, concise, confident presentation on economic issues by a top Republican that he deserves some extra publicity for it. Yeah, he voted for TARP, and yeah, he voted for that awful confiscatory tax on the AIG bonuses, but he’s made to order as a message man: Young, comfortable talking about the economy, and not from the south. More TV time, please.

I agree. Enjoy the whole thing:

Nicely done! We need more of this eloquent, competent, and forceful -- yet respectful -- kind of defense of conservatism.

There's my two cents.

Another Obamacare Update

First, there was no vote. Then, there was a vote. Now, there's no vote again:

The big news on Obamacare this afternoon was Henry Waxman's "breakthrough" on a deal with the Blue Dogs to markup the health bill this afternoon and presumably report it out of committee by Friday. "I’m especially grateful that so many members, including some Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, are working so hard to find common ground," Obama said in a statement this afternoon. "Those efforts are extraordinarily constructive in strengthening this legislation and bringing down its cost."

But Roll Call reports that liberals on the committee have objected to Waxman's deal with the Blue Dogs, forcing the chairman to give up on marking up the bill today:

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) postponed the health bill markup that he planned to hold Wednesday afternoon amid a backlash from liberals to the deal that he cut earlier with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Waxman told reporters that he intended to keep meeting with committee Democrats on Wednesday night, resume the markup Thursday and still finish the bill Friday. ...

Waxman’s deal with the Blue Dogs, backed by House leaders and the White House, cuts more than $100 billion from the bill, prevents a new public option from using Medicare rates to reimburse providers and exempts small businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 from a new employer mandate, among other changes.

The weakening of the public option incensed some liberal Members, with Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) declaring she would vote against it.

Ace of Spades has a few more details:

The Progressive Caucus has 83 members. Members are circulating a letter for signatures protesting the deal.

Liberals are hoping to get 50 signatures on the letter, to make it clear they have the votes to defeat the biil.

"Fifty is our threshold," said Progressive Caucus co-chairman Raul Grijalva. "That'll kill anything."

And the bottom line:

The hold up wasn't caused by the 'conservatives', it was the 'progressives' this time.

While we're waiting to see the results of the wrangling in the House (translation: more Dems need to be bought), here are a few more links with excellent information on the monstrosity that is Obamacare.

Obamacare promotes euthanasia
Obamacare will cut Medicare benefits
Dems don't need a single Rep vote...but they're still begging for Rep votes
5 freedoms you will lose under Obamacare
Obamacare will redefine gender
Polling shows Obamacare support shedding like a German Shepherd in July
Obamacare will cause seniors to lose their doctors, their coverage, and ration them to death
Obama's $6,000 lie

And of course, we have this stunning admission from a leading Democrat:

Very interesting, don't you think? Not that we didn't know that already, but it's refreshing to hear some honesty for a change.

Finally, Jimmy Fallon takes on the House bill:

If Obama has lost the late night crowd -- remember, these are the guys who didn't crack a single joke at his expense throughout the entire campaign process -- then he's lost the American people.

Keep up the pressure, it's working.

There's my two cents.

The Fiscal Responsibility Farce

Heritage:

The federal government is estimated to run a 2009 budget deficit of $1.845 trillion. While it is true that President George W. Bush handed President Barack Obama a $1,186 billion deficit for the year, Obama has only added to that total to the tune of $659 billion. Worse, President Obama's budget shows average deficits of $855 billion over the next decade, which would double the publicly held national debt by 2019. And that does not even count Obama's budget-busting health care spending. But don't worry; the Obama Justice Department just figured out that paper has two sides: just think of the taxpayer savings from DOJ's proposed double-sided photocopying!

The Justice Department's announcement yesterday that it can save $573,000 through fiscal 2010 by setting up its printers and copiers to use both sides of the paper was part of the Obama administration's roll out of $102 million in "spending cuts" they announced in April this year. Other Obama deficit savers include: The Forest Service will no longer repaint its new, white vehicles green immediately upon purchase; The Office of Thrift Supervision identified unused phone lines costing $320,000; and both Homeland Security and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will start getting their news free online, rather than renew their newspaper subscriptions. In total, Obama's $102 million in spending cuts will help cut the deficit by .006%. Problem solved!

We've been down this road before...remember this and this?

Unfortunately, runaway government spending has proved to be a bi-partisan problem in Washington, as The Heritage Foundation's 2009 Federal Spending by the Numbers shows. Since 2001, anti-poverty spending has surged by 57%, K–12 education spending by 169%, and Medicare, thanks largely to the expensive Medicare drug benefit, by 57%.

