The White House War On Jobs

If Joeseph Goebbels were re-incarnated and alive today, he would be somewhere in the Obama administration writing press releases about how jobs were being created or had been thus far saved. Those proclamations from the Obama White House are certainly strange, especially when the concurrent news stories are about how jobless claims are increasing on a monthly basis.

I don’t think that Baghdad Bob would approve of such efforts at misleading propaganda.

But, Obama still has trouble accepting responsibility for the failed stimulus package and preferes to continue assigning blame to George W. Bush, who has been out of office for over a year-and-a-half now. Joe Biden is loathe to go back to the “good old days” when people had stable jobs and steady paychecks.

Michelle Malkin has a great article regarding the jobs being lost, even as Obama and family enjoy an upper-class vacation at Martha’s Vineyard when most Americans can barely afford to take any kind of vacation at all.

From her column:

These are not the wealthy fat cats and Big Business titans Democrats love to demonize.

They’re employees of companies like Assurant Health, which announced last week that it would slash 130 jobs at its offices in Milwaukee and Plymouth, Minn., to prepare for costly Obamacare mandates.

They’re employees of medical device firms in Massachusetts, where officials say they’ll be forced to cut back on operational costs and jobs thanks to a little-noticed Obamacare tax on their products that goes into effect in 2013.

They’re employees of restaurants like White Castle and International House of Pancakes, whose executives say they will be forced into layoffs and premium hikes to cope with the federal law’s $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.

They’re mom-and-pop enterprises across the country that must now deal with Obamacare’s onerous Section 9006 tax-filing mandate. It requires them to file 1099 forms with the IRS for every vendor from whom they purchase $600 or more in goods. Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns calls it one of many “job-crushing provisions” that will bury small business in paperwork and legal costs.

They’re the estimated 23,000 workers in the deepwater drilling industry whom the White House deliberately wrote off in pursuit of its junk science-based drilling moratorium.

They’re the estimated tens of thousands of workers employed by car dealers that were shut down by Obama’s auto czars at a time, as the TARP inspector general pointed out last month, “when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs… — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact.”

They’re employees of Utah oil and gas companies whose leases have been pulled without cause by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The Interior Department’s own Inspector General rejected Salazar’s explanation that the Bush administration had rushed the leases through. The Deseret News reports that “rescinding these leases has likely cost the state millions already. Officials in Uintah county estimate the county lost 3,000 jobs in 2009, and Duchesne lost 1,000 jobs.”

They’re employees of commercial and recreational fishing businesses in New England, who have organized a flotilla on Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday to protest the Obama administration’s restrictive environmental policies and stealth regulatory ocean grab.

It’s no wonder that Democrats up for re-election this year are stampeding as fast as they can away from the White House and its current occupant.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The White House War on Jobs
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
August 25, 2010

Can Gays And Lesbians Drop Their “In Your Face” Politics Long Enough For Military Service?

That is the question that needs to be asked and answered before any serious debate can take place on this issue. Without answering this question, lifting the gay ban in the military will be opening the door to major unrest and frivolous complaints from gay and lesbian activists who may serve in the military.

The reason I say “frivolous” is because I saw quite a few complaints from feminists in the military that turned out to be bogus “gotchas.” The really sad part about this is that the truth didn’t come out until several careers had already been ruined.

Remember “Tailhook 91” and the bogus charges that Paula Coughlin made in 1991? How many careers were ruined before the truth about what really happened and how Coughlin was a willing participant came out? How much damage was done before someone realized that Coughlin admitted to her fellow Tailhookers that they had made her “see God?” How long did it take before the public was made aware of the fact that Coughlin had fingered people who weren’t even at Tailhook?

Therein lies the problem. What happens if some gay or lesbian goes into the military and has a radical political agenda? How long before some false charge of “homophobia” is made and a fabricated scandal ensues which destroys one or more careers? What are the safeguards against this?

TAILHOOK 91 is a prime example of how one person making false accusations can have a major negative impact on the military and its combat effectiveness.

Lt. Col. Oliver North notes the following:

But the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn’t feeling the love. The President wouldn’t let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold.

The payoff came in his State of the Union Address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

No, it is because of how they act and how they are trying to force their agenda on America whether it be through secret classes (i.e. telling children not to inform their parents) to school children or by pulling a Coughlin on the U.S. Military.

More:

Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has “serious concerns” about repealing the law in the midst of war. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness,” Casey testified.

A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, who said, “This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.”

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, testified that he endorsed a “study” of the issue because “only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else’s.” He also resisted a “freeze” on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to “the families that support the force.”

