Happy New Year!? Yeah, OK, Whatever. Hooray!

Update: Music for tonight from 1936. All lyrics here.

There may be trouble ahead
But while there’s moonlight and music
And love and romance
Let’s face the music and dance

Before the fiddlers have fled
Before they ask us to pay the bill
And while we still
Have the chance
Let’s face the music and dance


Suicide might or might not be painless. But sorry, it’s not allowed. We do however understand the desire to end it all before the horn blows at midnight.

The nauseating news that Kanye West and Kim Kardashian have spawned almost sent us over the edge and we started scouting for tall edifices and/or strong medications to relieves us from having to ever hear or see Barack Obama or his lantern-jawed spouse ever again. We recovered briefly from that news but almost immediately we were forced to hunt for termination medication upon reading that 2013 will be a year of film prequels, sequels, and reboots (and really! Ice Age 4 was the second biggest grossing film this year???).

The news just breaking: Obama to speak about the fiscal cliff at 1:30 ET doesn’t help our disposition any. Add the rumors, speculations and video: Hillary Clinton hospitalized with a blood clot and spending the holiday in hospital, along with all the fiscal cliff nonsense from Washington and we’re almost ready to set a place of honor for the Grim Reaper at tonight’s banquet table and take one last meal with friends.

We’d jump over a cliff and end it all but then we wouldn’t be able to have a hearty laugh at fiscal cliff Kabuki theater. And there is a lot to laugh about as the fiscal cliff Birnam wood comes to Dunsinane.

We’ve explained why Republicans have a great deal of leverage in the fiscal cliff follies. Problem is Republican “leaders” don’t seem to believe us. But if we are wrong and Obama’s position is so strong why is Obama even “negotiating” or pretending to negotiate with Republicans? Over at the Obama Dimocrat cult left Jonathan Chiat is upset and wonders why Obama is playing so badly:

“The negotiating style Obama has displayed in these instances is what poker players call “tight-weak.” A tight-strong player avoids throwing in his chips, saving them for a big hand, which he plays aggressively in hopes of a huge win. A loose-weak player plays lots of hands, bluffing frequently. Tight-weak is the worst of all worlds — when you have a weak hand, you lose, and when you have a strong hand, you fail to maximize your position.”

Maybe Obama knows that his hand is not as strong as he has convinced his cult followers (yeah, we do mean Big Media and the DailyKooks) it is. Even Obama cult leader Greg Sargent is beginning to suspect we are right. Or maybe Obama read former supporter Mort Zuckerman’s article on the reality of our economics:

“We are on a trajectory of cumulative fiscal deficits that cannot possibly be sustained. We have gone from being the world’s largest creditor nation, with no foreign debt at the end of World War II, to the world’s largest debtor, with roughly half of our public debt held by foreign lenders. Over the last four years, our national debt has grown by more than $5 trillion to over $16 trillion. We have to service that debt. The Federal Reserve is keeping rates historically low but here’s the cost of paying interest on the debt for fiscal 2012: $359,796,008,919.49

What do you get for that? Nothing.

The greatest fiscal challenge to the U.S. government is not just its annual deficit but its total liabilities. Our federal balance sheet does not include the unfunded social insurance obligations of Medicare, Social Security, and the future retirement benefits of federal employees. Only in the small print of the financial statements do you get some idea of the enormous size of the unfunded commitments. Today the estimated unfunded total is more than $87 trillion, or 550 percent of our GDP. And the debt per household is more than 10 times the median family income. [snip]

If the American public saw our financial statements in the same way that public companies report their pension liabilities, it would clearly see the magnitude of danger represented by the future borrowings that these liabilities to an aging population imply—borrowing on a scale that would not only bankrupt the programs themselves but the entire federal government. And to a worrying extent, we are locked into continued escalation by the fact that social insurance programs, as well as other mandatory programs, carry payments that are in accordance with automatic formulas written into law and are not subject to an annual spending limit. Today, less than 40 percent of our budget is actually decided by Congress and the president, down from 62 percent 40 years ago.

If we continue in these irresponsible ways, an eventual reckoning cannot be avoided. The liabilities are so huge, and multiplying so fast, that there will be one unavoidable demand as the various bills come to their due date.”

It’s an entirely depressing article that by comparison will get us to “kitchy-koo” the Kanye-Kardashian crib occupant. Well, not really. It’s all still very depressing.

So what to do? Invite the Grim Reaper for a fluted glass of Drano? Or celebrate the turning of the 12 to a 13 with some Champagne?

For all the bad ju-ju about the number 13, it usually is a good luck number in our experience. So maybe???? Maybe not all is bleak and 2013 will be a good year? Maybe???? Pretty slim grapes to drink in a Champagne flute though.

But there is tonight the function of ritual. And ritual is not to be cast off lightly. New Year’s Eve is a bittersweet time to remember the past year, glories and defeats, old acquaintances as well as to fill the emptiness of times and persons who have left us with the great surprises of what life presents. That’s what Auld Lang Syne is about.

Yes it is a bittersweet time.

For us the song of the night is not so much the old Scottish favorite. It’s a German song. It’s a German song that during fierce battles and even during imprisonment in camps both sides of the struggle listened to in the quiet of the night. Lili Marlene.

So yes, tonight we will lift and drink a glass of cheer. For real. Hooray! Rejoice. We won’t cast aside the ancient ways but bow to the rituals and honor memory.

Have a Happy New Year one and all.


The Drunk Between The Trees

A drunk winds his way home. A few short steps from the entry door he turns slightly from the pathway and eventually bangs his head against a tree lining the walk. Turning completely around he walks until he ca-rooms his head against the opposite tree lining the pathway home. Once again he turns completely around until he bangs his head against the first tree he hit. Again he turns completely around and eventually bangs his head against the earlier banged tree. “Oh help me God – I’m lost in an impenetrable forest.”

That is the story of the Republican opposition to Barack Obama. That typical bang up job by Republicans was on schedule to be repeated in the fiscal cliff spitball fight of this December. But a funny thing happened.

The Republicans, especially the hapless Speaker Boner, found themselves in an impenetrable forest of their own imaginations. They banged their heads repeatedly. Then, perhaps it was a Christmas Miracle, they got tripped up and ended up at the front door and home. These stupid drunks stumbled their way home and out of the forest they created.

* * * * * *
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Our mantra since 2007: “Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”

Foolishly, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney and most of the Republican leadership never understood how correct our assessment is. They continue to try to speak the language of policy and economic common sense when all Obama cares about is himself and his “brand”.

Republicans were poised to cave on their principles and hand Barack Obama a major victory without a fight. The reasons for the cave were fear they would be blamed for disaster in the wake of the fiscal cliff jump and be punished at the ballot box in 2014. In 2014!

Republicans feared Big Media would blame them! Imagine that! Big Media was going to defend Barack Obama and attack his opponents no matter what happened. But these Republican drunken fools somehow figured that a population that cannot figure out Haley Berry is nuts after her latest domestic horrors would somehow remember the fiscal cliff of 12/12 and punish Republicans even in the Republican bastions which have secured them a House majority. So Republicans like John Boner went to negotiate with Barack Obama.

That must be powerful moonshine Big Media is serving and Speaker Boner is drinking. Imagine entering negotiations with Barack Obama! Those of us who have successfully negotiated deals know that you can only make a deal with people who can be trusted to do what they say. There has to be good faith bargaining from both sides in any negotiation that is worthy of that description.

Speaker Boner entered into negotiations with Barack Obama as if Obama could be trusted. This is what we wrote earlier this month about the fiscal cliff:

“Republicans will get blamed by Obama and Big Media for anything bad that happens or has ever happened or ever will happen. That’s what Obama does – blame everyone but himself.

