Passover Antics

Passover starts tonight. The Obama Passover antics have been going on for a while.

Over the weekend we witnessed more Distract From Disaster publicity stunt ploys. One Passover Antic was a trip to Afghanistan and another Passover Antic was a hypocritical and foolish spate of “recess appointments”.

Obama Hopium guzzlers celebrated the recess appointments. These are the very same Hopium guzzlers who kvetch over outdated Senate procedures and rules but the hypocrites celebrated this most outdated of presidential prerogatives.

Recess appointments were once meant to “maintain the continuity of administrative government” at a point in American history in which “both Houses of Congress had relatively short sessions and long recesses between sessions during the early years of the Republic.” Until the 20th century Congressional sessions lasted less than half the year. Hopium guzzlers who once decried the imperial presidency and lately whined about the filibuster and Senate rules now hail the conquering hero. Hypocrites.

The Hopium guzzlers at the New York Times attacked George W. Bush recess appointments as a “constitutional gimmick“. The Hopium guzzlers at the New York Times hailed the Obama recess appointments as a “muscular show of his executive authority.” Hypocrites.

The recess appointments will last until January 3, 2011 when it is not impossible to imagine a Republican Congress that will prove the recess appointments to have been foolish. The Obama recess appointments will expire at the very moment Republicans celebrate their November victories. So not only are the recess appointments from “uniter not divider” Obama hypocritical, they are foolish.

An earlier “uniter not divider” made recess appointments and Barack Obama labeled those appointments “damaged goods”. The Obama hypocrisies are many.

As terror bombs exploded today in Moscow the world is once again reminded that there are regimes who employ terror as a tactic. Also today, the FBI charged a man who threatened a congressman with death. No, the death threatened Congressman is not a Dimocrat, nor an African-American. The threatened Congressman is Republican Eric Cantor, who tonight will commemorate the Passover. Big Media will not flog the threats against a Jewish Congressman on Passover because the now debunked “spitting” threat is a so much greater threat. Big Media will persevere in the bogus Death Threat menace narrative perpetrated by Obama Dimocrats. Hypocrites.- Oh, and the thwarted killer is an Obama donor.

The disasters are mounting and flim-flam men know when to get out of town. The Obama health scam is finally under examination and every day new mandates are uncovered. As our commenter “Tim” posted, family physicians will leave their practices because of the Obama health scam.

Today the Associated Press confirms what “Tim” wrote and physicians will be indeed leaving their practices for greener pastures.

The Obama health scam disasters indeed do mount. Today BusinessWeek confirms that premiums will go up and you will not be able to keep your insurance coverage plan if you want to. Things will be forced to change by Obama – for the worse. The response from Dimocrats in Congress is more threats and more terror.

“On Thursday and Friday, the companies — so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M — said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation’s biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits — not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigative subcommittee.”

As matters of health go from bad to worse, it is no wonder that the Dimocrat promised love for the health scam has not materialized. 54% of likely voters want the Obama health scam repealed and that includes 59% of independents. Americans are against the Obama health scam and the opposition has not diminished from before the vote. Rassmussen, Gallup, and even the Washington Post acknowledge that, at best, Obama is a dead cat bouncing.

* * * * * *

But it was Afghanistan that took the trophy for the Distract From Disaster publicity stunt follies this Passover.

In order to distract from his very own foreign policy disaster snub-and-thug behavior towards Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama took a day trip to Afghanistan.

Obama snubbed Hillary Clinton, snubbed Florida, Michigan and 15 million Americans repeatedly during the primaries, snubbed White Working Class voters, Obama continues to snub “red” states, snubbed American troops, and now he snubs the Israeli Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister of Israel acted in accordance with American policy in East Jerusalem:

“It was only two months ago that George Mitchell had the following colloquy with Charlie Rose about the demand for a settlement freeze in Jerusalem:

GEORGE MITCHELL: … So what we got was a moratorium, ten months, far less than what was requested, but more significant than any action taken by any previous government of Israel for the 40 years that settlement enterprise has existed. …

CHARLIE ROSE: And you and Secretary Clinton praised Prime Minister Netanyahu for agreeing to that.


ROSE: It does not include East Jerusalem. There’ve been announcement in the last 48 hours of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem where the Palestinians want to make their capital.


ROSE: And it’s in the midst of Palestinians.

MITCHELL: … But for the Israelis, what they’re building in is in part of Israel.

Now, the others don’t see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is let’s get into negotiations. Let’s deal with the issues and come up with the solution to all of them including Jerusalem which will be exceedingly difficult but, in my judgment, possible.

The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in, or construction in East Jerusalem. They don’t regard that as a settlement because they think it’s part of Israel. …

ROSE: So you’re going to let them go ahead even though no one recognizes the annexation?

MITCHELL: You say “Let them go ahead.” It’s what they regard as their country. They don’t say they’re letting us go ahead when we build in Manhattan.

But Obama is upset with American ally Israel. Obama wants to be the “Arabs’ lawyer”.

Israel is determined to survive and Obama’s flowery words or Mess-iah presence won’t change that determination to survive. Soon after the Obama snub, the Israeli Prime Minister slapped Obama and made it clear Israel will not bow to Obama the way Obama bows to foreign potentates.

“Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his senior ministers in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon to discuss the demands made by US President Barack Obama and his overall trip to Washington – a trip that, because of negative atmospherics and amid a paucity of hard information, has been widely characterized as among the most difficult in recent memory.

Late Friday evening, Israel Radio reported that Netanyahu holds to the view that Israel must not change its policy in Jerusalem, despite the fact that this was the main point of contentions between Israel and the United States. [snip]

Earlier, officials in the Prime Minister’s Office threw a complete blackout on the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, and also gave very sketchy information about the commitments that the US is demanding of Israel as a precursor to starting the proximity talks with the Palestinians. According to officials, the US wants these commitments by Saturday so it can take them to the Arab League meeting in Libya and receive that organization’s backing for starting proximity talks.”

Now Obama has another self-created mess on his already messy hands. As much as Obama wants to thug Israel, the U.S. Congress, full of Obama enablers, won’t support the Obama thuggery of the reliable American ally. Three-quarters of the United States House of Representatives, a bipartisan coalition of 327 members slapped Obama down with a letter warning him off and empowering the Israeli Prime Minister.

So it’s off to Afghanistan to distract from the Middle East mess. And and opportunity for Obama to pretend to be a military leader.

A military leader or “serve as the Arabs’ lawyer”:

President Barack Obama’s relations with the Israeli government have hit a new low, but the tensions on display this week between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be reviving another presidential project: Obama’s quest to improve America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world.[snip]

Now, Obama’s return to the question of Israel’s continuing construction in East Jerusalem has signaled an acceptance of some Arab criticism of Israel. At the same time, Obama’s willingness to cross swords with the Israelis comes at a domestic political cost: The pro-Israel group AIPAC released a letter Friday with the signatures of three-quarters of the members of the House, pressing the administration to retreat from public confrontation.[snip]

“The administration has used [the Jerusalem conflict] as an opportunity to bring back the settlement issue and to show that they’re willing to talk tough on settlements,” said Stephen Gordon, a Mideast scholar at the Brookings Institution. “I think that has sent the signal that, yes, we are committed to the peace process; yes, we are going to be evenhanded; and, yes, we recognize that this conflict is important to people in the Arab world.”

Obama’s new focus, and the intense pressure his administration has placed on Netanyahu, have stirred deep concern among Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill, they say, because it represents an acceptance of the Arab narrative that Israeli intransigence lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. And some observers see it in the context of a subtle, but major, shift in American strategy toward resolving it.

“I think, inadvertently, Netanyahu enabled the White House to restore a little bit of momentum to the idea that they are going to approach the Middle East problem in a new way,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration trade official.

The new model drawing attention from Democratic foreign policy hands, he said, is to build support among Arab leaders for a U.S. plan and then present that to Israel — to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer, rather than as Israel’s, in one formulation used to describe the effort in the region.[snip]

But the confrontation also comes in the context of a long, unprecedented attempt by Obama to reset relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.[snip]

Obama explained the logic of his actions in a private meeting with Jewish leaders that July, explaining the need to give Arab leaders “credibility” with their “street,” according to detailed notes taken by a participant in the meeting, “by creating space between us and Israel.

Happy Passover!


70 thoughts on “Passover Antics

  1. Happy Passover.

    I have given it a lot of thought, and believe that the best way to preserve these historical times is to document my family history and to document pertinent blogs and news articles. This is important so that our future generations will know our readl history and not some fairytale made up by the powers that be. And I will try to keep a personal journal of my activities so that my two great-grandchildren will know what was done to leave them a world at least as good as where I grew up.

    But, I come to a question: is it possible, or permissible, to save blog posts and include the videos?????

  2. We now see why Obama was so adamant in achieving something/anything on health care, no matter how terribly constucted the Frankenbill is.