But, finding himself in a $1.186 trillion hole, President Obama has refused to stop digging. Washington will spend $33,932 per household in 2009—$8,000 per household more than last year. While much of this spending is a temporary result of the recession and financial crisis, President Obama's 2010 budget would replace this temporary spending with permanent new programs. Consequently, by 2019—a time of assumed peace and prosperity—Washington would still spend $33,000 per household (adjusted for inflation), essentially making permanent this year's $8,000 per-household spending hike. These numbers do not even include the cost of the President's health plan. These deficits would not only raise interest rates, they would also nearly quintuple the net interest costs of the national debt over the next decade.

Americans want to go in another direction. Polling by Gallup, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and NBC News all show that the American people do not approve of President's Obama's handling of the federal deficit. There is an alternative. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:

In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without any tax hikes.

This is not too much to ask for from Congress and the White House.  We all have to balance our monthly budget, or face the creditor's shackles...so why can't they?  Clearly, our elected 'leaders' in Washington (both parties) have lost their way, and pretty much all sense of fiscal responsibility.  It is time for us -- WE THE PEOPLE -- to draw a line in the sand and accept nothing less than strict adherence to the concept.  Those who have demonstrated a history of fiscal responsibility may remain; everyone else will be voted into retirement.  No exceptions.

Demand nothing less.

There's my two cents.

'The Death Of Representative Government'

This is great, short and to the point (h/t Foundry, emphasis mine):

Rep. John Conyers can't see why lawmakers should read the laws they make. What's the point? They wouldn't understand 'em anyway:

"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,'" said Conyers.

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

As Betsy Newmark comments:

At least some representative's aides somewhere have read some part of the bill so that should be enough, right? Who says that when you're rejiggering over one-sixth of the US economy and incurring massive future debt that you need to know what it is you're voting on.

Thousand-page bills, unread and indeed unwritten at the time of passage, are the death of representative government. They also provide a clue as to why, in a country this large, national government should be minimal and constrained. Even if you doubled or trebled the size of the legislature, the Conyers conundrum would still hold: No individual can read these bills and understand what he's voting on. That's why the bulk of these responsibilities should be left to states and subsidiary jurisdictions, which can legislate on such matters at readable length and in comprehensible language.

As for optimum bill size, the 1773 Tea Act, which provoked the Boston Tea Party, was 2,263 words. That sounds about right.

Amen to that!

If I were in Congress, I would reflexively oppose -- regardless of the topic, the sponsors, or whether or not I agreed with it -- any bill that was overly large, and any bill that was rushed through the process; the degree of my opposition would be in reverse proportionality to its size and the speed at which is was progressing.  The bigger and faster the bill, the louder I would scream.  For bills like Obamacare, I'd be hanging from the gilded chandeliers and howling like a banshee.

There's my two cents.

Obama Vs. Bush

No explanation needed:

Bully Boys And Obama's Thugocracy

I've mentioned Obama's 'thugocracy' more than once on this blog before, and I truly believe that's what it is.  Michelle Malkin just released a column that exposes more of the ugly side of the thugocracy:

Six months into the Obama administration, it should now be clear to all Americans: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the Today Show that he had met with CBO director Douglas Elmendorf – just as the number-crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims. Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral score-keeper – not a water boy for the White House. But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health care savings claims, Obama's budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy.

Orszag warned the CBO in a public letter that it risked feeding the perception that it was "exaggerating costs and underestimating savings." Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?

President Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health care press conference. "Keep up the heat" translated into Organizing for America/Democrat National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against Obamacare's high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.

Looks like there won't be a health care beer summit any time soon.

The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors generals targeted by Team Obama goons. Gerald Walpin, the former Americorps inspector general was slimed as mentally incompetent ("confused" and "disoriented") after blowing the whistle on several cases of community service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson. As I've reported previously, Johnson's the NBA star-turned-Sacramento Democrat mayor who ran a federally-funded non-profit group employing AmeriCorps volunteers that were exploited to perform campaign work for Johnson and provided personal services (car washes, errands) to Johnson and his staff.

Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back – and to defend the integrity and independence of inspector generals system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where First Lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth service program insiders.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, top Obama officials muzzled veteran researcher Alan Carlin, who dared to question the conventional wisdom on global warming. The economist with a physics degree was trashed as a non-scientist know-nothing.