What Republican leaders must realize is that if they are going to get blamed they might as well get blamed for fighting for their principles. Not fighting for principles will only lead to infighting within Republican ranks as “compromisers” and “purists” (that’s how Big Media will label the factions) battle it out for control of the party in the wake of the “cave-in” to Obama. Rank and file conservatives and other Obama opponents will be correctly discouraged from standing up for a party that won’t stand up for its principles. [snip]

If the Republican Party caves in to Barack Obama’s thuggery they will have effectively decided to jump the shark into obscurity.”

Republicans were set to jump the shark in an impenetrable forest of trees. But they stumbled their way home.

The Wall Street Journal published a bang by bang account of Speaker Boner lost in the forest of his imagination:

“Mr. Boehner had been negotiating a deal with the White House to let tax rates rise for upper-income people.

Mr. Boehner, irritated with the White House, was finding it hard to keep his troops in line as details of his negotiations with Mr. Obama leaked out. [snip]

The negotiations offer little evidence November’s election brought the president and House Republicans closer together. If anything, the talks poisoned an already distrustful relationship.

It took a while but the too trusting Speaker came to his senses: Obama cannot be trusted. Obama’s thuggery is what woke many up and saved the Republicans from destroying themselves and providing Obama a victory:

“Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

After the election, Boehner aides tried to shape the debate by offering early concessions, including that the GOP would agree to raise new tax revenue. [snip]

He and Mr. Obama didn’t sit down together for another 10 days. The session began genially. But tension quickly emerged over the president’s call to include increasing the U.S.’s borrowing limit in any final package.

Responded Mr. Boehner: “I’ve found in my life that everything I’ve ever wanted has come with price.”

Mr. Obama told the speaker he wasn’t willing to play games with the debt ceiling. [snip]

The White House made clear it wouldn’t agree to a plan that didn’t raise some tax rates immediately. [snip]

The president repeatedly reminded Mr. Boehner of the election results: “You’re asking me to accept Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Why would I do that?” At another point, the speaker noted his GOP majority would also return next year.”

Speaker Boner should have told Obama to go right ahead and start his second term with a dull inaugural speech filled with attacks. Boner should have told Obama to launch a State of the Union attack so that he could reply in kind. In a smart negotiation you take the opponent’s threats and turn them against him/her.

Speaker Boner did not negotiate with smarts. The Speaker was reasonable while Obama made threats. Obama the thug used thuggery:

“On Dec. 13, Mr. Boehner went to the White House at the president’s request, joking he was going to the woodshed.

The president told him he could choose one of two doors. The first represented a big deal. If Mr. Boehner chose it, the president said, the country and financial markets would cheer. Door No. 2 represented a spike in interest rates and a global recession.

Mr. Boehner said he wanted a deal along the lines of what the two men had negotiated in the summer of 2011 in a fight over raising the debt ceiling. “You missed your opportunity on that,” the president told him.

That night, the speaker and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) decided to make the biggest concession so far.”

In any negotiation you must be willing to walk away. If you are so desperate for a deal that you will tolerate the status of a beggar – you have already lost. Chicago thug Barack Obama understands this but made the mistake of jamming Speaker Boner’s face onto the pile of sh*t the Speaker and Republicans were being ordered to accept.

Speaker Boner made more concessions. The news from Connecticut provided Obama with another opportunity to flim and flam. Finally Speaker Boner got a clue:

“Finally, the speaker said, “Well, you and I can sit here and stare at each other,” or he could leave and they would talk later.

Back in the Capitol, Mr. Boehner told Mr. Cantor the president wasn’t moving. They agreed to call him. [snip]

Administration officials expected a few more days of back-and-forth, but the speaker thought the prospects were dim for a big deal. [snip]

“I’m going to keep the proposal on the table,” he said of the broader deal. “As I told the president, I’m not making an ultimatum. The offer stays on the table, even if we move on Plan B.”

His lieutenants made clear they preferred Plan B to the one Mr. Boehner was trying to broker.

The speaker called the president with news the House would move ahead with the backup bill, which would preserve Bush-era rates for all income below $1 million. The president was incensed.

It was long past time to walk away. Force Barack Obama to finally get to work and construct a deal was what the Republicans should have said from the very beginning.

What was the essential stupidity in all this fiscal cliff drama? Answer: It is Obama who should be begging for a deal and it is Republicans who hold the cards. The L.A. Times analysis provides some facts and numbers:

“In the days immediately after President Obama’s reelection victory, White House officials hoped that in a second term he might have better relations with congressional Republicans. The “fever will break,” more than one Obama aide forecast.

The last several days have demonstrated the opposite. Washington remains caught in a partisan stalemate on the budget, seems headed toward another on gun control and perhaps one on immigration policy as well.

That gridlock could inflict significant damage to the Republican Party. But Obama’s ability to manage an ambitious agenda in his new term also hangs in the balance.

The Republicans or any Obama opponent will be attacked and race-baited by Big Media and other Obama allies no matter what. Ignore the attacks. Republicans worried about electoral consequences in particular should remember that the next elections are in 2014 not in a few months and that those elections, as in 2010, will be played in some very red states.

Republicans in the House and Senate must also realize that their sole task is obstruction – just like the “scorched earth” resistance from Russian peasants during World War II. It’s Obama that has an agenda he wants to pass and therefore it is Obama that has to beg for a deal:

“Stalemates in Congress “may not affect his popularity all that much, but it will affect his ability to govern, if you define ability to govern as your ability to move your policy agenda forward,” said Bill Galston, a former domestic policy advisor to President Clinton. [snip]

To some degree, Obama’s difficulties in striking a budget deal with congressional Republicans are a reflection of the reality of his political position: He leads a nation that remains both deeply polarized and closely divided, as it has been for many years. He won reelection by only half the margin of his 2008 victory and with very limited coattails; the returning Republican majority in the House was barely dented by losses at the polls.

Of the GOP members in the incoming House, 219 come from districts carried by Mitt Romney, according to a Cook Political Report calculation. Add nine Democrats from districts carried by Romney, and a clear majority of the 435-member House hails from places where Obama lost.”

Consider that last paragraph. Control of the House requires 218 votes. Mitt Romney was the winner in districts which sent 219 Republican representatives to the House. Republicans can only lose in 2014 if they lose support from those who want opposition to Barack Obama.

Perhaps Speaker John Boehner should send a Christmas gift to Barack Obama. The gift should be a map of all the districts that sent a Republican to the House from districts Obama lost – 219 in all. The map should be emblazoned on a picture of a lame duck – which Obama will immediately be if he jumps off the fiscal cliff. The gift will have to be sent to Hawaii where Obama is on vacation golfing, again.


Unravel #5 Continues To Unravel

There has been little news, lots of noise, and ceaseless flim-flams every day this month. Most of what passes for news is posturing and preparations for later fights to come or feints to delude the public that these fights/debates will one day take place. Even “news” such as the latest “Sandy” disaster are shadowboxing in the culture/political wars the nation has yet to resolve.

There was some news today yet it too smells of future fights and a looming disaster that will cull the population more than murders in Benghazi and Connecticut combined. Many more deaths. Yup Unravel #5 continues.

The news today came from the influential and powerful District of Columbia Appeals Court and leads many to ask – is the White House buckling on HHS mandate? In a press release the victorious Becket Fund provides the news:

“Today, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. handed Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College a major victory in their challenges to the HHS mandate. Last summer, two lower courts had dismissed the Colleges’ cases as premature. Today, the appellate court reinstated those cases, and ordered the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects the Colleges’ religious freedom. The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013.

The court based its decision on two concessions that government lawyers made in open court. First, the government promised “it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form” against Wheaton, Belmont Abbey or other similarly situated religious groups. Second, the government promised it would publish a proposed new rule “in the first quarter of 2013” and would finalize it by next August. The administration made both concessions under intense questioning by the appellate judges. The court deemed the concessions a “binding commitment” and has retained jurisdiction over the case to ensure the government follows through.

