Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Another Bad Week For Barry Soetoro
Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Jim Cramer: Malaise is here, and the market knows it
Overarching pessimism is seeping into all facets of American life from the top down -- and it's awful for stocks.
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Jim Cramer: Malaise is here, and the market knows it
Overarching pessimism is seeping into all facets of American life from the top down -- and it's awful for stocks.
Monday, June 21, 2010
National Review Online: Hatch a Plan to Repeal Obamacare
Robert Costa
Hatch a Plan to Repeal Obamacare
The Utah Republican gets serious about repeal
In a perfect world, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) would like to “fully repeal” Obamacare. “That’s what I voted for earlier this year,” he says, alluding to the Senate GOP’s repeal amendment from March, which failed by a vote of 58 to 39. “But, for now, full repeal is very tough. I would like to see that, but Republicans only have 41 votes.”
Hatch a Plan to Repeal Obamacare
The Utah Republican gets serious about repeal
In a perfect world, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) would like to “fully repeal” Obamacare. “That’s what I voted for earlier this year,” he says, alluding to the Senate GOP’s repeal amendment from March, which failed by a vote of 58 to 39. “But, for now, full repeal is very tough. I would like to see that, but Republicans only have 41 votes.”
Friday, June 18, 2010
Gallup: Majority Doesn't Want Obama Re-elected
A majority of Americans do not think President Barack Obama should win re-election, according to a new Gallup poll. Gallup says that 51 percent of the registered voters surveyed say "no," 46 percent say "yes" and 3 percent don't know.
While those numbers haven't changed much in recent months, there’s plenty to worry the administration.
Fifty-three percent of self-described independents say Obama should not win another term in 2012, compared to 43 percent who say he should. That's almost a complete reversal of where independents stood on Obama's election in 2008, when swing vote moderates were the pivotal voting bloc that helped send Obama to the White House, Yahoo! News noted.
The defection of independents is part of a larger trend in which moderates have been expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrats for months, with polls showing the group leaning strongly toward the GOP ahead of this November's midterm elections.
While those numbers haven't changed much in recent months, there’s plenty to worry the administration.
Fifty-three percent of self-described independents say Obama should not win another term in 2012, compared to 43 percent who say he should. That's almost a complete reversal of where independents stood on Obama's election in 2008, when swing vote moderates were the pivotal voting bloc that helped send Obama to the White House, Yahoo! News noted.
The defection of independents is part of a larger trend in which moderates have been expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrats for months, with polls showing the group leaning strongly toward the GOP ahead of this November's midterm elections.
politico.com - Darrell Issa has eye on subpoena team
Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall.
The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.
READ MORE
The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.
READ MORE
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Investor's Business Daily - Keep Your Health Plan Under Overhaul? Probably Not, Gov't Analysis Concludes
Keep Your Health Plan Under Overhaul? Probably Not, Gov't Analysis Concludes
By DAVID HOGBERG AND SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 06/11/2010 07:32 PM ET
Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.
Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.
The "midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013," according to the document.
In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.
The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare's regulations would have on existing, or "grandfathered," employer-based health care plans.
Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon.
"It's been passed around the staffs here on Capitol Hill. Congressman Posey thought it was important enough to share," said spokesman George Cecala.
In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a "bait and switch."
"The president promised repeatedly that people who like their current plans can keep them, but now the details of their plan actually confirm what many suspected all along, most Americans will lose their current health care plan," Posey said.
A White House official told IBD: "This is a draft document, and we will be releasing the final regulation when it is complete. The president made a promise to the American people that if they liked their health care plan, they can keep it. The regulation, when finalized, will uphold that promise."
However, the source conceded: "It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status."
It's unclear how the document leaked out. An HHS spokeswoman confirmed that the department was working on a draft paper about grandfathered plans but said it hasn't been made public yet.
A House Republican staffer said the rumor was that the document had been erroneously posted on the Office of Management and Budget Web site earlier in the week and somebody spotted it before it was taken down. IBD has not been able to confirm this report.