Obama Treasury officials forced banks to take TARP bailout money they didn't want and obstructed banks that wanted to pay back TARP money from doing so. The administration strong-armed Chrysler creditors and strong-armed Chrysler dealers using politicized tactics that united both House Democrats and Republicans, who passed an amendment last week reversing President Obama on the closure of nearly 800 Chrysler car dealerships and more than 2,000 GM dealerships.

At the Justice Department, Obama lawyers are now blocking a House inquiry into the suspicious decision to dismiss default judgments against radical New Black Panther Party activists who intimidated voters and poll workers on Election Day in Philadelphia. The DOJ is preventing Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf from meeting with the trial team in the case. Rep. Wolf has been pressing for answers on what communications Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies conducted with third-party interest groups and other political appointees about the case. So far: radio silence.

In the mafia culture, the bully boys depend on a code of silence and allegiance – omerta — not only among their brethren, but also from the victims. The victims of Obama thugocracy are no longer cooperating. Perhaps it won't be long until some of the enforcers start to sing, too.

We can hope.  The biggest thing we can do is to shine the light of day on these thuggish tactics and rally the American people against them.  This country is full of good, honest, hard-working people (on both sides of the political aisle) who won't tolerate this kind of thuggishness...if they know about it.  So, spread the word.  Don't be afraid to talk about it when those moments come up in conversation.  Be confident, be informed, and do your part.

There's my two cents.

Obamacare Update

The American Spectator:

As many had speculated, the bark of the Blue Dog Democrats has proven bigger than their bite, and they have now struck a deal with Henry Waxman that should move the bill out of the House energy and Commerce Committee, while extracting an agreement that would put off a floor vote by the full House until after August recess.

The Politico has these details of the deal:

The Blue Dogs also succeeded in cutting $100 billion from the overall cost of the bill, bringing the total price tag under $1 trillion. The legislation will now exempt small businesses with a payroll greater than $500,000 from paying for any government-sponsored health coverage - double the $250,000 in the initial draft. And finally, under the terms of the deal Ross announced, doctors and other health care providers will be allowed to negotiate their payment rates with the government-sponsored health care arm.

Assuming these are all the changes, it wouldn't alter the overall infrastructure of the bill. It would still mean a massive expansion of Medicaid, providing subsidies for people to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange, creating a new government-run health care program that would put the nation on a pathway to single-payer, mandates on individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, and a tax hike on employers that did not provide health care to their workers. And it's not clear how many of the compromises will be adopted by the full House once this bill is reconciled by the two other committees.

But by delaying the full House vote until September, it means that there will still be time for Blue Dogs to change their mind on the final bill if they take a lot of heat from their constituents during August recess.

So, it's up to the American people to provide that heat!  Call your own Rep, then call these Blue Dogs to tighten the screws.  Let's not let this one slip away in the 11th hour!

There's my two cents.

Help Me, I'm Meltiiiiiiing...!

The Obamessiah's approval numbers keep getting worse:

54% - 37%, and Gallup runs on the high side of approval rates for Obama, as they poll adults.

Support among independents down to 51%. Hispanics still strongly support him, but his support there is falling like it is with everyone else; down 9 points since the end of June, from 81% to 72%.

Zogby found a few days ago his approval was down to 48%, with a majority of 51% disapproving. Asked specifically about his job performance, Obama fares a bit worse: 47% positive, 53% negative.

Rasmussen's new track shows it all knotted up 49% to 49%. Obama has gotten a small positive boost in his "strongly approve" rating the last few days -- probably thanks to his most liberal and race-conscious supports rallying around him, beset, as he is, but Republicans, who apparently control Congress now -- but his "strongly disapprove" also creeped up by almost as much. The odd "Presidential Approval Index" improved to -8 from -10.

And:

Obama is now seen as politically liberal by 76%. That's up six points from a month ago, 11 points since he was elected, and the highest total to date. Forty-eight percent (48%) now see him as Very Liberal, up 20 points since he was elected (Premium Members can see trends and crosstabs).

48% see him as Very Liberal. That's not good for a national candidate.

Rasmussen also finds that 54% blame Bush for the economic decline. This may seem like good news for Obama, but it's actually not -- this is one of the key statistics propping him up at even his current weak levels, and this number is doomed to erode month by month.

This is war, and America is the prize.  It's time to hit the accelerator.

There's my two cents.