That’s astonishing. This late in the less than one year for implementation of the Obama health scam and new rules are still being promised, or written, or flim-flammed. On something so relatively simple as the contraception mandate the Obama flim-flammers are now declaring to a court that appears dubious that they never intended to enforce the rule they had stated they had every intention of enforcing. What is going on?:

“First, it’s interesting that the White House hasn’t announced a review of its HHS contraception mandate outside of court. As far as is publicly known, the Obama administration considered its “accommodation” in the spring of this year as its final word, and had every intention of enforcing it. Until now, the suggestion that the rule was under review was an argument intended to delay judicial scrutiny of the administration’s attempt to impose its own definition of “worship” via bureaucratic decree.

This decision forces an end to that strategy. The “intense questioning” forced the administration to make what the appellate court considers a binding submission, and now has to produce a revamped rule that won’t infringe on religious liberty. It’s worth pointing out at this juncture that the Obama administration insisted that its “accommodation” didn’t infringe on religious liberty, so this concession gives the strong impression that the White House’s legal team is admitting that it in fact does infringe on the freedom of religious expression.

We are as confused as the celibate nuns (Sisters of the Poor) that will be, or not be, forced to be provided with contraceptives or leave the United States.

The Sisters of the Poor are not the only ones confused about what is going to happen as Obama’s health scam begins to operate on the helpless populace. At businesses large and small insurance providers are holding question and answer sessions for employees. What is being heard is ugly:

“One of the first things I learned was that some of the employees were bracing for a big hit in terms of their costs. Single person coverage hadn’t changed very much – around $50 each two week pay period – and seemed fairly reasonably priced to me. But the employee plus spouse plan (2 people) had shot up more than 30% and was well over $150 per payday. The full family plan which covers children had taken an even bigger hit and was going to be costing almost $290 per paycheck. One woman who works in the computer graphics section was wandering around afterwards looking stunned, saying to three people in a row, “That’s half of my paycheck. That’s half of my paycheck. What am I going to do?”

There were other changes to the cost structure, with co-pays, deductibles and maximum out of pocket expenses being altered. None of these new price plans seemed to be very popular.”

The insurance provider suggested that people beg their doctors for “samples” of drugs that doctors get from drug companies. Consumers are also advised to take refuge with discount cards. Another cost saving measure was to buy in bulk. Of course Barack Obama made a deal with the drug companies in 2009 to not allow Medicare to negotiate prices – something that would have brought down costs.

The government won’t buy in bulk at negotiated lower prices but individual consumers are told that is a way for them to lower costs. It gets worse. As Mark Steyn notes, the doctor won’t see you now:

“Last summer, she returned to the old neighborhood and thought she’d look for a doctor. The sweet old guy with the tweed jacket in the neatly painted cape on Main Street had taken down his shingle and retired. Most towns in the North Country now have fewer doctors than they did in the 19th century, and the smaller towns have none. The Yellow Pages lists more health insurers than physicians, which would not seem to be an obvious business model. So she wound up going to the health center she’d endowed so lavishly with your tax dollars just a few years earlier.

They gave her the usual form to fill in, full of perceptive inquiries on her medical condition: Do you wear a seat belt? Do you own a gun? How many bisexual men are you now having sex with? These would be interesting questions if one were signing up for eHarmony.com and looking to date gun-owning bisexuals who don’t wear seat belts, but they were not immediately relevant to her medical needs. Nevertheless, she complied with the diktats of the Bureau of Compliance, and had her medical records transferred, and waited . . . and waited. That was August. She has now been informed that she has an appointment with a nurse-practitioner at the end of January. My friend pays $15,000 a year for health insurance. In northern New Hampshire, that and meeting the minimum-entry requirement of bisexual sex partners will get you an appointment with a nurse-practitioner in six months’ time.”

And forget the privacy we have been promised:

“After prolonged consultation with the computer, the “pharmacist” informed her (and the rest of us within earshot) that her insurer had approved her Ortho but denied her Valtrex. I was thinking of asking her for cocktails at the Plaza, when I noticed the other women in line tittering. It seems that Ortho is a birth-control pill, and Valtrex is a herpes medication.

So good luck retaining any meaningful doctor-patient confidentiality in a system in which more people — insurers, employers, government commissars, TSA Obergropinführers, federal incentive-program auditors — will be able to access your medical records than in any other nation on earth.”

The National Enquirer will have a field day planting stalkers at pharmaceutical outlets. It’s another good idea (electronic record keeping) gone completely bad.

Even at insurance companies there will be layoffs. Last Friday was the deadline for states to declare what they will do about Obama’s health scam and there was actual news:

“There are just 33 problems. That’s the number of states that have chosen to either not implement a state exchange at all or engage in a hybrid system that leaves many of the problems up to the federal government, as is the case with Illinois, Delaware and North Carolina, or which remain undecided on whether to accept the responsibility for developing the exchange.

Already, 25 states representing 45 percent of the U.S. population have told the Obama administration that they will not be spending the time, energy and effort to build a state exchange, when ultimately the federal government would have to approve virtually every decision that was made. These states have effectively told the Feds that they won’t own the vast array of problems created under ObamaCare when they won’t have the flexibility or ability to fix them.”

What we learned on Friday health care exchange decision day: 25 states won’t build them

“The feds foolishly assumed every state would build a state exchange even though, during the legislative process, they didn’t attempt to get the buy-in they’d need to assure that. In truth, the objections to building exchanges have at least as much to do with logistics as politics.

For political reasons, the Obama administration didn’t even release draft regulations for what exchange-eligible plans must cover until two weeks ago. Right now, insurance carriers are frantically running those requirements to actuaries, who are frantically pricing them, so that the carriers can then file for necessary rate-hikes with state insurance commissions across the country. [snip]

Most of the reporting on exchanges takes for granted that the exchanges “will do this” and “will do that,” just like a “Travelocity for health care.” Not much of it grapples with what it takes to make the exchanges do that, which is a daunting technological synching of federal government data (on a hub not yet created) with each state’s health care regulatory structures and their technological components, which would then apply a complicated sliding-scale formula never before used by the IRS to inform consumers what subsidies are available to them to buy from an array of insurance choices still being created by insurance companies, which meet a set of guidelines for Essential Health Benefits not yet finalized.

At this late date the rules are still being written. The rules apparently will still be in a fetal state by March of next year. Anyone who has ever been involved in a large company switchover from Windows to a later version of Windows or to a newer version of a word processing program knows the vast amount of planning and staff retraining required for even a mundane update (wait until companies decide to switch to the significantly different Windows 8). Obama has no such experience.

Obama’s health scam is bad as law. As a day to day health program it will only get worse.


Big Media Lie Of 2008, 2012: The Republican Party Is Dead/Dying And Resistance To Obama Is Futile

Update: Secret recipe for cooking Rice? Answer: FIGHT. The news that’s breaking: Susan Rice withdraws from consideration as Secretary of State. This quit even before nomination is the first clear domestic policy defeat for Obama post election. It’s exactly the lesson we write about below.

As for who gets blamed for cliff jumping? A new poll answers by declaring that both the GOP and Obama will get the blame. It will only get worse for Obama if he goes to Hawaii for three weeks vacation while the United States goes from the ditch Obama has put us in to over the cliff. The answer for GOP: FIGHT.

The topic we focused on below is the GOP strength in the states. Michael Barone discusses the important news from blue Washington state in which some Democrats have joined the GOP and taken control of the state senate.

Obama’s health scam fiasco? Yup:

“Only 15 states have told the federal government they plan to operate health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama’s reform law, leaving Washington with the daunting task of creating online marketplaces for two-thirds of the country. [snip]

But the administration would still be left to set up exchanges in at least 30 states, a challenge that is raising questions about how successfully U.S. officials can implement a key provision of the health care reform law.

Hint: FIGHT! Don’t whine. Don’t retreat.


There’s a lot of news that should cheer Obama opponents, particularly Republicans. First, let’s walk down memory lane and get some lessons from history.