Under the new health law, current employer-based health plans will be grandfathered — that is, they will not have to follow many Obama-Care provisions that take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. These include benefit mandates, caps on out-of-pocket expenses and limits on age-based premiums.
But they forfeit that grandfathered status if they make changes to the plans by 2014. If so, firms may have to adopt new plans or drop coverage and pay the penalty.
No Longer A Grandfather
But the term "grandfathered" is loosely defined by the new law; specifics have been left up to the bureaucracies. One key question is, how much flexibility would employers have in changing their coverage before it is no longer considered grandfathered?
Under the regulations in the document, a plan is no longer considered to be grandfathered if:
• It eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.
• It increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above its level as of March 23, 2010.
• It increases the fixed amount of cost-sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.
• It increases co-payments from March 23, 2010, by an amount that is the greater of: medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.
• The employer's share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.
Analyzing data on employer-provided plans from 2008 and 2009, the report stated: "Many employers who made changes between 2008 and 2009 that would have caused them to relinquish grandfather status did so based on exceeding one of the cost-sharing limits."
In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status.
"These rules will ensure that up to 69% of employees — and 80% of workers in small business — will lose their current plan within three years," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a physician. "The reality is this: 58% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed because they fear they will lose their health care — and even their jobs — once this law is fully implemented."
By DAVID HOGBERG AND SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 06/11/2010 07:32 PM ET
Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.
Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.
The "midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013," according to the document.
In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.
The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare's regulations would have on existing, or "grandfathered," employer-based health care plans.
Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon.
"It's been passed around the staffs here on Capitol Hill. Congressman Posey thought it was important enough to share," said spokesman George Cecala.
In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a "bait and switch."
"The president promised repeatedly that people who like their current plans can keep them, but now the details of their plan actually confirm what many suspected all along, most Americans will lose their current health care plan," Posey said.
A White House official told IBD: "This is a draft document, and we will be releasing the final regulation when it is complete. The president made a promise to the American people that if they liked their health care plan, they can keep it. The regulation, when finalized, will uphold that promise."
However, the source conceded: "It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status."
It's unclear how the document leaked out. An HHS spokeswoman confirmed that the department was working on a draft paper about grandfathered plans but said it hasn't been made public yet.
A House Republican staffer said the rumor was that the document had been erroneously posted on the Office of Management and Budget Web site earlier in the week and somebody spotted it before it was taken down. IBD has not been able to confirm this report.
Under the new health law, current employer-based health plans will be grandfathered — that is, they will not have to follow many Obama-Care provisions that take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. These include benefit mandates, caps on out-of-pocket expenses and limits on age-based premiums.
But they forfeit that grandfathered status if they make changes to the plans by 2014. If so, firms may have to adopt new plans or drop coverage and pay the penalty.
No Longer A Grandfather
But the term "grandfathered" is loosely defined by the new law; specifics have been left up to the bureaucracies. One key question is, how much flexibility would employers have in changing their coverage before it is no longer considered grandfathered?
Under the regulations in the document, a plan is no longer considered to be grandfathered if:
• It eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.
• It increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above its level as of March 23, 2010.
• It increases the fixed amount of cost-sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.
• It increases co-payments from March 23, 2010, by an amount that is the greater of: medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.
• The employer's share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.
Analyzing data on employer-provided plans from 2008 and 2009, the report stated: "Many employers who made changes between 2008 and 2009 that would have caused them to relinquish grandfather status did so based on exceeding one of the cost-sharing limits."
In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status.
"These rules will ensure that up to 69% of employees — and 80% of workers in small business — will lose their current plan within three years," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a physician. "The reality is this: 58% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed because they fear they will lose their health care — and even their jobs — once this law is fully implemented."
Why I didn't vote for Obama - Reason #2
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Unacceptable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Unacceptable.
Why I didn't vote for Obama - Reason #1
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Unacceptable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Unacceptable.
Friday, June 11, 2010
AMAZING! ' Robin of Berkeley' hits it out of the park!
A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?
By Robin of Berkeley
So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I've written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.
Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama's blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd revamped Obama's "Yes We Can" motto into "Will We Ever?"