    He must be thrilled like a little girl getting a Barbie doll to read all the hopium inspired commentary, such as Robert Knutter’s “Game Changer”:

    with excerpts like:

    Despite his exceptional potential, Obama dismayed his progressive base in his first year in office by clinging to an illusion of bipartisanship long after Republicans made clear that their only goal was to destroy him. But since early March, something potentially transformative has happened. The seeker of common ground has metamorphosed into a fighting partisan. Faced with the prospect of a humiliating, defining defeat on health reform, Obama has begun exercising the kind of leadership that his admirers discerned during the campaign.


    There are now all sorts of rah-rah, “Obama’s on a roll now” kudos. So I guess we’ll be seeing more of something / anything Frankenbills, written by lobbyists, that will hurt the little guy, and that will be too complicated and too large to be read by the legistlators voting for it.

  3. A long list of expired Obama promises. Pick your favorite. Ours on the Passover:

    STATEMENT: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” — speech before AIPAC, June 4, 2008

    EXPIRATION DATE: June 6, 2008: “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.” – an Obama adviser clarifying his remarks to the Jerusalem Post.

  4. From the expired promises list organized by right wing National Review:

    STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.

    EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”

  5. Thank God the BOT (Barack Obama Thug) Was A Lousy Shot. This is not the first time that the Obama forces have incited violence.
    DNC Risks Dead Congressman–For $505

    As you have undoubtedly heard by now, the FBI has arrested one Norman Leboon for death threats made against Congressman Eric Cantor, in the wake of the Democratic National Committee’s fear-mongering fundraising drive regarding… threats of organized GOP violence. This is not, by the way, the first time that Leboon has fallen for the Democratic’s party cynical agitprop; he was one of the plaintiffs in an anti-FISA lawsuit a few years back. So there’s a history there of him believing whatever nonsense that the Democrats fed him.

    Well. Turns out he’s an Obama contributor from 2008, too. See here for the H/T, and see here for a video where he identifies himself as “Norman Leboon Sr.” Sounds good enough to avoid the question mark I had in the title, so I’d like to ask Brad Woodhouse of the Democratic National Committee something (seeing as he was the guy who so publicly dismissed the need to ratchet down the rhetoric): what are you going to do to get rid of this blood money, Brad? I mean, personally.

    And another question: what were you going to say to Eric Cantor’s wife if the FBI hadn’t caught this guy in time? Assuming that it wouldn’t have been a moot point anyway.


    Moe Lane

  6. We now see why Obama was so adamant in achieving something/anything on health care, no matter how terribly constucted the Frankenbill is.
    This bill is a poison pill for the congressmen who supported it, their party and the country. Again, the operative word is POISON PILL.

  7. Health premiums could rise 17 percent for young adults

    CHICAGO (AP) – Under the health care overhaul, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans—a shift expected to raise insurance premiums for young people when the plan takes full effect.

    Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That’s when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

    The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.

    The young obots aren’t going to like this, where are their unicorns?

  8. Rasmussen: 54% Favor Repeal of Healthcare
    Monday, 29 Mar 2010 02:24 PM Article Font Size

    One week after the House passed the Democratic healthcare plan that President Obama subsequently signed into law, 54 percent of the nation’s likely voters still favor repealing the law.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42 percent oppose repeal.

    Those figures are virtually unchanged from last week. They include 44 percent who strongly favor repeal and 34 percent who strongly oppose it.
    Repeal is favored by 84 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of unaffiliated voters. Among white Democrats, 25 percent favor repeal, but only 1 percent of black Democrats share that view.

    Only 17 percent of all voters believe the plan will achieve one of its primary goals and reduce the cost of healthcare. Most (55 percent) believe it will have the opposite effect and increase the cost of care.

    Almost half believe the new law will reduce the quality of care, while 60 percent believe it will increase the federal budget deficit. Those numbers are consistent with expectations before the bill was passed.

    Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, notes that “the overriding tone of the data is that passage of the legislation has not changed anything. Those who opposed the bill before it passed now want to repeal it. Those who supported the legislation oppose repealing it.”

    Several states are challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and earlier polling data show that 49 percent of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the law.

    Overall, 41 percent of voters believe the new healthcare law will be good for the country, while 50 percent believe it will be bad for the country.

    Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the healthcare bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.

    Although some aspects of the new healthcare law are popular, most voters oppose the measures required to cover the nearly $1 trillion in additional spending called for over the next decade. And 56 percent oppose the reductions in Medicare spending, a figure that includes 70 percent of those over 65.

  9. wbboei,

    I still think the repubs secretly wanted this bill passed.

    Why else did the Bobsie twins, Snowe and COllins, vote to advance the senate bill back in December?

    To some extent they are the real culprits. Without their yes votes the bill would not have gotten out of the senate. Why didn’t the repubs fight harder to keep them in line? They’re all a part of this boondoggle, IMHO.

  10. On the road again.Our Wonder Girl must have a plan.BO runs from the people and Hillary keeps busy and staying away from him while doing both jobs to save our country. SOS means Save our Ship of State.


    Secretary Clinton’s schedule for G8 in Ottawa
    Secretary Clinton’s schedule for Haiti Donors’ Conference
    Secretary Clinton will meet Foreign Minister Lavrov to express condolences for Russian bombings
    Secretary Clinton Statement on Russian Metro Bombing
    Readout of Secretary Clinton’s phone call with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey


    Turkey to make decision to return Ambassador/ Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Davutoglu converse on a regular basis/ Turkey is playing an increasingly important role in the region /We continue to press both Armenia and Turkey to move forward and ratify protocols


    John Roos had discussion with the foreign ministry where they updated us on their thinking regarding the base realignment plan/ U.S. is listening attentively/ Will continue the conversations in the weeks ahead/ Secretary to talk to Foreign Minister Okada this evening


    123 Agreement in the interest of U.S. and India/ reflects a much broader, deeper, and expanded relationship between U.S. and India


    President met with troops and commanders/ assessed conditions on the ground/ Met with President Karzai to discuss good governance and corruption


    START Treaty settle on the primary text first/ want to have the complete package done as quickly as possible/ target is the end of April to submit to the Senate later in the spring,/ goal to have ratification before the end of the year
    U.S. stands by and is ready to assist the Russian Government in any way they might value in response to the Metro bombings/ Unaware of any U.S. fatalities in bombings


    Secretary Clinton has not had discussions with Israel since Netanyahu’s visit last week/ Netanyahu had a number of detailed conversations last week – the President, the Secretary, George Mitchell/ U.S. hopeful to push peace process forward/ We will be in contact with the parties and others in the region in the next couple of weeks
    Moving the Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem would have an inflammatory and destabilizing effect/ complicate our ability to play a helpful role


    U.S. looks forward to having China send a delegation to the U.S. Nuclear Summit/ decision for the Chinese Government


    South Korea is a member of the Nonproliferation Treaty/ has rights and responsibilities under that treaty


    NLD made their decision/ is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government to take necessary steps to open up the political process and engage in serious dialogue key figures/ We understand and respect the decision/ not aware that we’ve had further direct discussions with Burma/ U.S. thinks that the electoral law as it was announced by Burma is not the right way to go


    France is involved in a wide range of issues from climate change to Middle East peace/ shared interest in specific issues regarding Africa/ visit agenda will have wide ranging conversation/ defer to the White House on the particular agenda


  11. I wonder whether the Jewish American community who voted overwhelmingly for Obama understands who and what he is. If not, then this excerpt from the Hot Air article will be instructive, to those who are willing to listen. Obama is anti semitic, so much so that he has scuttled the best prospects for a deal, and humiliated our ally. For twenty years Jeremiah Wright was his spiritual advisor . . . and now he has Power.
    Thanks to what amounts to a reversal of 20 years of American policy on settlements in Jerusalem, Obama has given the Palestinians a reason to refuse to come to the table that Israel simply can’t address. Obama has made peace a lot less likely than it was fifteen months ago by throwing his tantrum in such a public manner. Weakening Israel won’t bring peace — it will bring more attacks on Israel as Palestinians begin to believe that the US won’t back its ally any longer.

    Jennifer Rubin believes Obama’s fumble was by design, or at least by instinctual hostility towards Israel. With advisers like Samantha Power at the White House, that hostility was known long before Obama got elected. Accidental, latent, or overt, Obama’s hostility towards a key democracy in the most strategic part of the world has raised eyebrows of both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — perhaps belatedly, but not too late to put some serious pressure for this administration to grow the hell up.

  12. Video: Former Obama adviser on invading Israel

    Samantha Power left the Barack Obama campaign in March of this year, after a somewhat overblown kerfuffle over her reference to Hillary Clinton as a “monster”. Power advised Obama on foreign policy, having spent her career detailing genocides and international responses to them, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the subject. Power had some interesting ideas about how to resolve one particular instance of what she sees as a genocide in this April 2002 interview at Berkeley with Harry Kreisler:

    This should give us some insight into the foreign-policy objectives of Barack Obama, who had Power as an adviser from 2005 until the “monster” comment in March of this year. He didn’t bounce her from his team over her views on Israel and … well, let’s recall how she described the pro-Israel lobby:

    Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.