* * * * *

In 2008 Barack Obama sent his gay-bashers to South Carolina in order to beat Hillary Clinton and win the socially conservative black vote in those parts. Throughout the nomination fight Obama used subtle and not so subtle misogyny and hatred of women to bash Hillary. Against John McCain and Sarah Palin the tactic was to trash war hero McCain as a doddering senior citizen (seniors were never part of the Obama Kook Klub) and Palin, well Palin was a woman so misogyny remained in style with the Obama campaign.

By race-baiting, senior and gay bashing, along with woman hating, Barack Obama won the 2008 popular vote by 7%. Obama Dimocrats won control of the House as well as the Senate by large margins and very soon a quisling Republican would give Obama Dimocrats a filibuster proof 60 vote majority. Big Media declared resistance to Obama futile.

The debate among Republicans after election day 2008 was whether or not to enable Barack Obama. Right from the start Obama bumbled and bungled and made a fool of himself (recall the president-elect seal and the garbled oath?) and Republicans decided to fight. Obama opponents such as those here soon saw Obama popularity plummet and by June the Tea Party was swinging.

In 2009 came Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and most shocking of all Senator Scott Brown. Big Media wept as 2010 election results came in. The evidence mounted that resistance to Obama could very easily be successful. But you had to fight thug for thug, Chicago rules.

In 2012 Barack Obama was back in his element. A campaign of fear and smear began. Race-baiting was the Obama card. Mitt Romney replied with “Obama’s a nice guy” even as we advised otherwise.

We advised otherwise quite a lot this year including, what we are now more sure than ever, would have given Romney the game changing big victory. Alas, that was not to be.

On election eve 2012 the results gave Obama a 2.8% margin and the Republicans kept control of the House. Big Media declared resistance to Obama futile.

This week however, Republican resistance appears to be less than futile. All that is required is a will to fight. Hint: Michigan.

Consider Michigan a Republican 12 step rehabilitation program. It’s part of the election night story most in Big Media do not want to discuss and certainly not highlight:

Twenty-four states will be controlled by Republicans, including Alaska and Wisconsin, where the party took the State Senate, and North Carolina, where the governorship changed hands. At least 13 states will be Democratic, including Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon, where control of the legislatures shifted, and California, where the already dominant Democrats gained a supermajority in both chambers. [snip]

The fact is, they can do whatever they want now,” Chris Larson, the Democrats’ newly chosen Senate minority leader in Wisconsin, said of the Republicans in his state. He noted, glumly, that they have been holding planning meetings behind closed doors since the election.

Robin Vos, a Republican selected last week as the speaker of Wisconsin’s Assembly, voiced a willingness to work with Democrats, but also quickly ticked off plans to press for an income-tax cut, education changes and a “top-to-bottom review” of state regulations.

It’s a series of amazing numbers (2/3rds of states under one party control and Republicans at a surge of state capital power greater than in the past 60 years). These numbers from election night rarely get discussed, and oddly even with Michigan in the eye of the storm this week, few are noticing that Michigan is just part of the much bigger picture for Republicans.

It’s a much bigger picture than the one presented by Big Media. For instance, when we last discussed “Unravel #5” – Obama’s health scam – there was a question in our subsequent update concerning Tennessee. The question was answered when after a Tea Party rally the governor of Tennessee announced he will not set himself up as a bowling pin and approve an ObamaCare “exchange”. In that December 1 article we wrote the number of states rejecting Obama’s health scam was 17. Now?:

“More and more I’m convinced they are making this up as they go,” Haslam said. “It’s scary, quite frankly.”

With the governor’s announcement, Tennessee joins nearly half of the U.S. states in rejecting a state-run health care exchange. Tennessee became the 23rd state to do so.

Additionally, eight states have rejected expansions of Medicaid programs.

Chris Christie, a Republican governor in a very blue state, said “NO” bringing the resistance states almost to the 50% mark:

“Until the federal government gives us all the necessary information, any other action than this would be fiscally irresponsible. Thus far, we lack such critical information from the federal government. I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a state-based exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to other options, and how much control they will give the states over this option that comes at the cost of our state’s taxpayers.”

“Financing the building and implementation of a state-based exchange would be an extraordinarily costly endeavor,” continued Governor Christie. “While the federal governmental has enabled states to apply for grant funding to cover some of the initial costs of such an endeavor, the total price for such a program has never been quantified, and is likely to be onerous. Without knowing the full scope of which exchange option would be most beneficial and cost efficient for New Jerseyans, it would be irresponsible to force such a bill on our citizens.”

A lot of states are rejecting Obama’s health scam for some very good reasons. As we go to press there is a breaking development as we learn today that Pennsylvania won’t be setting their own state exchange either:

“Health care reform is too important to be achieved through haphazard planning,” Corbett said. “Pennsylvania taxpayers and businesses deserve more. They deserve informed decision making and a strong plan that responsibly uses taxpayer dollars.” …

Corbett said it “would be irresponsible to put Pennsylvanians on the hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not been fully written.” …

We’re getting awfully close already to half the states saying “No” to Obamacare, But it is not just Obama’s health scam that is in trouble in the states. Enter Michigan (btw, did AP ever ascribe “ruthless” to anything Obama has done (such as ramming through his health care scam?)):

“As the chants of angry protesters filled the Capitol, Michigan lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to right-to-work legislation, dealing a devastating and once-unthinkable defeat to organized labor in a state that has been a cradle of the movement for generations.

The Republican-dominated House ignored Democrats’ pleas to delay the passage and instead approved two bills with the same ruthless efficiency as the Senate showed last week. One measure dealt with private sector workers, the other with government employees. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed them within hours. [snip]

Once the laws are enacted, the state where the United Auto Workers was founded and labor has long been a political titan will join 23 others with right-to-work laws, which ban requirements that nonunion employees pay unions for negotiating contracts and other services.”

What’s happening in Michigan is pretty much what happened in Wisconsin and for the same historic reasons and for the same cupidity of Big Labor:

“For the unions, the workers became less important. The workers essentially became only dues payers. The Big Labor bosses increasingly ignored the plight of the workers and only cared that the dues were paid. With the money from the workers’ dues unions paid for political protection and friendly negotiators in the public service labor arena. Instead of spending all their money on union organizing and increasing their ranks, unions saw their easy path on the political highway. Republicans noticed.”

When we wrote that back during the Wisconsin fight we did not have this official labor disclosure report to buttress our contentions:

“When continually focusing in the media on being “forced” to represent people who don’t pay dues under a right-to-work law, union heads are implying that they spend the vast majority of their money on contract negotiations, representation or other non-political work. That is a myth.

For example, according to the most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association — the state’s largest labor union — received $122 million and spent $134 million in 2012. They averaged about $800 from each of their 152,000 members.

According to union documents, “representational activities” (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.

So MEA members who disagree with the leadership of the union are paying up to 90 percent of their dues, but the union is only spending about a tenth of the dues money representing them. [snip]

A look at other groups yields similar results, and no major union spends the majority of its funds on local representation. The UAW spent about 41 percent of its receipts on “representational activities.” The Michigan branch of the SEIU got most of its money by forcibly unionizing home caregivers the past few years and used it to try and lock that into the state Constitution. Search for any major union with the United State Department of Labor here.

In the meantime, unions spent $4.4 billion from 2005-2011 on electing candidates and other political spending and twelve of the top 20 political donors going back to 1989 are unions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only 3 percent of union political spending goes to Republicans – while 40 percent of union members typically vote Republican. Here in Michigan, an MEA survey of its membership found that 45 percent of teachers under 30 classify themselves as “conservative” while 63 percent aged 40-49 say the same. At the same time, the union endorsed 97 percent Democrats. [snip]

In Wisconsin, allowing union members to have a choice in paying their dues has led to a shift in emphasis and positive changes. After the state’s largest union lost membership, the amount they spent on politics was refocused to “a potential shift to a much more grassroots model of advocacy and support for educators.”