The liberal women of the TV show "The View" have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama's living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.
Obama's odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.
For one, Obama's teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.
But it's more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn't fit easily into any diagnostic category.
Many people attribute Obama's oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.
Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama's strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.
Take also Obama's declaring on the "Today Show" that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.
Obama is flat when passion is needed; he's aggressive when savvy is required. What's most worrisome is that Obama doesn't even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.
So if it's not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I've never evaluated him, I can't say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.
If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I'd consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.
--Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.
It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?
-- Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states -- and didn't correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.
Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?
--Asperger's Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger's causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger's can't read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.
Could Obama have Asperger's? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger's get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.
--Mental Illness: Obama's family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama's biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.
While Obama doesn't appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the "racist" bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.
Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama's oddness.
People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.
Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn't fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.
--Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can't prove it, the degree of Obama's disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates -- that is, disconnects from his being -- in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, "Pop," that evoked images of sexual abuse -- for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and "Pop's" shorts.
Would trauma explain Obama's disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a "false self." To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.
Let's return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.
Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There's even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.
If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?
It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid...and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.
Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.
Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama's fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:
He is not capable of it.
By Robin of Berkeley
So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I've written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.
Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama's blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd revamped Obama's "Yes We Can" motto into "Will We Ever?"
The liberal women of the TV show "The View" have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama's living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.
Obama's odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.
For one, Obama's teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.
But it's more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn't fit easily into any diagnostic category.
Many people attribute Obama's oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.
Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama's strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.
Take also Obama's declaring on the "Today Show" that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.
Obama is flat when passion is needed; he's aggressive when savvy is required. What's most worrisome is that Obama doesn't even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.
So if it's not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I've never evaluated him, I can't say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.
If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I'd consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.
--Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.
It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?
-- Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states -- and didn't correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.
Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?
--Asperger's Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger's causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger's can't read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.
Could Obama have Asperger's? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger's get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.
--Mental Illness: Obama's family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama's biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.
While Obama doesn't appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the "racist" bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.
Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama's oddness.
People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.
Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn't fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.
--Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can't prove it, the degree of Obama's disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates -- that is, disconnects from his being -- in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, "Pop," that evoked images of sexual abuse -- for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and "Pop's" shorts.
Would trauma explain Obama's disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a "false self." To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.
Let's return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.
Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There's even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.
If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?
It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid...and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.
Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.
Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama's fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:
He is not capable of it.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.
By DANIEL B. KLEIN
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.
By DANIEL B. KLEIN
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.
Obama’s FEC Set to Override Supreme Court, Strip Filmmakers’ Free Speech Rights by Ben Shapiro
After the Supreme Court decided against his favored position in 1832, Andrew Jackson supposedly explained, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The idea was that the judiciary had the power to make pronouncements, but only the executive branch had the power to carry them out.
This March, the Federal Elections Commission under President Obama began channeling Jackson. We had hints that this would happen after the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that restrictions on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts were prohibited by the First Amendment; that ruling also held that nonprofit groups like Citizens United could freely produce and distribute their documentaries.
Obama quickly responded by targeting the Supreme Court itself, boldly (and wrongly) proclaiming in his State of the Union Address, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Members of the Supreme Court were sitting directly in front of him at the time (one, Justice Samuel Alito, had the unmitigated temerity to shake his head softly when Obama lied about the ruling).
Obama’s FEC is following in his footsteps. Citizens United itself is a 501(c)4 nonprofit advocacy group that produces political films. It was the government’s attempt to treat their documentary, Hillary: The Movie as a political campaign expenditure that led to the ruling in Citizens United.
In March, Citizens United asked the FEC for an advisory opinion on whether the production, distribution and marketing of its future films would be regulated by the FEC in violation of the Citizens United decision. The FEC wrote back with two proposed opinions. The first was fine. It suggested that “the costs of producing and distributing Citizens United’s films, along with related marketing activities, are covered by the press exemption from the Act’s definitions of ‘expenditure’ and ‘electioneering communication.’” They based their logic on a two-step process. First, they determined that Citizens United was a “press entity” because “Since 2004, Citizens United has produced and distributed fourteen films, with four additional films currently in production.” Second, they determined that Citizens Untied was not owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate, and that it was distributing its work to the general public in accordance with prior procedures. Fair enough.