    For those who may not catch the reference, Power means the Jews. And why would that alienate the Jewishcabalthatsecretlyrunseverything? For one thing, Power wants to spend billions on bolstering Palestinian military strength, instead of spending it on helping the Israelis to defend themselves. Bear in mind that this interview takes place about seven months after 9/11, when people supposedly still knew how dangerous radical Islamist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda were. Power wanted to send them money and stop funding Israeli efforts to fight them.

    Even more ridiculously, Power’s ultimate aim is to send a massive American or Western force into Israel to stop what Power apparently sees as an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. She specifically states that the force has to be “massive”, not like a Srebrenica- or Bosnia-sized force. Why would it need to be so large? In order to neutralize the Israeli Defense Force, and protect the forces of Fatah and Hamas.

    Had Barack Obama kicked her off of his advisory panel (rumored to number 300) after making remarks like this, it could have assuaged fears about his intentions towards Israel. Instead, he invited Power to advise him after making these remarks. She resigned only after calling Hillary a monster and after insinuating that Obama may not retreat from Iraq in 16 months if the ground situation changed — which Obama later adopted as his own position after the primaries.

    This is the same Barack Obama who served in a board that gave a $75,000 grant to Rashid Khalidi, Yasser Arafat’s toady in the PLO. This is the same Barack Obama who had Robert Malley as another of his advisers on the region — and who conducted meetings with Hamas. Obama’s church used its bulletins to give voice to Palestinian activists. How much more clear can this get?

  13. I agree with you Basil9, I think Mitch McConnell could have stopped this. He has no charisma but he is more than competent compared to Harry Reid. I believe that the Republicans wanted this flawed version to pass so that they can excise all the bad things and take credit for the good ones after they alter it like the preexisting conditions.

  14. basil9
    March 29th, 2010 at 9:44 am
    Can you believe the FBI raided so-called Christian militia groups while leaving muslim terrorists groups in the US alone?

    WTF are the priorities here?

    In the meantime, another suicide bombing episode, this time in Russia.

    I can count on one hand the number of Christian militia threats over the past 2 decades – Waco, Oklahoma City, but the number of Muslim attacks is in the thousands

    By the way,the big media is going WAY out of their way, NOT to say MUSLIM terrorist in relation to the Russian murders…but that is EXACTLY what it was… however…they can not say CHRISTIAN militia ENOUGH!

  15. basil


    I still think the repubs secretly wanted this bill passed.

    Why else did the Bobsie twins, Snowe and COllins, vote to advance the senate bill back in December?

    To some extent they are the real culprits. Without their yes votes the bill would not have gotten out of the senate. Why didn’t the repubs fight harder to keep them in line? They’re all a part of this boondoggle, IMHO.
    March 29th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
    I agree with you Basil9, I think Mitch McConnell could have stopped this. He has no charisma but he is more than competent compared to Harry Reid. I believe that the Republicans wanted this flawed version to pass so that they can excise all the bad things and take credit for the good ones after they alter it like the preexisting conditions.
    Normally, I would say no. I would say that a government takeover of 1/6 of our economy is so foreign to traditional republican philosophy that they would fight it tooth and nail. That is what a conservative would do.

    Is Mitch McConnell a true conservative? He certainly is on social issue. But does he fully embrace the conservative doctrine of limited government? Or does political theory yield to political expediency? I do not know.

    I sent him the Byrdlock strategy. I threw a fundraiser for him years ago, and I reminded him of that. But I got no response. Perhaps that was a clue.

    I think Mitch is a party man and figured that if this thing passed then it would be a poison pill for the Dimocratic Party. And, if it did not pass the Republicans would be blamed, i.e. the party of no.

    If you read the conservative blogs they view him, Hatch and McCain as party regulars with no fire in the belly. They long for people who will stand up to Obama and defend our country. If you saw the Rubio Crist debate you probably noticed that was what Marco stressed even as the governor stressed working with Obama for the alleged purpose of helping Floridians.

    One of the most encouraging things I am seeing now is the record number of black republicans who are throwing their hats in the ring. Blacks have fought for this country with honor and distinction. There is no reason why they should be taken for a granted by a party which is now run by traitors.

  16. Ed Koch:

    President Obama’s abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, “Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to.”

    I have not heard or read statements criticizing the president by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand or many other supporters of Israel for his blatantly hostile attitude toward Israel and his discourtesy displayed at the White House. President Obama orchestrated the hostile statements of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, voiced by Biden in Israel and by Clinton in a 43-minute telephone call to Bibi Netanyahu, and then invited the latter to the White House to further berate him. He then left Prime Minister Netanyahu to have dinner at the White House with his family, conveying he would only be available to meet again if Netanyahu had further information – read concessions – to impart.

    It is unimaginable that the President would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion. That there are policy differences between the U.S. and the Netanyahu government is no excuse. Allies often disagree, but remain respectful.

    In portraying Israel as the cause of the lack of progress in the peace process, President Obama ignores the numerous offers and concessions that Israel has made over the years for the sake of peace, and the Palestinians’ repeated rejections of those offers. Not only have Israel’s peace proposals, which include ceding virtually the entire West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, been rejected, but each Israeli concession has been met with even greater demands, no reciprocity, and frequently horrific violence directed at Israeli civilians. Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s agreement to suspend construction on the West Bank – a move heralded by Secretary of State Clinton as unprecedented by an Israeli government – has now led to a demand that Israel also halt all construction in East Jerusalem, which is part of Israel’s capital. Meanwhile, Palestinians are upping the ante, with violent protests in Jerusalem and elsewhere. And the Obama administration’s request that our Arab allies make some conciliatory gesture towards Israel has fallen on deaf ears.

    Prior American presidents, beginning with Truman who recognized the State of Israel in 1948, have valued Israel as a close ally and have often come to its rescue. For example, it was Richard Nixon during the 1973 war, who resupplied Israel with arms, making it possible for it to snatch victory from a potentially devastating defeat at the hands of a coalition of Arab countries including Egypt and Syria.

    President George W. Bush made it a point of protecting Israel at the United Nations and the Security Council wielding the U.S. veto against the unfair actions and sanctions that Arab countries sought to impose to cripple and, if possible, destroy, the one Jewish nation in the world. Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did – protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist.

    To its credit, Congress, according to the Daily News, has acted differently towards Prime Minister Netanyahu than President Obama. Reporter Richard Sisk wrote on March 24th, “Congress put on a rare show of bipartisanship for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday – a sharp contrast to his chilly reception at the White House. ‘We in Congress stand by Israel,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a beaming Netanyahu, who has refused to budge on White House and State Department demands to freeze settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

    But Congress does not make foreign policy. It can prevent military arms from going to Israel, but cannot send them. Congress has no role in determining U.S. policy at the U.N. Security Council. The President of the United States determines our foreign policy – nearly unilaterally – under our Constitution. So those Congressional bipartisan wishes of support, while welcome, will not protect Israel in these areas, only the President can do that. Based on his actions to date, I have serious doubts.

    In the 1930s, the Jewish community and its leadership, with few exceptions, were silent when their coreligionists were being attacked, hunted down, incarcerated and slaughtered. Ultimately 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The feeling in the U.S. apparently was that Jews who criticized our country’s actions and inactions that endangered the lives of other Jews would be considered disloyal, unpatriotic and displaying dual loyalty, so many Jews stayed mute. Never again should we allow that to occur. We have every right to be concerned about the fate of the only Jewish nation in the world, which if it had existed during the 1930s and thereafter, would have given sanctuary to any Jew escaping the Nazi holocaust and taken whatever military action it could to save Jews not yet in the clutches of the Nazis. We who have learned the lessons of silence, Jews and Christians alike, must speak up now before it is too late.

    So I ask again, where are our Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand? And, where are the voices, not only of the 31 members of the House and 14 Senators who are Jewish, but the Christian members of the House and Senate who support the State of Israel? Where are the peoples’ voices? Remember the words of Pastor Niemoller, so familiar that I will not recite them, except for the last line, “Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up.”

    Supporters of Israel who gave their votes to candidate Obama – 78 percent of the Jewish community did – believing he would provide the same support as John McCain, this is the time to speak out and tell the President of your disappointment in him. It seems to me particularly appropriate to do so on the eve of the Passover. It is one thing to disagree with certain policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to treat Israel and its prime minister as pariahs, which only emboldens Israel’s enemies and makes the prospect of peace even more remote.

  17. Ed Kock…a fraud supporter if I remember right…and he SHOULD have known better…I won’t cut him any slack if my memory is right.

  18. Cancel the flowers and celebration, we were right again. Bill Clinton is no dope and he usually lowers expectations, not heightens them. Now, why would Bill do the contrary in this case? And don’t forget PPP is a Democratic polling firm.

    Democrats who held out hopes that President Barack Obama’s health reform win would mean a quick boost to the party’s political fortunes are getting a reality check – a reminder that it takes more than one good week to shake up a year of sliding polls.