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “That could mean becoming better advocates for different practices in teaching or for methods that recruit, train and retain high-quality educators … That could mean organizing teachers to champion what’s working best in the classroom by bringing new ideas to the school board, or working to get the community to support specific practices. It means working more collaboratively, and offering solutions.”

What’s happening in Michigan, and Wisconsin is not really about workers at all. It is about politics as the main purpose of these unions. The unions have become party activists with little concern for the workers (other than getting dues money from them) they are supposed to represent and so there has been a political response. Until Big Labor returns to making workers the focus of their activities, not the political pals of the big chiefs, they will always have to fear the day when workers are no longer a captive membership.

In Michigan as in Wisconsin Big Labor screwed itself:

“Democrats depend on millions — actually, billions — of dollars in support from the forced dues of union members. If that money supply were to dry up, or even just decrease, the Democratic Party would be in serious trouble. [snip]

In Michigan, they pushed what was known as Proposal 2, which would have enshrined union collective bargaining powers in the state constitution. If Proposal 2 had passed, what state GOP lawmakers are doing now would have been literally unconstitutional.

But Proposal 2 was decisively defeated on Election Day, 58 percent to 42 percent. The path was clear for Republicans to act.”

And act with alacrity they did. Via Huff n’ Puff:

“Republicans attempted to make the bill repeal-proof, attaching a $1 million appropriation on the measure for enforcing right to work. According to Michigan law, spending bills can’t be put on the ballot for the public to vote on.”

That was a brainy thing to do. If you fight and don’t give up resistance is not futile no matter how much Big Media tells you so. Resistance to the resistance is what is really futile.

Lesson for national Republicans from Michigan Republicans: fight.


A Tale Of Two Countries – Egypt Awake, America Sleeps

In an attempt to defend his father’s support for British appeasement of Germany in the 1930s (this apologia is not discussed by those who seek to deify JFK) as well as to detail the rise of German militarism and fail of the British government to in any way block the coming conflagration known as World War II, John F. Kennedy in his last year at Harvard College wrote a lauded thesis which later became the book Why England Slept.

Profits from the British sales of the JFK book helped the citizens of Plymouth recover after a boisterous nighttime visit by the Luftwaffe. The United Kingdom itself eventually recovered from the consequences of its 1930s narcolepsy albeit in a much diminished status on the world stage and its own history.

Almost 100 years after after the dawn of the catastrophic long war we divide into parts I and II, America is fast asleep while the wolves gather.

* * * * * *

In the fourth part of our continuing “unravel” series we asked a question which we are pleased to note is increasingly being asked, “Why Won’t Obama Demand Morsi Resign?”:

“Why won’t Barack Obama demand Morsi resign? Egyptian demonstrations? Check. Violence in the streets? Check. Government officials resigning in protest? Check. Egyptian government institutions such as the military and judiciary threatened? Check. Why won’t Obama demand that Morsi resign?

The only difference between Mubarak and Morsi we see is that Morsi is an Islamic extremist. Why won’t Barack Obama demand Morsi resign?”

Since we wrote those words Egyptian media have joined the protests, the Judiciary as well, and protestors have been shot dead in the streets. Obama? Obama is still bowing to Morsi.

Today, David Ignatius tries to explain the disgusting intercourse Obama is engaged in with Morsi while at the same time helping dismantle one of the most embarrassing pro-Obama arguments in answer to our question “Why won’t Obama demand that Morsi resign?”.

Ignatius asks the right questions:

How did Washington become the best friend of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, even as President Mohamed Morsi was asserting dictatorial powers and his followers were beating up secular liberals in the streets of Cairo? It’s a question many Arabs ask these days, and it deserves an answer. [snip]

And let’s be honest: The Obama administration has been Morsi’s main enabler. U.S. officials have worked closely with him on economic development and regional diplomacy. Visiting Washington last week, Morsi’s top aides were touting their boss’s close contacts with President Obama and describing phone calls between the two leaders that led to the Gaza cease-fire.

Morsi’s unlikely role as a peacemaker is the upside of the “cosmic wager” Obama has made on the Muslim Brotherhood. It illustrates why the administration was wise to keep its channels open over the past year of post-revolutionary jockeying in Egypt.”

It is insensible to call Barack Obama the main Morsi enabler then to change the argument to state that “the administration was wise to keep its channels open” to the Muslim Brotherhood creeps. The problem is not open channels, but enabling.

Obama is enabling the Muslim Brotherhood creeps – that is the problem:

“Probably thinking he had America’s backing, Morsi overreached on Nov. 22 by declaring that his presidential decrees were not subject to judicial review. His followers claim that he was trying to protect Egypt’s revolution from judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak. But that rationale has worn thin as members of Morsi’s government resigned in protest, thousands of demonstrators took the streets and, ominously, Muslim Brotherhood supporters began counterattacking with rocks, clubs and metal pipes.

Through this upheaval, the Obama administration has been oddly restrained.”

Barack Obama is enabling the Muslim Brotherhood, undermining American interests, moving the world closer to conflagration – all while America sleeps and many Egyptians awaken, possibly too late to do much good:

“You need to explain to me why the U.S. reaction to Morsi’s behavior is so muted,” one Arab official wrote me. “So a Muslim Brotherhood leader becomes president of Egypt. He then swoops in with the most daring usurping of presidential powers since the Pharaohs, enough to make Mubarak look like a minor-league autocrat in training by comparison, and the only response the . . . [Obama administration] can put out is [Nuland’s statement].” This official wondered whether the United States had lost its moral and political bearings in its enthusiasm to find new friends.”

Egyptians who desired freedom and went into the streets during what was described by American fools as the “Arab Spring” are waking up to the fact that they have been used as pawns by the well organized campaign apparatus of the Muslim Brotherhood and its enablers such as Barack Obama. Some very few of us never drank the Hopium of the nightmare sold by Obama as the “Arab Spring”.

As a Pharaonic dictatorship grabs Egypt and the Iron Veil falls over the Middle East Barack Obama is lying about his role in the Arab nuclear winter to come. Ignatius dismantles the defense by Obama Hopium Guzzlers to our question “Why won’t Barack Obama demand Morsi resign?”:

“The administration’s rejoinder is that this isn’t about America. Egyptians and other Arabs are writing their history now, and they will have to live with the consequences. Moreover, the last thing secular protesters need is an American embrace. That’s surely true, but it’s crazy for Washington to appear to take sides against those who want a liberal, tolerant Egypt and for those who favor sharia. Somehow, that’s where the administration has ended up.

Obama’s embrace of the anti-Mubarak demonstrations did not hurt the protestors so why is it possible to think that Obama demanding the ouster of Morsi is any different? It isn’t. A demand for Morsi to step aside would be welcomed by those in the Egyptian streets. Why won’t Obama demand Morsi leave and take the side of the Egyptian people? Why?

Ignatius is exactly right about what American policy should be:

“America will help the Arab world through this turmoil if it states clearly that U.S. policy is guided by its interests and values, not by transient alliances and friendships.”

In this instance American interests and values coincide with the Egyptian street. Why won’t Obama demand Morsi resign?

This past weekend Morsi tried an Obama style flim-flam by announcing his dictatorial decree is now muoot even as he issued a replacement decree which keeps in place the referendum on the draft constitution which will fully plunge Egypt into darkness.

American idiots who defend the Muslim Brotherhood because “after all they won the elections” don’t understand that the aim for Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, as in the 1930s, is to use democratic means to destroy democracy.

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have as their first priority the policy of “one vote, one time”. Once they rewrite the Egyptian constitution they will never cede power. The names of those holding power may change, but the seizure of power by Muslim extremists will be complete:

“CAIRO (AP) — One of Egypt’s most prominent ultraconservative Muslim clerics had high praise for the country’s draft constitution. Speaking to fellow clerics, he said this was the charter they had long wanted, ensuring that laws and rights would be strictly subordinated to Islamic law.