The second draft opinion and its alternative argument was far more troubling. In it, the FEC suggested that while Citizens United’s production, distribution and marketing costs would be exempt from regulation under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended) if they were related to movies broadcast on television, they would “not be covered by the press exemption to the extent the films are distributed by theatrical release and as DVDs.” The logic here is peculiar. The FEC said that “under the Act and the Commission’s regulations, unless a press entity’s facilities are owned or controlled by a political party [etc.] … the costs of distributing any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the enumerated media are neither expenditures nor electioneering communications.” Here’s where the FEC gets dicey, though: they wrote, “Conversely, a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through facilities other than the enumerated media is generally not covered by the press exemption.”
In other words, if you are a press entity but you don’t use approved press “facilities” to distribute your product, you can be regulated. What are approved press “facilities”? Means of distribution that have been used previously the Citizens United for its documentaries. This leads to the odd result that while the “distribution of documentary films through the facilities of a broadcast, cable, or satellite television station is the legitimate press function of an entity,” the same does not hold true for DVD and theatrical distribution.
Tomorrow, the FEC will vote on whether to adopt the first or second version of their advisory opinion.
The second opinion is a clear slap in the face to the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court did not touch on this issue specifically, the main thrust of Citizens United obviously cuts against this type of regulation. Citizens United was designed to avoid creating false distinctions between press and other corporations, because such distinctions would inevitably end in violation of freedom of the press itself. Now the FEC is attempting to paint such distinctions once again through the “facilities” language of the Act. This is just part of a broader attempt to end-run the Citizens United decision. It will likely end up at the Supreme Court level again, and again the Supreme Court will strike down such administrative fiat. And the cycle will continue, until we get a Congress that repeals the Act wholesale.
This March, the Federal Elections Commission under President Obama began channeling Jackson. We had hints that this would happen after the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that restrictions on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts were prohibited by the First Amendment; that ruling also held that nonprofit groups like Citizens United could freely produce and distribute their documentaries.
Obama quickly responded by targeting the Supreme Court itself, boldly (and wrongly) proclaiming in his State of the Union Address, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Members of the Supreme Court were sitting directly in front of him at the time (one, Justice Samuel Alito, had the unmitigated temerity to shake his head softly when Obama lied about the ruling).
Obama’s FEC is following in his footsteps. Citizens United itself is a 501(c)4 nonprofit advocacy group that produces political films. It was the government’s attempt to treat their documentary, Hillary: The Movie as a political campaign expenditure that led to the ruling in Citizens United.
In March, Citizens United asked the FEC for an advisory opinion on whether the production, distribution and marketing of its future films would be regulated by the FEC in violation of the Citizens United decision. The FEC wrote back with two proposed opinions. The first was fine. It suggested that “the costs of producing and distributing Citizens United’s films, along with related marketing activities, are covered by the press exemption from the Act’s definitions of ‘expenditure’ and ‘electioneering communication.’” They based their logic on a two-step process. First, they determined that Citizens United was a “press entity” because “Since 2004, Citizens United has produced and distributed fourteen films, with four additional films currently in production.” Second, they determined that Citizens Untied was not owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate, and that it was distributing its work to the general public in accordance with prior procedures. Fair enough.
The second draft opinion and its alternative argument was far more troubling. In it, the FEC suggested that while Citizens United’s production, distribution and marketing costs would be exempt from regulation under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended) if they were related to movies broadcast on television, they would “not be covered by the press exemption to the extent the films are distributed by theatrical release and as DVDs.” The logic here is peculiar. The FEC said that “under the Act and the Commission’s regulations, unless a press entity’s facilities are owned or controlled by a political party [etc.] … the costs of distributing any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the enumerated media are neither expenditures nor electioneering communications.” Here’s where the FEC gets dicey, though: they wrote, “Conversely, a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through facilities other than the enumerated media is generally not covered by the press exemption.”