The straightest shooting of all was done by General James Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on February 24, he said, “Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics…and ask…do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven’t addressed it from the correct perspective.” Then he reloaded.

After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: “At this point…my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Just going forward on someone’s political whim is not the way to do it. It is true that gays are allowed to serve in militaries like Great Britain and Isreal, but it is also true that in both cases, gays are counseled to keep it low profile.

Are U.S. gays and lesbians willing to do the same thing? Given the militancy of the gay and lesbian political movement, my first inclination is to answer “no.” Anyone who has been forced to take a required “diversity” class from an employer knows why.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Fast
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Human Events
March 5, 2010

ABC’s “V” A Knock Against The Obama Administration?

I think so. Having watched the original mini-series from 1983 and the ill-fated TV series from 1984, I anxiously awaited the premier of the modern version. I liked it. It isn’t exactly a remake but is close enough to the original story that several items seemed familiar.

What really grabbed me were the parallels between the V storyline and the realities of the Obama administration. Here are some of the more overt items:

  • During the interview with “Anna,” the supreme commander of the V’s (Visitors), Anna made clear to journalist Chad Decker that there were to be no questions asked that would paint the V’s in a negative light. Compare this to Barack Obama who in real life stacked his own Town Hall meeting on Health Care with supporters who would only be allowed to ask him easy questions that he could respond to positively. Or compare this to the treatment that reporters get if they so much as dare to ask a hard question of Obama or his administration. Certainly, Obama’s efforts to cut Fox News out of the information loop is a direct parallel to Anna’s threat to cancel the interview if her instructions were not followed.
  • The “Peace Ambassador” program the V’s are offering to young people are analogous to Obama’s efforts at winning college and high school students to his cause. Sounds very much like recruiting kids to the Service Corps or ACORN. Maybe even like teachers getting elementary school children to chant “Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!”
  • During the interview, Anna says that the V’s want to provide health care to every single human on the planet. Chad responds by saying “Universal Health Care?” The implication there is extremely obvious.

The overall plot is that these aliens (reptiles disguised as humans) come to earth and claim a benevolent dispostion but are really hiding their true intentions. In other words, they have no intention of keeping their promises but are more interested in using humanity to their own ends. There is a parallel here too. During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama made many promises that he has consistently failed to keep. For example, he promised an open and transparent government, even going so far as to promise that C-SPAN would be allowed full coverage of all aspects of the health care debate, and yet he and other Dems make deals and concoct plans behind closed doors away from the public eye.

I’m not ready to believe that Hollywood is swinging from flaming liberal to pragmatic Conservative. But I do believe that ABC may finally have its finger on the pulse of the American people.

I hope this series succeeds and that it helps to intensify a national debate about our current occupant of the Oval Office.

Conservative Values Win In New Jersey And Virginia Governors’ Races

What a difference one year makes! Just this time last year, the Dems won Virginia by 6 points. They then proceeded to proclaim the Commonwealth of Virginia a “Blue” state and went even further to proclaim that Conservatism was dead and the GOP would soon be extinct. But yesterday, they lost Virginia by 18 points. That is a 24 point swing. Almost one-quarter of the electorate.

In New Jersey, the Democrats won by 14 points in 2008 but lost by 5 points in 2009. That’s a 19 point swing. Almost one-fifth of the electorate.

Why were the Dems so wrong?

Because they misread the results of the 2008 election. That’s why.

The 2008 election was not about people demanding more government in their lives, nor about people demanding that government take over the auto and banking industries. And there was no call for government to bail out failing corporations. But the Dems assumed that there were such calls and now the people of Virginia and New Jersey are the first to voice their disapproval of the leftist agenda the Democrats in Washington are trying to force down America’s collective throat.

Although the Dems are saying that these two elections were not a referendum on Barack Obama (and their cronies at CNN et. al. are dutifully repeating that line) the opposite is true. Not one exit poll showed that voters were trying “send a message,” but the exit polls did show that voters were very much concerned about a deteriorating economy and the intrusiveness of big government into their lives. And who is pushing policies contributing to these two concerns? Barack Obama. Thus, no matter how loudly the Dems and their leftist media allies proclaim the opposite, we all know what these elections really represent.

I’m certain that despite what Barack Obama and the DNC are saying in public, behind closed doors they are very scared. They should be. They crossed over too many lines in too short a time and now, they are beginning to pay the price for it.

For the GOP, this should also be a major lesson. Just as Bobby Jindal proved in Louisiana, Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie have proven in their respective states that traditional Conservative values are winners and the GOP should be embracing candidates with such values rather than trying to prop up “centrists” who are really just liberal Dems with the letter “R” after their name.