“This constitution has more complete restraints on rights than ever existed before in any Egyptian constitution,” Sheik Yasser Borhami assured the clerics. “This will not be a democracy that can allow what God forbids or forbid what God allows.”

The draft constitution that is now at the center of worsening political turmoil would empower Islamists to carry out the most widespread and strictest implementation of Islamic law that modern Egypt has seen. That authority rests on the three articles that explicitly mention Shariah, as well as obscure legal language buried in a number of other articles that few noticed during the charter’s drafting but that Islamists insisted on including.

According to both supporters and opponents of the draft, the charter not only makes Muslim clerics the arbiters for many civil rights, it also could give a constitutional basis for citizens to set up Saudi-style “religious police” to monitor morals and enforce segregation of the sexes, imposition of Islamic dress codes and even harsh punishments for adultery and theft — regardless of what laws on the books say.

The spiraling crisis is threatening to turn into an outright fight for the identity of post-revolutionary Egypt, splitting the nation between those who want an Islamic state and those who oppose it, two years after the fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak.”

Barack Obama is on the side of those who support an Islamic state of Egypt. That is what Obama’s support of Morsi means. The Muslim Brotherhood will destroy democracy via democratic means:

“For Islamists, the constitution is the keystone for their ambitions to bring Islamic rule, a goal they say is justified by their large victory in last winter’s parliamentary elections. President Mohammed Morsi, who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood, has rejected opposition demands that he cancel a Dec. 15 nationwide referendum on the draft.”

Use democracy to destroy democracy – that happened in the 1930s. It’s happening now.

In January 2011, as the Iron Veil began to fall in Egypt, we warned against the gathering wolves. We quoted Hillary Clinton who saw the danger of using democracy to destroy democracy:

“Everything is falling apart in Egypt except for the wolves. The wolves are organized and running in packs. [snip]

Hillary Clinton understands the stakes and is fighting to keep the Iron Veil from falling:

“Democracy, human rights and economic reform are in the best interests of the Egyptian people,” she told ABC News.

“Any government that does not try to move in that direction cannot meet the legitimate interest of the people.” [snip]

“We want to see an orderly transition so that no-one fills a void, that there not be a void, that there be a well thought-out plan that will bring about a democratic participatory government,” Mrs Clinton told the “Fox News Sunday” programme.”

Hillary Clinton understands what must be done to hold the wolves at bay:

“She warned that the U.S. would not accept two alternatives as potential ends to the current crisis: “democracy of six months or a year and then evolving essentially into a military dictatorship” or – a scarier specter for American policymakers –what she described on NBC’s “Meet The Press” as “faux democacy like the elections we saw in Iran…where you have one election 30 years ago and the people stay in power and become less and less responsive to their people.” [snip]

“We want to see free and fair elections and we expect that that will be one of the outcomes of what is going on in Egypt right now,” Clinton said.”


We do not want to see a change or a regime that would actually continue to foment violence or chaos — either because it didn’t exist or because it had a different view in which in which to pose on the Egyptian people,” she said.

That’s diplo-speak to say: Egypt and the Egyptian people must be protected from the wolves.

The wolves are gathering. The Iron Veil unfurls, ready to fall, and plunge us all into darkness.”

Since we wrote that a year ago, the wolves have been feasting in Egypt and America. In Egypt the danger is clear and becoming clearer every day:

“Egypt is Islamic, it will not be secular, it will not be liberal,” thousands of Morsi supporters chanted Friday after the funeral of two men killed in clashes earlier this week. Witnesses say the violence began when Islamists attacked an anti-Morsi protest camp outside the presidential palace.

“Bottom line, this is a struggle between ideologies — the Islamic ideology moving with a clear plan with public support, and the secularists,” said pro-Morsi demonstrator Khaled Omar, his head bandaged from Wednesday’s fighting. [snip]

The Brotherhood is “unleashing its gang chanting jihadi slogans, as if they are in a holy war against the infidels,” said businessman Magdi Ashri, who opposes Morsi. “Their agenda is to monopolize power in Egypt, whatever it takes.

Egypt’s Islamist-dominated Constituent Assembly debated the draft for months, until most liberal members — and all the Christian ones— walked out to protest what they called hard-liners’ railroading of the process.

Islamists rammed through approval of the final draft in an all-night session Nov. 30. Of the 85 members who voted, 80 percent were members of the Muslim Brotherhood or the ultraconservative movement known as Salafis, or their allies. [snip]

He said that by defining Egypt’s political system as “democracy and Shura” — the Islamic term for “consultation” — the draft prevents what he called an “American or European” democracy that “gives the power of legislation to people and not to God.”

Before liberals and Christians quit the panel, Islamists convinced them to allow a number of crucial clauses that solidified Shariah, either because of bargaining or because they didn’t realize the articles’ significance, he said.

They didn’t understand it well at first,” he told the clerics, according to a full video of his speech posted on YouTube. “They only got it later and that’s why they said it was disastrous.”

Read the entire article to see how democracy is used to destroy democracy. See how fools vote to approve their own destruction then only too late they “get it”.

Also read Evan Hill’s report in The Atlantic about what is happening in the streets of Egypt as Egyptians awaken to see themselves surrounded by devouring wolves.

Egypt is waking up to the devouring wolves who use democracy to destroy democracy. In America the population sleeps and takes sleeping potions to sleep some more.

In 2008 Barack Obama and his pollutants used democracy to steal democracy during the “Democratic” primaries. In 2012 Barack Obama and his well organized army of thugs utilized race-baiting, fear and smear to win themselves a duplicitous victory. As we wrote on the Monday before election day:

“A Mitt Romney win on Tuesday will mean that race-baiting as a political movement will end – character, not skin color will determine our choice in leaders. A Mitt Romney win on Tuesday will mean the American voter believes in accountability as to elected officials and not smear and fear slime tactics as practiced so dexterously in Chicago. A Mitt Romney win on Tuesday means the American future is not the Greece present.

If Barack Obama wins on Tuesday all restraints on race-baiting, fear/smear politics, and unaccountable elected officials will get worse.”

Like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, like every flim-flam man in history, Barack Obama won. This does not mean it is a permanent victory.

If the Egyptian people can wake up it is possible that the American people will wake up – before it is too late. It’s a slim reed upon which to base our hopes for salvation – but this is the season of miracles isn’t it?


Advice For Republicans: Jump The Cliff Or Jump The Shark

It’s apparent as the mole on Barack Obama’s face: (1) Obama is a flim-flam con man who, in order to survive (hint: floozy Ma and sperm donor Pa), learned the ways of treachery and corruption as a child; (2) finessed those “skills” in Chicago; (3) is spectacularly brilliant at the only thing he cares about, namely himself, his “brand” and his advancement; (4) at governing Obama is a boob who cares about policy only as it pertains to his advancement and “brand”. Somehow neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain or Mitt Romney understood these simple facts about their opponent. It remains to be seen whether the Republican congressional leadership understands these simple facts either.

We assume the current crop of Republican “leaders” have no clue about who they are dealing with because repeatedly Republicans attempt to engage Obama on policy and issues. How stupid are they?

Obama only cares about himself and his “brand”. The Republicans have to target that sole interest if they are to get either Obama’s attention or best him at the current “fiscal cliff” game.

Bob Woodward provides the Republican “leadership” with a clue:

“The veteran Washington journalist added that regardless of what happens with the negotiations, Obama will ultimately take responsibility for any resulting economic fallout.

“This is the Obama era, it is [the president’s] economy,” he said. “Speaker Boehner’s an important player and this is significant, but it is Obama’s job to lead and define — so if there negative consequences here, particularly in the economy, it is going to be, ‘In the Obama era, things didn’t get fixed.’”

We’re not unsympathetic to the plight Republican “leaders” think they are in. We understand the strategy concerns they have. There are many smart bits of analysis we have read which lay out the pitfalls for Republicans in the fiscal cliff and associated fights:

“The GOP seems to think that raising taxes is some kind of a solution. It’s not. It’s a poison pill.