    Obama and his health reform plan did get a bump in several surveys immediately after the House vote eight days ago – but the numbers in some of those polls flattened out, showing how difficult it will be for Obama to capitalize on reform, even after his top legislative goal cleared Congress.

    “It helped a little bit, but I think it’s within the margin of error,” said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac Poll, which recorded a slight drop in disapproval of Obama after the bill passed. “The Democrats said the American people will grow to love this. We’ll find out. At this point, they’re not exactly jumping up and down.”

    The most prominent political prognosticator who predicted a post-reform bump for Obama was President Bill Clinton – who told reporters last year that Obama would add 10 points to his approval rating “the minute health reform passed.”

    But Obama’s approval in the Gallup daily tracking poll stands at 48 percent – near his all-time low of 46 percent in the three-day rolling average. Near the time of passage, Obama ticked up to 50 percent in the poll.

    People thought Obama might get a significant uptick,” said Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll. “Obama’s approval seems to have moved up a few points during and slightly after passage. Then it fell back down again.” [snip]

    Still, the week-after polls give an early sounding on just how hard it could be for Obama to turn health reform into a long-term winner. One reason he didn’t get a big bounce, pollsters say, is that voters are split evenly on whether they like reform or don’t.

    “It’s pretty clear to me that public opinion is arrayed against the plan. And among swing voters, opinion is even more against the plan,” said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster who raised hackles at the White House recently by making dire predictions about the impact of health care reform’s passage. “I don’t think there’s any evidence it will be good politically, except for maybe some marginal impact firing up the base…..Them’s the facts.”[snip]

    But 26 percent described themselves as “angry” over the bill, while just 15 percent were “enthusiastic.”

    Talk of a bump from health care buzzed through Washington last Tuesday when USA Today reported that a one-day Gallup poll taken in the 24 hours after health care passed found 49 percent of Americans thought the bill was “a good thing” and 40 percent disliked it. Gallup tried the question again over the weekend and the numbers had flipped: 50 percent were opposed to the health care bill and only 47 percent favored it.

    I don’t think there’s going to be a rebound and I don’t think there’s going to be a bounce,” said Tom Jensen of North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling. “I don’t know why Bill Clinton is out there saying there’ll be a ten point bounce.”

    Democrats also got something of a scare from a Florida poll taken last week which showed only 34 percent of voters in that key swing state backing the new bill, with 54 percent opposed. The Mason-Dixon survey showed the large number of seniors in the state weighing down support for the legislation. Some 65 percent of those over 65 were against the measure.

    And in a real eye-opener for the White House: Obama’s approval rating in the Sunshine State stood as a dismal 37 percent.

    In other states, there are few signs that Obama or Democrats are getting a boost from the bill.

    “In the first couple of states we’ve polled, Missouri and Alabama, since it’s passed his numbers are about the same as they were before it passed,” Jensen said. “In the long term, health care could turn out to be a political winner, but I don’t think it’s going to happen in 2010.”[snip]

    “The political damage of health care has already been done. Republicans are really fired up,” he said. “On the whole I think health care will end up hurting Democrats but if you’re going to do it you need to pass it to keep it from being a disaster with no positive whatsoever.”

    Brown also said Obama’s so-called victory lap touting the bill around the country after it passed didn’t have a measurable impact. “The president has a very large pulpit to make his case. So far, it hasn’t changed things in the least,” Brown said. “If you do the kind of campaign the White House is doing, you would expect it to yield results if what they’re selling was popular, but despite a slight uptick it’s still not popular with the American people. The product hasn’t changed.”

  19. Gonzotx at 11:52 PM:

    If memory serves, Koch was a strong Hillary supporter during the primary, but supported the fraud during the general election, persuading many Jews that the fraud was a friend of Israel. He was probably going by the fraud’s pro-Israel comments at the time, but should have known from O’s associations and advisors (Powers, Wright, etc.) where he really stood. As with so many others, Koch doesn’t seem to have done his homework in this case.

    Happy Passover, all.

  20. If memory serves, Koch was a strong Hillary supporter during the primary, but supported the fraud during the general election, persuading many Jews that the fraud was a friend of Israel. He was probably going by the fraud’s pro-Israel comments at the time, but should have known from O’s associations and advisors (Powers, Wright, etc.) where he really stood. As with so many others, Koch doesn’t seem to have done his homework in this case.

  21. Admin: I wonder what part of the health care deform bill the “public will love when they understand it”. The reason I ask is because, there are so many things in that bill for them to love— like forcing people who do not want insurance to buy it; cutting $500 billion out of Medicare; causing employers to up the co-pay for employees etc; death panels; not providing for the importation of less expensive drugs; killing the public option. Yes, it is a veritable treasure trove of goodies, and is better than an Easter egg hunt to find them all. It is easy to see why delusional dimocrats are non-plussed. They have swallowed a poison pill, and do not know it. But Bill Clinton surely does.

  22. Basil, I agree. I think the pols on both sides have been playing “Please don’t throw us in the briar patch” with this bill that helps the insurance and pharma industries.

    The GOP pretends to oppose it. Obama pretended to want something better and pretends to be forced by the GOP to make it really favor the money interests.


    Posted by Tabitha Hale (Profile)
    Monday, March 29th at 11:10PM EDT
    Politico had a great article today on women in the Tea Party movement.

    It’s clear that woman have been a driving force in this movement, probably more than ever before on the Right. It can be attributed to a lot of things, not the least of which is, as Darla DeWald said in the Politico piece, is the “mama bear” instinct that kicks in when women feel that their children are at risk. Now that it’s clear that the issues at hand are going to effect every child in this country, the maternal instincts are kicking in. Mothers will fight for their children.

    This potentially points to a greater problems for Democrats in upcoming months. Women have largely swung toward the Democratic party for ages. The reasons have been hashed out over and over, but here are some quick bullet points:

    Women as a whole make less money. Therefore, they are generally in a tougher spot when they are single/divorced. Democratic platforms are all about a safety net for when one is vulnerable.
    Abortion. The idea of it being outlawed is a sticking point for many women, who feel threatened at the idea of losing that option. In addition, a majority of the modern feminist movement bases their entire existence on trying to fight those evil Republicans that are trying to “police their wombs”. Or something. Which is funny when you consider the health care legislation they were so excited about getting rammed through.
    The Democratic party has worked to paint themselves as the champions of the downtrodden. Poor people, minorities, and women have long been beholden to the false sense of security that the Democratic party strives to provide. See: first pullet point.
    So what’s changing now? The fact that, despite claiming to provide a safety net, Democrats are losing popularity. They have passed legislation that the Left has been fighting to pass for 50 years. They have control of the House, Senate, and White House. They should be riding high… but they’re not. And this is in no small part because of the women that are becoming a loud, fierce voice in this battle.

    Nancy Pelosi, as the highest ranking female elected official in the country, has tried to spin nearly every issue as a women’s issue. She did it with climate change. She did it with health care. And let’s face it, in the past, this has been a winner for the Democrats. The ladies, however, aren’t buying it.

    Maybe it’s because some of those women who have been chanting “hands off my body” for 40 years finally realized that government involvement means that they’re involved when it’s inconvenient too. Maybe women on the left are realizing that they are more than their uterus, and that there is more to “women’s rights” than abortion. Maybe it’s because those same women want freedom for their daughters. Who knows. The bottom line is that some of the biggest political players on the Right in the past year have been women, and that is likely to continue. Some of the most passionate, effective activists and minds springing up out of this movement have been women. Smart Girl Politics has been on the forefront of the conservative women’s movement, and has provided a unique outlet for women to connect, learn, and mobilize locally. The beauty of all this? Women are drawn to other women in leadership, and the effect has been a groundswell of new female voters, candidates, and activists on the Right.

    Nancy Pelosi’s thinly veiled attempt to make this health care legislation a win for women’s rights was laughable. Just a reminder from RedState’s Lori Ziganto of how this bill actually effects women:

    Because a quick search of the product classification database shows just how much women, and particularly Moms, will be punitively taxed. Tampons will be taxed; we are hereby punished not just by our monthly visitor, but because of it. Breast pumps will be taxed. Those of us who are “punished by a baby”, will now truly be punished monetarily by Congress for choosing (so much for choice!) to breast feed our children. What happened to wanting women to have it all? You are punishing women who work and need to pump to provide the best possible sustenance to their infants. It’s organic; I thought y’all liked that? Or is that just another thing to which you merely pay lip service for political expediency and “cool” points?

    Birth control will now be more expensive as well, including diaphragms and condoms. Condoms, hmm, what shall we call that one? The roll-down tax? I suppose they figure who cares if people can’t afford condoms. Who needs personal responsibility? Pesky pregnancies won’t be a problem; abortions will be fully funded! That’s feminism for you. You’ve come a long way, baby! They should probably change that phrase, since they don’t seem to care much for actual babies.

    So… what was this about Republicans punishing you for having girly plumbing? We’re not buying it anymore, Nancy. The bottom line is that unless the Dems find a way to stop the bleeding they’re going to pay for it in November. In fact, I’m banking on that very thing

  24. wbboei
    This bill is a poison pill for the congressmen who supported it, their party and the country.