In other words, if you are a press entity but you don’t use approved press “facilities” to distribute your product, you can be regulated. What are approved press “facilities”? Means of distribution that have been used previously the Citizens United for its documentaries. This leads to the odd result that while the “distribution of documentary films through the facilities of a broadcast, cable, or satellite television station is the legitimate press function of an entity,” the same does not hold true for DVD and theatrical distribution.
Tomorrow, the FEC will vote on whether to adopt the first or second version of their advisory opinion.
The second opinion is a clear slap in the face to the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court did not touch on this issue specifically, the main thrust of Citizens United obviously cuts against this type of regulation. Citizens United was designed to avoid creating false distinctions between press and other corporations, because such distinctions would inevitably end in violation of freedom of the press itself. Now the FEC is attempting to paint such distinctions once again through the “facilities” language of the Act. This is just part of a broader attempt to end-run the Citizens United decision. It will likely end up at the Supreme Court level again, and again the Supreme Court will strike down such administrative fiat. And the cycle will continue, until we get a Congress that repeals the Act wholesale.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Shenanigans? Say it ain't so!
Census Worker Claims Job Numbers Are Being Inflated
"What they do is hire you, they train you like a few weeks -- 35, 40 hours of training and give you six hours of productive work and lay you off." a former Census named "Maria" tells FOX News. "Maria" further explains they rehire you so it counts as a new job.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/03/census_worker_claims_job_numbers_are_being_inflated.html
"What they do is hire you, they train you like a few weeks -- 35, 40 hours of training and give you six hours of productive work and lay you off." a former Census named "Maria" tells FOX News. "Maria" further explains they rehire you so it counts as a new job.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/03/census_worker_claims_job_numbers_are_being_inflated.html
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Is President Obama's Carter moment nearing? By David S. Broder
Is President Obama's Carter moment nearing?
By David S. Broder
Thursday, June 3, 2010
"This is the worst," a Democratic friend exclaimed over the phone on Tuesday, the first day back at work after the Memorial Day weekend. I knew without asking what he meant -- the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that dominated television coverage and was into its second month with no quick solution in sight.
No, I told him. It's not yet the worst.
They haven't built a popular new television program around it -- yet. No one has created a new media franchise for himself out of it. There isn't a name for it that has become part of popular culture.
I was thinking back to when another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, found himself stymied in another seemingly endless ordeal. Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 officials and workers hostage for 444 days, while the United States was helpless to free them.
Many of us recall the event by the name that became attached to it: "America Held Hostage." That was the title ABC News slapped on its half-hour news update that aired each night, with Ted Koppel as anchor. The show later became the long-running program "Nightline."
This is when you know you are truly harpooned, when your problem has become someone else's meal ticket.
As sinister as the jet stream of escaping oil and gas looks via the underwater camera in the gulf, Barack Obama has not yet moved into the category of the late-night patsy that Jimmy Carter became. The Iranians were more clever, or diabolical, in exploiting their hostages than the restrained BP executives or their enviro foes are in this situation.
Obama keeps popping up in new settings, sounding as if he is in command, and he has refused to be confined to the White House as Carter was by the hostage crisis. His good-guy Coast Guard retired admiral has not melted under the pressure, and the BP execs we've seen on TV refuse to play cartoon capitalists, instead conveying the sense that they grieve over the accident.
As a result, this saga, painful as it is, has not yet become the simple demonstration of monumental futility and incompetence that the hostage crisis became for Carter, who let his personal frustration become the nation's humiliation. When he finally mounted a rescue effort, and the helicopters crashed into each other in the desert before reaching the hostages, it was the final proof that he was cursed in anything he tried to do.
That truly was the worst. Today we're not there -- yet.
But we have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends politically. Somebody else shows up and says he can fix this. Or end it. Or make it come out right.
This is why Democrats are right to be very nervous as this gulf incident drags on in its second month. We have endured about as much technical explanation of the rigors of deep-sea drilling as we can stand.