Obama does in fact want to take the country over the cliff. It’s win-win-win-win-win.* He gets to raise taxes (including on the middle class, which he needs to pay for his welfare state), he gets some cuts to the the military he despises, he gets cuts for Medicare (not part of his coalition), he gets to blame the GOP for all of this, and, bonus, he gets to claim the coming recession he’s already engineered is the GOP’s fault, too.

The GOP is in a bad situation and will try to give the store away to avoid this. We shouldn’t. Let Obama have the economy he wants, and let him take responsibility for it, too.”

We really, really, really do understand the difficult spot Republican “leaders” find themselves in. The New York Times gleefully lays out the situation:

“It’s a terrible position because by default, Democrats get what they want,” said Representative James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who admitted his party is boxed in.”

For the future, Republicans have some leaders of consequence as these videos: Rubio, Ryan lay out vision for future of GOP, demonstrate. The problem however is now. Republican leaders in congress don’t seem to have a clue.

That lack of grit is not confined to the Republican congressional “leadership”. Sad to say those that should be leading the fight and pushing their leadership for resolve and grit continue to dream up latter day fights that they might just possibly win sometime in the future if they don’t get outmaneuvered again. The latest disguised capitulation is this “Falling back to the debt ceiling?” proposal. It’s a “give up now and fight later” strategy. It’s foolish.

Republicans need to take some advice from Hillary Clinton. One of Hillary’s most quoted ripostes against Obama in the 2008 election cycle was that in government you have to reach for common ground when possible but sometimes you have to stand your ground in the fight for principles.

For all the flood of words from Obama about cutting the deficit or protecting Medicare or the rest of the nonsense his imbecile disciples guzzle the bottom line is Obama has no principles. For him it is all about “me”.

For Republicans the question they have to ask is if they have principles. If Republicans have principles on issues such as taxation policy and all the myriad implications brought about by the “fiscal cliff” – then now is the time to fight for them.

As much as we understand strategy and the perils involved for their party in the next several months Republicans have to put aside the “stratergery” and ask themselves a simple question “Do I believe what I say?” If you do have principles now is the time to fight. Not at a future date when you will be that much closer to a midterm election cycle which will provide even more reasons to shiver and shake. Now is the time to fight for what you believe in.

A few words of caution: if you are going to cave to Obama’s demand do so immediately and nakedly. Don’t make excuses. Give up immediately and say “we give up”. Don’t make threats you won’t back up. Don’t go into a fight armed with a Q-tip even as Obama shows up with guns and knives.

Keith Koffler is very optimistic about how strong the Republican congressional leadership position is, if only they would see things his way:

“The Republicans Have a Lot of Leverage

I don’t think President Obama wants to go down as the worst president in history, do you?

Well, that’s what going over the fiscal cliff will make him. And that’s why the Republicans have a lot a leverage.

The massive spending cuts and tax increases set to kick in January 2 will cause a second recession, from which we may not emerge for many months. The economy may not really get going for years. Obama will have presided over two terms of economic disaster. It will ruin his legacy, and sow the seeds for a major Republican revival.

Republican revival? But the Republicans are going to get blamed, you say.

They will, in the short run. But in the end, it will be the president who failed to somehow make a deal. Presidents are ultimately responsible for their presidencies. The good ones tame their enemies, pick off some of them and make them allies, and get a good result. The bad ones go over fiscal cliffs. [snip]

Obama hasn’t won any mandate. His election was about little other than villainizing his opponent.”

Republicans will get blamed by Obama and Big Media for anything bad that happens or has ever happened or ever will happen. That’s what Obama does – blame everyone but himself.

What Republican leaders must realize is that if they are going to get blamed they might as well get blamed for fighting for their principles. Not fighting for principles will only lead to infighting within Republican ranks as “compromisers” and “purists” (that’s how Big Media will label the factions) battle it out for control of the party in the wake of the “cave-in” to Obama. Rank and file conservatives and other Obama opponents will be correctly discouraged from standing up for a party that won’t stand up for its principles.

Republican “leaders” of the Republican Party have to chose between this:

or this:

If the Republican Party caves in to Barack Obama’s thuggery they will have effectively decided to jump the shark into obscurity.

If Republicans stand strong to their principles it will be Barack Obama who will put the water-skies on and jump the shark. Appropriately, Barack Obama will be in Hawaii on January 2, 2013 as the nation goes over the fiscal cliff.


Unravel #5: Health Care Destroyed by Frankenstein ObamaCare

Update: This from Grover Norquist: Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff. Legal Insurrection made the same point a few days ago and has an example of a productive resistance action to emulate:

“Opposition to Obamacare fueled the Tea Party wave of 2009-2010.  The next wave will include continued opposition to Obamacare, along with other fiscal issues, The Tea Party tsunami at the gates. [snip]

Only 13 states have taken steps to set up the exchanges, and 17 state governors have declared an intention not to set up exchanges.

One state where there is a disconnect between the population and the governor is Tennessee, where Governor Bill Haslam is wavering.  The Lt. Governor has come out against implementation.

In response, a variety of groups led by local Tea Party organizations are organizing rallies for December 5, as reflected in this announcement being circulated by e-mail and on the web (h/t Linda in Tennessee):

Please Join us at the JUST SAY NO RALLY Wed Dec 5, 12 Noon at the Capitol

Your help is needed to stop an Obamacare State Exchange in TN. Governor Haslam must make a decision by December 14 and reports indicate he is still undecided. Please join us as we raise our voices together and petition the Governor to JUST SAY NO to an Obamacare State Exchange. We will have a petition for you to sign at the Rally.

As to the latest dicktat from the Obama admin: By the way, we’re going to need insurers to pay to use our exchanges – we’re not the only ones talking about the killer Frankenstein monster:

“Just getting these supposedly fabulous online insurance marketplaces set up is already turning into an unmitigated disaster — what on earth is going to happen when we finally get down to the business of actually insuring and caring for people? Rolling this thing out, the Obama administration is looking like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, and their unpreparedness in dealing with their own Frankenstein’s monster is showcasing all of the new costs and consequences coming with it.”

Dracula analogies will work too.


Good riddance to November. It’s December and we continue to take stock of the damage done. There’s a lot of damage and more to come.

The damage done thus far is extensive but Americans can only see the faint darkening of roiled waters as a faraway storm approaches. Perhaps a little drizzle or fast moving birds can be witnessed as the storm approaches and the wise will stock up on emergency supplies when the twilight sky turns red.

* * * * * *

Some Obama voting imbeciles chose him because they believe, or have been led to believe by Big Media, that with ObamaCare in full force they will be able to take their little ObamaCare card to a quality health care provider and be given white glove treatment as if they were Warren Buffet. These uninformed voters are going to have a rude awakening from their Hopium fueled reveries.

In 2010 we wrote:

“Any dunce can see that the Obama sales mantra of “bend the cost curve” was a flim-flam con and that indeed health care costs will continue to rise and rise rapidly. To lump Obama health scam opponents into a right wing bag and not acknowledge the all too real Big Pharma and Big Insurance bailout which is the Obama health scam is at best a Hopium based delusion. At worse a willful attempt to scam and flim-flam.”

The Obama health scam, even if it was a perfect plan – which this crammed through monstrosity certainly is not in any way, will be a Frankenstein horror to galvanize.

The Washington Post earlier this month described the various appendages and organs that must be scavenged from graveyards in order to give this monster life:

“These are systems that typically take two or three years to build,” says Kevin Walsh, managing director of insurance exchange services at Xerox. “The last time I looked at the calendar, that’s not what we’re working with.” [snip]

“The reality is, states and the federal government are building something new,” says Pat Howard, who runs state health issues for consulting firm Deloitte. “There’s a rough blueprint in terms of federal regulations, but there’s still a number of decisions that need to happen to operationalize this.” [snip]

“There needs to be a technology system that can support that activity, and look at multiple programs for multiple people.”