    Hm? Are you saying Obama wants to destroy the progressive congressmen?

    Is he a secret GOP agent who wants to destroy the Dems so the GOP can take over while the country goes down?

    If so — why should we help him destroy the Dems?

  25. The hard left is ignorant. Ignorant about who the tea parties are. They thought it was just a bunch of angry white guys. Turns out there are a lot of women in the Tea Party movement. Turns out many of them have aging parents. Turns out they don’t like Obama care. Don’t like the $500 billion cut in Medicare. Turns out they do not like what the party and big media did to Hillary. And they don’t like what Bambi is doing to destroy our future. Now that they know, let them contemplate this:

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws –
    ‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale –
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    And they vote.

  26. wbboei posted attributed to Politico:
    Pesky pregnancies won’t be a problem; abortions will be fully funded!


    What bullshit. With this the whole article has no credibility.

  27. Turndown–he defies party label. He is certainly not a small government Republican (which is the base of the party). Nor is he a libertrarian (which features people like Ron Paul). If those are the real Republicans then he is not a Republican. If yo say a big banker is a Republican, then I will argue that big bankers like Soros, Jamie Dimon, Wolfe at UBC et al, are Democrats. Party labels may have had relevance at one time, but today both parties have a big government big business wing. In that sense they are common wings of the same bird.

  28. wbboei,

    I hate to say this but it’s the truth.

    After the nauseating race-identification politics with 95% + of blacks still supporting Squat, I would be hesitant to support a black candidate.

    ‘One of the most encouraging things I am seeing now is the record number of black republicans who are throwing their hats in the ring.’

  29. basil9

    You have to wonder how or if that will impact on the AA vote. If there are two running, you would think some of the 95% is soft, and might change.

  30. NMF,

    Unfortunately, AA’s played the race card one time too many and it has now expired, for me.

    At the same time, I have lost all trust for the AA community. If Squat’s approval numbers were more in line with the rest of the country, including his most ardent supporters, I wouldn’t feel this way.

    But they’re not.

    95% approval is sickening.

    And I am also no big fan of many of the misogynistic aspects of AA culture – you know, the ‘bros over ‘hos mentality which dominated the primaries.

  31. marie3548 // March 30, 2010 at 10:04 am

    CNN Fails to Stop Fall in Ratings
    Published: March 29, 2010

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

    Anderson Cooper, seen reporting on the aftermath of the earthquake that hit Haiti, has had trouble holding onto viewers.

  32. hillarygirl
    March 30th, 2010 at 9:54 am
    USA TODAY/Gallup Poll: For the first time his disapproval rating has hit 50%.


    Hopium wearning off?

  33. First impressions are important, and how you perform in the job from day 1 matters, especially when you have claimed you could.

    As we saw in the Primary, slides are very hard to stop and reverse. HRC did that in a number of her contests. O did not do that, at least I cannot remember that he did. I dont think they know how to do it.


    With no big bounce from health care, Obama tries to create momentum
    By: Julie Mason
    Examiner White House Correspondent
    March 30, 2010

    President Obama got no lasting bounce in the polls from passing his health care program, but the White House is pushing ahead anyway with a policy drive aimed at capitalizing on his perceived momentum.

    After a brief, momentary lift of a few percentage points in the days after clearing health care through Congress, Obama is back at a 48 percent approval rating in Gallup’s presidential tracking polls, and 47 percent in Rasmussen Reports’.

    “It does look pretty flat,” said Cal Jillson, a Southern Methodist University political scientist who said he expected Obama would improve about 5 percentage points if reform passed.

    With one big win in hand, the White House is scrambling the president in several directions at once. A surprise weekend trip to Afghanistan roughly coincided with a new arms deal with Russia, to be followed by out of town trips this week promoting health care and the economy.

    “It looks to me as if the administration has a series of positive developments they are trying to build on with health care and the arms treaty, an attempt to boost the atmospherics,” Jillson said.

    In public appearances in the last week since reform passed and especially during his brief stop in Afghanistan, Obama has been showcasing a new, steely resolve and a public stoicism that is a shift from his usual, professorial airs.

    “I think he was counted out a lot of times,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “I think he was enormously persistent.”

    The new arms treaty with Russia, a significant foreign policy accomplishment for Obama, calls for a 30 percent reduction in long-range nuclear weapons maintained by both countries.

    The president next month travels to Prague to sign the deal with his Russian counterpart, President Dmitry Medvedev, in which is likely to be a much-hyped event by the White House.

    The treaty signing will come just one year after Obama delivered a speech in the same city outlining his vision for eradicating all nuclear weapons. The timing and the symbolism underscore the administration’s increasing facility for presidential stagecraft.

    On the domestic front, Obama also faces a continued challenge over health care, which Republicans have promised to campaign against in the fall.

    Despite the bill’s passage into law, the president is still promoting it to Americans as a good deal, and on Thursday he travels to Portland, Maine, to push that message.

    The economy also is a persistent headache for the administration, and Obama on Friday travels to North Carolina to talk about it, on the same day new jobs figures will be released by the government.

    Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said he also expected more of a bounce from health care reform’s passage, but that Obama still won “a unique victory” with health care reform.

    “He was a guy people were starting to not take seriously, and now they are taking him very seriously,” Hess said.


    Includes this chestnut:

    “There was a strong reaction against the tactics Democratic leaders used to pass the bill. A 53% majority call Democratic methods “an abuse of power;” 40% say they are appropriate.”

    Health care law too costly, most say

    By Susan Page, USA TODAY
    Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government’s role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats.
    Those surveyed are inclined to fear that the massive legislation will increase their costs and hurt the quality of health care their families receive, although they are more positive about its impact on the nation’s health care system overall.

    Supporters “are not only going to have to focus on implementing this kind of major reform,” says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard. “They’re going to have to spend substantial time convincing people of the concrete benefits of this legislation.”

    The risk for them is that continued opposition will fuel calls for repeal and dog Democrats in November’s congressional elections. The bill was enacted without a single Republican vote.

    In an interview airing Tuesday on NBC’s Today, Obama acknowledges concerns about cost. “It is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans,” he said of the law, adding, “We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to further reduce costs.”

    Obama’s approval rating was 47%-50% — the first time his disapproval rating has hit 50%.

    In the survey:

    • A plurality predicts the law will improve health care coverage generally and the overall health of Americans. But a majority says it also will drive up overall costs and worsen the federal budget deficit.

    • When it comes to their families, they see less gain and more pain: Pluralities say it will make coverage and quality of care worse for them. By 50%-21%, they predict it will make their costs higher.

    Opponents of the health care bill are a bit more likely than supporters to say the vote will have a major impact on their vote for Congress in the fall. Three in 10 are much more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes the bill. One in four are much more likely to vote for a candidate who supports it.

    The poll of 1,033 adults, taken by land line and cellphone Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/–4 percentage points.

    Half call passage of the bill “a bad thing” and 47% “a good thing.” That differs from a one-day USA TODAY poll taken March 22 — a day after the House approved the legislation — in which a 49%-40% plurality called the bill “a good thing.”

    “Any one-day poll in the immediate aftermath of a major event is likely to be subject not only to sampling error but also to very short-term effects,” says political scientist Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At the time, “the news cycle was dominated by the positive side of the story, and only a little bit by the Republicans’ rebuttal to that.”

    There was a strong reaction against the tactics Democratic leaders used to pass the bill. A 53% majority call Democratic methods “an abuse of power;” 40% say they are appropriate.

    And when asked about incidents of vandalism and threats that followed the bill’s passage, Americans are more inclined to blame Democratic political tactics than critics’ harsh rhetoric. Forty-nine percent say Democratic tactics are “a major reason” for the incidents, while 46% blame criticism by conservative commentators and 43% the criticism of Republican leaders.

    An arms deal with Russia? That is supposed to build momentum for his presidency? Nuts. Nobody stateside understands or cars about that stuff. A trip to Afghanistan? To rally the troops? Give me a break. What about dissing Israel, failure to confront Iran, and the growing possibility of disaster? What about no jobs? What about health care bill that the country does not like, thug tactics used to pass it, poisoning the well in congress, higher cost, reduction in medicare? Now that is the kind of stuff people can relate to. Smoke and mirrors won’t do it. This Administration lives in a delusional world.

  37. I hate to say this but it’s the truth.

    After the nauseating race-identification politics with 95% + of blacks still supporting Squat, I would be hesitant to support a black candidate.

    ‘One of the most encouraging things I am seeing now is the record number of black republicans who are throwing their hats in the ring.’
    Yes. Tragically, that is how many people feel now. It has become a racial thing–much as we tried to avoid it. Obama lit the fuse and there is no going back. Fifty years of civil rights struggle have been diminished by one candidate who dared to go where no responsible politician has gone before. Oh sure, big media has always accused the republicans of doing this, e.g. Willie Horton, etc. But those accusations no longer wash. The spirit of liberty is what people hold in their hearts not what is written on paper. And now the distrust between the races is higher than I have seen in my lifetime. The only hope for redemption that I see is if those black candidates are willing to speak out against Obama and what he is doing to this country. If they pussy foot around the issue, then you will be right.