For Conservatives in general, we have won a major victory, just like the Battle of Midway in 1942. But now is not the time to rest. Now is the time to redouble our efforts and keep moving forward. We can go on the offensive now and take back America from the leftist Marxist socialists who have worked for the past year to destroy that which made America great.

We have the momentum. Let’s keep it going. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said back in the early days of World War II, we are “on our way.”

Health Care Debate Exposes The True Barack Obama

And it is not the Obama who was elected in November of 2008.

Writing for the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin notes the following:

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

Let’s find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor’s irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better.

The public’s not buying it. And as a measure of the nation’s mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half think the President is on television too much. Ouch.

Where is the Barack Obama and the Democrats who promised to be uniters? Why were they replaced by the Barack Obama and Democrats who falsely accuse Town Hall protesters of being “Nazis” or “un-American” or “radical?”

Why are the Dems and Obama ignoring this:

That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President.

Those who say it can’t happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Among the lowlights:

* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.

* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.

* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats’ proposals would force them to change doctors.

* Seventy-six percent believe Obama’s changes will mean higher taxes for them.

* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

It’s crazy what is happening in D.C. and the White House right now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Health Care Debate Confirms This Is Not The Barack Obama We Elected
Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
August 19, 2009

Statement From The American College Of Surgeons Regarding Disinformation Being Spread By Barack Obama

Maybe someone should report Barack Obama to the White House snitch line for this. After all, he did say that we should report anyone spreading disinformation.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Dear Dr.

The following statement from the College was issued to media across the country today:

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama

CHICAGO–The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

  • Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.
  • Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

About the American College of Surgeons

The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 76,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

Sincerely,

L.D. Britt, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Board of Regents
John Cameron, M.D., FACS, President of the American College of Surgeons
Andrew Warshaw, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Health Policy and Advocacy Group
Christian Shalgian, ACS Director, Division of Advocacy and Health Policy

You can access the letter on the FACS website here:

Statement From The American College Of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments From President Obama
FACS.org
August 12, 2009

Read The Bill Before Voting, Congress!

One good thing about all those AIG bonuses that caused such a major stir earlier this year was that it highlighted the fact the most (if not all) members of Congress don’t even read the bills they are voting on.

In the Stimulus package was an amendment (known as the Dodd Amendment) that allowed the AIG bonuses to be specifically exempted from any regulation. When Barack Obama put the presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Later, when the AIG bonuses became public, many of those who vote “Yea” on this measure became indignant that such bonuses would be paid out by a firm that took bailout money.

So, if those people had simply read the bill, or at least demanded a chance to see what was being inserted into the bill at 4:00 a.m., they would have known what they were voting for and wouldn’t have ended up looking like the fools they are. Well, that’s my theory anyway.

Now, with socialized health care on the horizon, it is once again looking like the Dem leadership is going to force a vote before the legislation can be thoroughly read and understood by those voting on it.

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is pushing Congress to pass health care legislation that could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the economy. Most members of Congress will vote on this bill with no idea what’s in it.

Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, disparaged lawmakers for even pretending to read the laws they pass. “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’ ” he said last week at the National Press Club. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?”

The good, Mr. Conyers, is that Senators and Representatives will know exactly what they are voting for if they happen to be voting “Yea.” Knowing what is in legislation will save Congress from being embarrassed (as in the above AIG example) and save the American people for having to admit that their Congress is a remake of the Keystone Kops.

More:

Mr. Conyers might think it’s an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation, but it is the most fundamental responsibility of elected representatives to know and understand laws and how they will affect the lives of their constituents.

That is especially the case with such a gargantuan bill. The House version creates 53 new federal bureaucracies with everything from a Health Choices Administration to a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Thirty-three entitlement programs are created or expanded.

The notion is put to rest that government might cooperate with doctors and patients to work out what is best for providing care. The health care bill uses the assertive word “shall” 1,683 times. These passages are government mandates that force doctors, consumers and others in the health care profession to do what Congress orders. The word “penalty” is used 156 times for those who don’t follow orders. “Tax” is referred to 172 times.

This legislation is so sweeping and so draconian that if it fails to produce as advertised (and I am betting it will spectacularly fail to do so), members of Congress who voted “Yea” are going to run and hide behind the tired and lame excuse that they “didn’t know what was in the bill.”

It happened with the AIG bonuses. It will happen with the socialized medicine bill.

You can access the original editorial on-line here:

Read The Bill, Congressmen
Washington Times
July 29, 2009