A state can’t figure out how much an individual earns on its own. For that, it needs to ping a federal data hub that does not yet exist.

Not much exists at the moment and the totalitarian bureaucracy needed is just a dream in the Hopium addicts eye:

“Buying health insurance is a lot more difficult than purchasing a plane ticket on Expedia. That likely means setting up large scale customer-support operations, especially when the first open enrollment period starts in October 2013. [snip]

The Obama administration has known for awhile that there’s a decent chance it could end up doing a lot of this. Now though, they’re finding out how big their workload will actually become.”

It’s a big job to bring life to a monster. WSJ: Yep, the feds are totally unprepared to launch ObamaCare exchanges. From the Wall Street Journal report:

“Sixteen states have already said they won’t participate. Another 11 are undecided, while only 17 have committed to doing the work on their own. Six have opted for a “hybrid” federal-state model. That means HHS will probably be responsible for fallback federal exchanges in full or in part in as many as 25 or 30 states.

The opposition isn’t so much political as practical. Or rather, the vast logistical and technical undertaking to build an exchange helps explain why so many Governors resisted ObamaCare in the first place.

States have regulated the small business and individual insurance markets for decades (some well, others less so). Now they’re supposed to toss everything out for a complex Washington rewrite, which is still being rewritten. The exchanges will also help enforce the individual mandate and premium increases. They’ll also have to spend a ton of money. Ohio estimates it will cost $63 million to set up an exchange and $43 million to run annually, based on a KPMG study. [snip]

Private businesses spend years developing and refining such consumer software. States need to fund call centers to field queries and even hire “navigators” to actively encourage people to enroll.

The main problem is that states are being conscripted as federal contractors. HHS has declined to reveal basic operational details except to make clear that state-based exchanges won’t really be run by the states. “No matter which option is chosen,” as Scott Walker put it, “Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health-care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents.”

So if things don’t work voters will blame the Governors for decisions made in Washington. And when it turns out that ObamaCare’s costs are underestimated and its benefits exaggerated, they’ll have enabled an entitlement that many of their constituents oppose.”

Who wants this Obama health scam and is attempting to force governors that don’t want ObamaCare to join the scam plan? Take a guess and understand why we call it a scam to bailout Big Pharma and Big Insurance:

“Partly that may be due to the insurance and provider lobbies, especially the hospitals. They’re furious that states might spoil the deals they cut with the White House and frantic for new revenue, which will only flow with the subsidies. (Note that health industry stocks rallied on President Obama’s re-election.) They’re also generally more powerful at the local level and favor state-run exchanges as easier to manipulate. But Governors who give in are setting themselves up as political fall guys, just as the insurers will be when premiums inevitably spike. [snip]

But the main reason HHS and ObamaCare partisans are trashing the state hold-outs is that the federal government isn’t any better equipped to make the plan a success. HHS’s reputation as one of the most dysfunctional agencies is notorious. To take one example, an ObamaCare-mandated update to a major computer network called the System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing, which governs insurance approvals, has been delayed by months.

HHS’s bandwidth is likely to be fried and its personnel overloaded by the workload of 25 exchanges or even 16. And the effort will be complicated by the serious legal questions and eventual lawsuits about the statutory authority of a federal exchange to dispense subsidies at all.”

It wasn’t easy to force-feed Suffragettes and it is not easy to force-feed the population of entire states:

“Who could have anticipated that in a diverse country where more than 50 percent still oppose the massive federal overhaul of health care passed against the will of the people through a special legislative process with absolutely no bipartisan support, with its costs and requirements systematically hidden or avoided for 32 months, that some states wouldn’t jump in with both feet? This also sets up a constitutional fight over whether the federal government can even offer subsidies through its own exchange (the law only establishes subsidies through state-based exchanges, not the federal one). Luckily, in the world of an ObamaCare supporter, all of the mistakes made in drafting the law or overestimating the ability of the federal government to implement it can be laid at the feet of Republican governors, not you know, the people who drafted the law.”

Is it any wonder that we get this result from Gallup: Majority opposes federal health-care guarantee for first time:

“Perhaps Gallup’s result shouldn’t surprise, given the chronic unpopularity of ObamaCare. However, the trend lines began moving in this direction after support peaked for the a federal guarantee of health care in 2006, as Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. As Barack Obama pushed his health-care overhaul, the legs had already been cut out from underneath the concept: [snip]

Actually, Gallup started polling on this question in 2000, and the result then was 64/31 in support of the federal guarantee. This poll surveyed general-population adults, too, not registered or likely voters, a sample type that generally favors more liberal points of view. [snip]

One might be tempted to believe that the process that delivered ObamaCare might have been enough to make the federal-guarantee position a minority. Unfortunately, now that ObamaCare looks like it will get entrenched absent a reversal at the Supreme Court, that realization probably came too late.”

As the monstrous scam which is ObamaCare begins to maraud through the countryside and cities to kill, the legal torches and pitchforks will continue to chase it down:

“Could Obamacare Go the Way of McCain-Feingold?

If this seems Pollyannaish, consider the fate of McCain-Feingold.

In December of 2003, many were just as shocked and dismayed when the Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) as they were by the bizarre Obamacare decision. BCRA was an outrageous assault on the First Amendment, and yet the Court allowed most of its provisions to stand. Yet, anyone who had predicted that McCain-Feingold, as this abomination was more commonly known, would be moribund a mere six years and one month after the Court had ruled it constitutional would have been disregarded as hopelessly naïve.

Nonetheless, the opponents of McCain-Feingold launched a series of legal attacks that met with little success until 2007, when the Court ruled in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. In that decision, the justices ruled unconstitutional the law’s proscription against campaign ads mentioning candidates by name within a certain period prior to an election. Then, in 2008, the Court voided another crucial provision in Davis v. FEC. Finally, in early 2010, the Court delivered the coup de gras with its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

Are the legal foes of Obamacare as numerous and determined as those of McCain-Feingold? The answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. Their numbers are greater, they are far better financed and they are demonstrably more dedicated to the cause. In fact, the dragon’s teeth sown by the Court’s misguided June ruling produced a spate of fresh troops to reinforce those already on the legal battlefield. There are now at least forty legal challenges to the law pending in federal courts involving its various provisions as well as its implementation.

Moreover, the Court just
one of the original challenges to Obamacare by ordering the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments on which it didn’t deign to rule in Liberty University v. Geithner last year.”

The Citizens United decision was the topic of a most interesting letter to the editor in the New York Times recently. The Times‘ lawyer, Floyd Abrams, gave the Times editorial board a public slap in the face as he defended political speech and the Citizens United decision by the high court. Citizens United gutted McCain-Feingold and the same might happen to ObamaCare.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a target which might take down ObamaCare or whittle it down to a non-entity:

“When PPACA was signed into law, Congress transferred much of its power to this committee, which will decide what services will be approved by Medicare and how much the providers of those services will be paid. The Goldwater Institute has
a lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, which challenges the constitutionality of IPAB under the separation of powers doctrine.”

The religious exemption cases will likely be successful in their limited aims as even Justice Ginsberg warned the government this was a line it could not cross during the arguments at the court over ObamaCare. But in the same way that taxes was the justification used by Justice Roberts, it might be taxes that push the stake into the monster:

“And, no list of Obamacare lawsuits would be complete without mentioning the Oklahoma lawsuit challenging the illegal IRS rule by which the Obama administration will attempt to funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges, despite the law’s stipulation that such premium-assistance can only be offered via state-run exchanges. This litigation is, in many ways, the most important of all the lawsuits. Without its insurance exchanges, and the accompanying subsidies, Obamacare will crash and burn.”

Even without continued resistance to the monster which is ObamaCare, it will crash and burn. The only question is whether the monster can be killed before it kills.

As the country and world continue to unravel we hope the Republican Hamlets and other opponents of the Chicago flim-flam man cast off their inky cloaks and continue to resist.