The chart talks demonstrating that we had figured out where the hostages were being held didn't do Carter a lick of good when voters were aching to see the captives walk into their families' arms.
Nothing is going to help Obama unless and until the engineers come up with a method for shutting down this gusher of pollution. He clearly couldn't prevent it, and he was slow in signaling its severity. But he owns it now, and until it is over, the man who aspired to be the next John Kennedy or maybe Franklin Roosevelt will have to hope he doesn't end up as Jimmy Carter.
By David S. Broder
Thursday, June 3, 2010
"This is the worst," a Democratic friend exclaimed over the phone on Tuesday, the first day back at work after the Memorial Day weekend. I knew without asking what he meant -- the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that dominated television coverage and was into its second month with no quick solution in sight.
No, I told him. It's not yet the worst.
They haven't built a popular new television program around it -- yet. No one has created a new media franchise for himself out of it. There isn't a name for it that has become part of popular culture.
I was thinking back to when another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, found himself stymied in another seemingly endless ordeal. Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 officials and workers hostage for 444 days, while the United States was helpless to free them.
Many of us recall the event by the name that became attached to it: "America Held Hostage." That was the title ABC News slapped on its half-hour news update that aired each night, with Ted Koppel as anchor. The show later became the long-running program "Nightline."
This is when you know you are truly harpooned, when your problem has become someone else's meal ticket.
As sinister as the jet stream of escaping oil and gas looks via the underwater camera in the gulf, Barack Obama has not yet moved into the category of the late-night patsy that Jimmy Carter became. The Iranians were more clever, or diabolical, in exploiting their hostages than the restrained BP executives or their enviro foes are in this situation.
Obama keeps popping up in new settings, sounding as if he is in command, and he has refused to be confined to the White House as Carter was by the hostage crisis. His good-guy Coast Guard retired admiral has not melted under the pressure, and the BP execs we've seen on TV refuse to play cartoon capitalists, instead conveying the sense that they grieve over the accident.
As a result, this saga, painful as it is, has not yet become the simple demonstration of monumental futility and incompetence that the hostage crisis became for Carter, who let his personal frustration become the nation's humiliation. When he finally mounted a rescue effort, and the helicopters crashed into each other in the desert before reaching the hostages, it was the final proof that he was cursed in anything he tried to do.
That truly was the worst. Today we're not there -- yet.
But we have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends politically. Somebody else shows up and says he can fix this. Or end it. Or make it come out right.
This is why Democrats are right to be very nervous as this gulf incident drags on in its second month. We have endured about as much technical explanation of the rigors of deep-sea drilling as we can stand.
The chart talks demonstrating that we had figured out where the hostages were being held didn't do Carter a lick of good when voters were aching to see the captives walk into their families' arms.
Nothing is going to help Obama unless and until the engineers come up with a method for shutting down this gusher of pollution. He clearly couldn't prevent it, and he was slow in signaling its severity. But he owns it now, and until it is over, the man who aspired to be the next John Kennedy or maybe Franklin Roosevelt will have to hope he doesn't end up as Jimmy Carter.
From the EU Times - Entire US Government Said Knows Obama Ineligible For Office
I'm still not sold on this, but it's a pretty interesting argument...
Entire US Government Said Knows Obama Ineligible For Office
Entire US Government Said Knows Obama Ineligible For Office
Simple Analogy
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
What a profound short little paragraph that says it all
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
What a profound short little paragraph that says it all
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
How NOT To Save the News Business--Jeff Jarvis - NYPOST.com
How NOT To Save the News Business--Jeff Jarvis - NYPOST.com
Subsidizing news organizations by increasing government funding to public broadcasting; establishing an AmeriCorps to pay reporters; giving news companies tax credits for employing journalists; creating a national fund for local news, and giving the press an increased postal subsidy.
What a nightmare.
Subsidizing news organizations by increasing government funding to public broadcasting; establishing an AmeriCorps to pay reporters; giving news companies tax credits for employing journalists; creating a national fund for local news, and giving the press an increased postal subsidy.
What a nightmare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)