  38. November will be the really gauge of what is going on here. If they lose BIG, we will have to see if the Dims are smart enought to make the right decisions. So far, they have not been. However, most parties have to be smart enough to know that saving Obama after that is going to be slim to none.

  39. Thank you Admin for your astute observations regarding Obama’s “Passover Antics”. As a Jew, and a Zionist, it was abundantly clear to me, or to anyone with an IQ over that of an amoeba, that Obama was a hardcore Israel hater. With associates and confidants like Wright,Farrakhan, Powers, and others, one had to be an ostrich with their head in the sand not to see that Obama would be the most hostile President Israel ever faced. At a Hillary fundraiser I attended in Boca, Bill Clinton, to paraphase, stated to us “if I were a supporeter of Israel, I would be concerned about an Obama administration..”
    Koch, and other liberal Jews, Rabbis, etc assured us all Obama was “our friend” despite the writing on the wall, or in Obam’s case, the sermons at the church.
    We are now faced with Obama imposing his own peace plan on Israel as he did with health care on the American public…he will not be stopped. Israel simply cannot suruvive without American aide, and Obama will either deny it, or as we have seen, use the theme that Israel endangers American soldiers to sway anti-Israeli public opinion. (despite the fact Israel saves American soldiers lifes via strategic cooperartion, technology, and least we not forget taking out Sadam’s nuke in the 80’s).
    My assessment of Obama is that regardless of his anti-Israeli/democracy theology, his main idealogy is a obsession of becomming the most significant President since FDR regarless of the cost. In the end, the policies , imo, don’t really matter all that much to him, but rather, the place, for better or worse, he seeks in history.

  40. All I see in the HRC plan, is something others will have to fix later. It is like should you put a great new tire on the car, or a used one that you have no idea if the patches will hold.

    They are trying to convince the Voters that a used tire with patches is the wonderful new health care we were promised, when we all know it was not.

  41. New Wall Street Journal article (put http:// before the web address):

    “Obama Steps Up Confrontation
    White House Seeks to Rally Supporters With Aggressive Tone Against Opponents”

    Frankly, I think this is the clearest indication that the Obama White House is desperate as well as delusional

  42. Figures sometimes lie, and beltway liars figure. In this case, we find a beltway liar named Brent Budowsky aka “Bub” of The Hill’s Pundit Blog. Bub writes an article entitled “Matt Drudge And The Republican Delusion”. In that piece Bub plays fast and loose with poll numbers. Why? To reach political conclusions which are srongly biased in favor of Bambi. Why? To paint a rosy picture of the public reaction to this health care disaster which is at odds with the facts. One example of Bub’s journalistic malpractice is his citation of a poll which supports his premise and his concomitant neglect of a later poll which negates it. Simply put, Bub is a transparent liar and and Moe Lane cuts him to pieces for it:
    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Tuesday, March 30th at 11:56AM EDT

    I don’t normally fisk, but let’s unpack this passage, shall we? This article – called, amusingly enough, “Matt Drudge and the Republican delusion” – was dated March 25th, 2010 (today is March 30th, 2010):

    “Recently a Gallup poll, of course highlighted on Drudge, found that Obama’s numbers had (then) turned more unfavorable than favorable.”

    Presumably this one: 46/48 favorable/unfavorable.

    “This has (now) dramatically changed, unreported by Drudge, with Obama’s favorables now well above his unfavorables.”

    Presumably this one: 51% favorable. March 25th, 2010.
    But not this one: 47/50 favorable/unfavorable March 29th, 2010. That’s USA/Gallup: the current regular Gallup three-day has him at 48/46 favorable/unfavorable; check back again at 1 PM EST, but I don’t expect aa massive jump.

    “The generic Democratic vote is leading the generic Republican vote in the last Gallup congressional election survey.”

    He means this survey: 47/44 Dem/Rep. March 16th, 2010.
    Not the latest one: 44/47 Dem/Rep. March 30, 2010 (no story yet).

    “The healthcare bill has passed and the president’s polls have moved up. Democratic numbers have crept up.”

    And, as you can see, they have crept right back down again. Let’s add two more from Gallup, since we’re here: when they polled on reactions to the bill on the 23rd, the poll numbers were 49/40 in favor… and when they polled it again on the 29th, the numbers were 47/50.

    The rest of the article wasn’t all that interesting – the usual “Four legs good! Two legs bad! Four legs good! Two legs bad!,” plus Matt Drudge standing in for Emmanuel Goldstein* – but the part that I highlighted was worth looking at, and snickering. Goodness knows that I use polls all the time, in a lazy fashion that must drive folks like that fine feathered friend at Unlikely Voter crazy… but even I know to wait a week or so on national issues to see if there’s a trend.

    Apparently, Brent Budowsky doesn’t.

    Or else he really needed to see what’s starting to look like strictly temporary good news on the Democrats’ front. (snip)

    Moe Lane

    PS: The polls will shift back and forth between now and Election Day. Heck, the Gallup will probably go up today. Still. Usually posts like Budowsky’s aren’t supposed to wilt and grow mold within five days…

    *Yes, I’m aware that those were two separate books. That being said, the Muppet Show version of 1984 would have been amazing.

    Crossposted to Moe Lane.

    Sphere: Related Content
    Share on: Facebook | | Reddit Category: brent budowsky, damned lies, Gallup, lies, statistics

  43. Question: whether the earmarks represents business as usual or political payoffs.

    Updated March 29, 2010
    Pro-Life Democrats Who Switched Vote for Health Bill Request Billions in Earmarks

    The 11 House Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak who dropped their opposition to health care reform mere hours before the final vote have requested $3.4 billion in earmarks — and one watchdog group wants to know whether the money represents business as usual, or a political payoff.

    print email share recommend (21)

    Rep. Bart Stupak announces he will vote to pass the health care reform bill at the U.S. Capitol in Washington March 21. (AP Photo)

    The 11 House Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak who dropped their opposition to health care reform legislation mere hours before the final vote have requested $3.4 billion in earmarks — and one watchdog group wants to know whether the money represents business as usual or political payoffs.

    The Sunlight Foundation says it plans to track the earmark requests, which were put in one day after health care reform cleared Congress, to see whether they’re approved and whether it appears lawmakers are being rewarded for their vote.

    “We know that in Congress one of the ways that leadership tries to influence members is through earmarks,” said Bill Allison, editorial director at the nonpartisan organization. “So this seemed to us something good to follow.”

    Stupak and the 10 other Democrats were critical to the success of the health care bill. They were holding out over concerns about funding for abortion coverage but announced the president had assuaged their worries — with an executive order restricting abortion funding — the morning of the big vote.

    Stupak’s office said there’s absolutely no link between the earmarks and the health care bill’s passage.

    “The congressman’s vote for health care has no connection to annual appropriations requests,” spokeswoman Michelle Benoche said. “Appropriations requests were submitted on Monday, March 22, because that is the deadline of the Appropriations Committee.”

    She also said his earmark requests this year are in line with prior years, in number and in total amount.

    But watchdogs want to know whether there’s more to the story.

    Since the health care reform push hit its final stretch, numerous sweeteners for lawmakers’ districts and states have been found inside the package. Earmark requests are made outside of the health care bill, making them a bit more difficult to link to any vote-trading. But it is precisely that kind of tricky-to-catch deal-making that Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said he and other GOP senators would be monitoring for months to come.

    “If you think you can cut a deal now and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn’t going to happen,” Coburn said a few days before the bill passed.

    Lawmakers like Stupak have since been heavily scrutinized. Allison said the lawmakers who stood with him will find out if those earmarks are approved when the Appropriations Committee’s bills come out in June or July.

    The individual earmarks requests from each of those lawmakers range from $20 million to $1.4 billion. Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money than they did a year ago. Stupak requested $579 million.

    Here are the earmark amounts requested by the 11 House Democrats in the 2011 bill:

    Rep. Jerry Costello of Illinois.: $1,418.7 million ($256.4 million in 2010)

    Rep. Solomon Ortiz of Texas: $618 million ($726.1 million in 2010)

    Stupak of Michigan: $578.9 million

    Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio: $332.2 million

    Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio: $294 million ($305.7 million in 2010)

    Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania: $236.8 million ($54 million in 2010)

    Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota.: $207 million ($226 million in 2010)

    Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana.: $115.4 million ($82.3 million in 2010)

    Rep. Charles Wilson of Ohio: $84 million ($62.3 million in 2010)

    Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.: $67.1 million

    Rep. Joseph Donnelly of Indiana: $19.8 million ($11.65 million in 2010)

    The Sunlight Foundation also says it is going to look at Republican earmarks. House Republicans say they are not requesting any earmarks for the next fiscal year, but Allison said the Sunlight Foundation will watch GOP senators to see if they appear to be putting in earmark requests for their House colleagues

  44. Afghanistan will be Bambi’s Viet Nam

    OTTAWA (AP) – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.
    Clinton went on Canadian television on Monday and said the U.S. would like Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan past 2011 and suggested they could switch from a combat to a training role.

    But Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, says Harper told Clinton on Tuesday that after 2011 Canada will be involved in a civilian mission focused largely on aid and reconstruction.

    Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon also ruled out any form of a military mission post-2011 at a news conference late Monday night following Clinton’s remarks.

    Harper and Clinton met for 20 minutes on the sidelines of the Group of Eight foreign ministers meeting.

  45. Hey all. I’m a longtime lurker–Ive been here since December 07 when a man I was cold calling, doing my Hillary Iowa calls!, said that I should check out the website. And I’ve posted here ever so often. I just wanna thank Admin and others for keeping this conversation going about Obama not being able to be trusted and really dissecting and exploring the facts. I guess there is a lot I don’t understand, I am 23, and I do get a little offended when there are generalizations made about the “youth vote” because there are those of us who do really pay attention and have vested interested in the outcome of elections. Part of the reason why I was for Hillary was because she stood for a Student Borrower Bill of Rights, because she knows how predatory the private loan companies are, and I happen to be dealing with that right now out of school. I feel completely disowned and disillusioned by the Dimocrats and feel I identify now more as an Independent then a Dem. My sister and I have disagreements, she works as staff on the House on Labor committee and has taken the time to try to do her best to explain the bill to me. She, in November when I visited her office in DC, showed me the bill, it was probably the size of an Encyclopedia. She feels the reason people are so upset about it is because they are misinformed on what the bill actually is. However, it’s hard for to articulate what it actually is because there is so much in it. I told her I felt that it was rolled out completely wrong and the PR campaign behind it was terrible, which she agreed.

    What I guess I am confused about and wanted to comment on was that I really feel like I don’t have a place anymore in the political world. I don’t feel like I can trust the Dems and I don’t feel like I can trust the Repubs. I like Sarah P, but get a lot of crap from family/friends for that (Though my Grandmother and Mother, both staunch Democrats, wanted her book for Christmas!), but I just feel like I don’t have ground to stand on. I am gay and therefore, with Obama and his stupid promises, don’t ask don’t tell nonsense, gay bashing tours, etc. I know he’s not on my side. The Republicans aren’t on my side either….

    so I guess, where do I fit? Who do I align myself with politically? I am, of course, really invested and interested in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY before I am any social issues, and I am someone who voted McCain/Palin and not Obama/Obiden ( :-p ) but I guess I don’t know who has my back anymore?

    Do you know?

  46. Admin, I think that you inserted that video I linked. For some reason, I cannot get it to load at hillaryis44 on 2 different comptuers. It is showing 1 left to download, and I there is a large space in my messages.

    Thanks for loading it.

  47. More evidence of Obama’s class warfare, and his attack upon savers who are seniors.


    Today’s historically low interest rates may be feeding banks’ profitability, but they are financially starving our seniors.

    In February 2006, when Ben Bernanke was first sworn in as chairman of the Federal Reserve, the federal-funds target rate stood at 4.5%. That same year, the average yield on a one-year certificate of deposit was 5.4%. A retiree who diligently saved for a lifetime and had amassed a nest egg of $100,000 could count on an added $5,400 in retirement income per year. That may not sound like much to the average Wall Street Journal subscriber, but for a senior on fixed incomes that extra money improved the quality of his life.

    Today’s average rate for an identical one-year CD is roughly 1.3%. On the same nest egg, that retiree will now get annual payout of just $1,300—a 76% decline in four years.

    Some would argue that today’s low inflation rate offsets the decline. But even at an inflation rate of zero, a 76% decline in spending power is painful. And we’re already seeing signs of inflation this year. The first two months of 2010 showed an annualized inflation rate of 2%, further exacerbating the spending power problem for retirees by eroding the value of their principal.

    To be sure, the country’s recent financial crisis required unprecedented action by the Fed, including lowering rates to levels not seen in more than 50 years. In particular, the infusion of capital into the banking system through historically low fed-funds target rates pulled many banks from the precipice of collapse. By that measure it has been a resounding success.

    Yet these unprecedented low rates have now been in place for almost 18 months. As a result, banks have enjoyed virtually free access to money while retirees have been deprived of any meaningful yield on their fixed-income portfolios. For a large segment of our population—people who worked long and hard, who followed the rules by spending less than they earned and putting the remainder away to keep themselves independent in retirement—the ultra-low interest rate is more than a hardship. It’s a potential disaster striking at core American principles of self–reliance, individual responsibility and fairness.

    To put the scale of this problem in context, consider the fact that more than $7.5 trillion in American household wealth is held today in short-term, interest-bearing products such as checking and savings accounts, retail money funds and CDs. At today’s low interest rates, the return on those savings is hundreds of billions less than it would have been at 2006 interest rates. Retirees feel the consequences disproportionately, but because much of that income would have made its way into the economy, spending and job creation also suffer.

    I see the pain that low interest rates have caused very directly. My company, Charles Schwab, serves millions of individual investors, many of whom are 65 and older. These people depend on cash savings for their financial well-being.

    Many in this age group are being forced to stretch for income one of three ways. One is to take on more risk just as they are progressing through retirement. Another is to go longer in maturity with their fixed income investments, locking them into a situation where inflation will bite further into their principal and purchasing power. And the worst is the slow erosion of principal that is already occurring as people cash out of savings to make up for needed income.

    It’s not just retirees on fixed income we should be concerned about. Let’s not forget that savers of all ages—even the young person opening his first savings account—need some incentive of future reward for saving. Today, there is none.

    The large banks are well on the mend. Profits are improving and they’re doing just fine. Our seniors are not. Those in Washington should keep their plight in mind as they consider Fed monetary policies going forward.

  48. LJ:

    I remember ya.

    No matter people’s ages, there are a LOT of people wandering the wilderness, disillusioned with both parties.

    W. drove many sane centrist Republicans toward the center

    O. now drives many sane centrist Dems toward the center.

    But with two main parties, each tending toward one extreme or the other, the center appears to be left for the taking.

  49. Hi LJ: I had an identical conversation with someone with the initials LR IV on December 16, 2007 according to my notes. I invited him to post on this site and for a period of time he did. Would that perchance be you? If not it is a coincidence.

  50. I was so happy to see that the American Revival held by Glenn Beck in Orlando last Saturday was not just a sea of white hair. The UCF Arena held 8,000 people and fewer than a hundred seats were vacant. There were all ages there. I was very heartened by the fact that soooo many were working age and there were a number of young and younger people there as well, male and female. Some drove great distances. And some got parking tickets for parking at the frat houses. In their defense there were not signs or directions to the Arena as we expected and the campus is large;we first went to a building that looked like the picture of the Arena….and we and others walked across to the other side of the campus, which is a great distance.

    It was a great experience that was unforgettable. And though the event was from 10am-4 pm, it did not last long enough for the large audience. With the American Revival, Glenn Beck, is fighting ‘hate’ with ‘love.’ This love is love for our Creator, love for our founding fathers, love for our country, love for our families, and love for future generations. Love for ourselves is also included as is a dedication to document the historic times we are living in for future generations and dedication to be a chohesive force to reclaim our liberties and return to our Republic form of government. We were encouraged to question with BOLDNESS, and to use the hammer of non-violence on the anvil of truth – and to go on the offensive. I got renewed strength from the American Revival which was like a shot in the arm.

    We were each given a book that I have not had a chance to read yet, but have skimmed over it and it IS WONDERFUL.

    A vendor at the event was selling stuff and a lot of badges made in China.I used this opportunity to demonstrate in my most loud and obnoxious voice using the hammer of non-violence on the anvil of truth as I put the vendor on the defensive. There were a lot of really great badges, and we started picking out our 10 or so favorites. Then I went to the other side and lo and behold, there was a likeness of Monica You-Know-Who and words to the effect of “…because something just doesn’t smell right.” I lit into that vendor in my most southern voice and protested loud enough that EVERYONE buying in the area could hear plainly. The conversation went along these lines: [Vendor] show me one negative word on that badge, so what if I am a liberal, freedom of speech and all that jazz, I am not treading on you, I am not treading on you. [Me] I am offended [made the word into seven syllables]by this badge, it needs no words the graphics are enough, this badge is about Clinton bashing and NEITHER OF THEM ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS nor are they in this up to their a$$ in alligators – Obama is, this is not pertinent to what is going on – it is just
    a liberal smear tactic, you are selling liberal sh!t at a conservative event – you must be a liberal, why is a LIBERAL selling LIBERAL stuff at a conservative event. It offends me, YOU ARE TREADING ON ME, YOU ARE TREADING ON ME, YOU ARE TREADING ON ME.
    So, I will continue my love of the Clintons and my undying support of them, I will continue to support the Tea Party, I will continue to support the 9:12 project, I will work to elect conservatives in 2010, I will continue to work to defeat Obummer in 2012 and hope that the elections are not rigged, and I will continue to be an Independent because THEY WILL NEED ME and I will choose to only help those who believe that the consititution is the blueprint for our country, that are patriots, and that know our history from the original sources, and oh yeah, that have a BACKBONE.
    And I will save a seat on my lifeboat from the Titanic that the Dimocrats are running might close to destruction for those who WAKE UP before it is too late, and it may already be too late. But, seats are limited.

    P.S. I bought lots of badges, but my favorite is one David Buckner was giving out. The text says, I HAVE permission TO THINK with the word permission in read and in a box. So, I have to think. And, I have permission to think.

  51. #
    March 30th, 2010 at 2:38 pm


    I remember ya.

    No matter people’s ages, there are a LOT of people wandering the wilderness, disillusioned with both parties.

    W. drove many sane centrist Republicans toward the center

    O. now drives many sane centrist Dems toward the center.

    But with two main parties, each tending toward one extreme or the other, the center appears to be left for the taking.
    Yup, I was in the middle leaning left, but now am stranding on an island in the middle, ready to throw incumbents out of office and cherry pick the candidates by their previous voting record. They may as well keep their money from tv ads, I don’t believe a word from any of them at this point.

    I only want enough Repugs in to take away Obama’s power and make him a one term president. The Dems better elect Hillary in in 2012, or it will be a blood bath for them.

  52. Shortermer: did you see the Obama mini statue with the “Made in Saudi Arabia” seal on the back of the cranium?

  53. Welcome, or welcome back, LJ. Someone very dear to me is in the same predicament you are in. I croach upon how Obummer has lied, manipulated, and used the LGTB community for his own gain and with no intention of keeping promises made with the one that is close to me.
    When we refer to the ‘youth vote’ we are referring to those young people who have been brainwashed and thought they had power in the general election because Obummer had been the FIRST to engage them. I have tried to teach my young[er] children that all that glitters is not gold. We have prayed that more of the youth would remember the values they were taught at home and wake up, so thank you for your considered approach to the elections. Please bring onboard one more young person and perhaps they would bring onboard one more. For it is your generation that hold the future of my two very young great-grandchildren in your care. May God Bless you and your generation for it is you [and me] that my underage father fought in WWII to perserve our freedom for. Please do not let freedom be lost in your generation. I am working really hard to not let freedom be lost in my generation. You are the future of our country. It is a blessed and mighty country, if the people will wake up and throw the bums out in 2010 and 2012.

  54. LJ,

    Welcome back. I identify with your frustration. My hubby and I changed our voter registration from Dem ot decline to state after the primaries. I am not comfortable with either party now. Looking for some honest brokers and praying that 2010 is the beginning of a house cleaning – on both sides.

  55. Thomas Sowell: An off-budget office
    Examiner Columnist
    March 23, 2010

    Under the headline “Costly Bill Seen as Saving Money,” the San Francisco Chronicle last week began a front-page story with these words: “Many people find it hard to understand how the health care legislation heading for a decisive vote Sunday can cost $940 billion and cut the horrendous federal deficit at the same time.”
    It’s not hard to understand at all. It is a lie.

    What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people, who might otherwise use their common sense, is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money.

    The Congressional Budget Office does honest work. But it can only use the numbers that Congress supplies– and Congress does dishonest work. It is not the CBO’s job to give their opinion as to whether any of the marvelous things that Congress says it will do in the future are either likely or possible.

    The Congressional Budget Office is like a computer: Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers in the health care bill are especially smelly garbage.

    Do we really need a government agency to give us a false sense of security? Don’t we already have politicians to do that? Weren’t they doing that at the height of the housing boom that preceded the collapse, which then brought down the whole financial system and the whole economy? Many warnings were brushed aside by Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and many others in Congress.

    What we really need– and will never get– is a Congressional Off-Budget Office. This would be an agency that does not have to accept whatever numbers Congress sends them and pretend to take those numbers seriously.

    An independent agency could add up all of the government’s financial liabilities, whether they are in the official budget or not. For example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees bank accounts, has only a fraction of the money that it is supposed to have on hand to see that people’s life savings don’t get wiped out when a bank fails.

    No administration of either party is going to let people’s life savings get wiped out. That would be political suicide. FDIC is definitely too big to fail. But none of the billions of dollars that will be necessary to pour into FDIC at some point, as banks continue to fail and the FDIC’s reserves continue to shrink, appears in the official budget numbers that the CBO sees.

    It is a similar story with the Federal Housing Administration, which has what the Wall Street Journal calls “razor thin reserves” as it goes around the country, merrily guaranteeing ever larger mortgages for ever larger numbers of people, while 14 percent of those mortgages are already delinquent.

    When the FHA is finally scraping the bottom of the barrel, trying to come up with the money to redeem all the reckless– but politically popular– guarantees it is making, where do you think that additional money they need will come from? From taxpayers– current and future.

    But none of this money is in the official federal budget that the Congressional Budget Office sees. There are many other financial liabilities of the government that are “off-budget,” which means that they do not show up in the official numbers.
    What if an individual operated this way? If you are 80 years old, and your assets exactly balance your liabilities, you’re in good shape, right? Wrong.

    At your age, you know that there may be some big medical bills coming, somewhere down the road. If you have been following politics– which may be bad for your blood pressure– you know that the mountainous federal deficits that extend into the future, as far as the eye can see, are likely to set off inflation that will silently steal a big chunk of the value of whatever money you have put aside for your old age. But none of that shows up in the numbers measuring your current assets and liability.

    Moreover, at 80 years of age, you are not likely to be able to resume a career and make anything like the money you once made. What can you do? Unlike the federal government, you cannot just send your official numbers over to the Congressional Budget Office and have them announce that you are in great financial shape.

    Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:

  56. Dems fear honest Obamacare accounting
    Examiner Editorial
    March 30, 2010

    Caterpillar Inc., the world’s biggest mining and construction equipment company, is estimating Obamacare will cost it $100 million because of changes in tax law. (Alan Diaz/AP)

    Remember the Enron scandal in 2001, which drove a bipartisan majority in Congress to demand far-reaching reforms in corporate accounting? Democrats have discovered this week that maybe they can’t handle the truth — at least not when it exposes the real economic effect of Obamacare on private sector companies large and small. Thousands of employees, their families and retirees get their health insurance coverage through firms that are now having to figure out how to cope with government-run health care.

    On Capitol Hill and in the White House on Monday, Democrats were fuming over a series of announcements that started Friday from Fortune 500 firms saying their bottom lines will take huge negative hits because of changes in tax law mandated by Obamacare. That hit in turn means lower profit projections. Caterpillar estimates, for example, that Obamacare will cost it $100 million; John Deere faces expenses of $150 million; 3M, $90 million; AK Steel, $31 million; Valero, $20 million. And then there’s AT&T, which is marking its balance sheet down by a whopping $1 billion. All in all, the Wall Street Journal estimated a $14 billion haircut for these corporations.

    Under post-Enron accounting rules, the corporations were required to revise their projections to account for the effect of Obamacare on their bottom lines. The effect is negative because Democrats, in their zeal to raise revenues and improve Obamacare’s claimed effect on the federal deficit outlook, took away a tax break these companies needed in order to supply prescription drugs to their retirees. The tax subsidy, itself a government accounting ruse crafted in 2003 by the Republican Bush administration to dissuade corporations from dumping their retiree drug benefit programs on the then-new Medicare Part D, becomes taxable under Obamacare. Corporations are now being reminded of the harsh truth: What Big Government giveth, Big Government taketh away, too.

    According to the American Spectator, top White House advisers reacted with angry phone calls to the corporations in question. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., issued harassing document requests and demanded that the chief executive officers appear before his committee next month to answer for their sins. These corporations, which legally owe an honest reckoning to their shareholders, are only doing their duty by restating projections. By contrast, Waxman and many of his fellow Democratic leaders in Congress have used every government accounting and budget gimmick at their disposal to deceive Americans for the last year about the true costs of Obamacare. These Washington politicians have no business lecturing CEOs on honesty in accounting.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:

  57. ShortTermer
    March 30th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    I was so happy to see that the American Revival held by Glenn Beck
    Thanks for letting us know what the experience was like…I will be sure to not partake.
    Sounds way too right winged for my taste.

  58. LJ, the political anomie you feel, is one many Americans are feeling too. You are in the majority or in a very big minority.

    We are all sort of orphans for the time being. The Dimocrats cannot be trusted, the Republicans don’t share our values. We want change but we want to pay the bills for that change and above all make sure the change is for the better.

    It is difficult to be the first in the exultant crowd to say “But, the Emperor has no clothes on.” The PINO left is now become the Establishment Left and the only thing that matters to them is to fit in. That will lead to the November disaster.

    After November, the Dimocrats will return to sanity, or a new political force will emerge for the displaced.

    Be of good cheer. The past few years have forced us all to see what is wrong with “our team” and where “their team” has some worthwhile critiques. The truth can be painful, but it is better than the bliss of ignorance.

Comments are closed.