The military will be trained in three major phases. First, lawyers, chaplains, administrators and civilian personnel will be briefed on what the changes mean for their . Next, the leadership, including commanding officers, will be briefed. Finally, the rest of the military will receive its training.
Changes to personnel and recruiting methods, as well as new policy regulations for sensitive topics such as barracks arrangements will also be discussed in Friday's briefing.
Nov. 30: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, left, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen discuss gays in the U.S. military at the Pentagon.
Pentagon officials said Friday that the U.S. military will begin training forces in February on the new law that allows gays to serve openly.
In the first briefing since Congress repealed the 17-year-old "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, officials said they will soon complete implementation plans but assured that the service chiefs will have the leeway to bring up potential complications as they arise.
"This is about leadership," said Cliff Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
Stanley and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined a plan that gives the roughly three months to train their forces on the new law that allows gays to serve openly in the military.
The military will be trained in three major phases. First, lawyers, chaplains, administrators and civilian personnel will be briefed on what the changes mean for their jobs. Next, the , including commanding officers, will be briefed. Finally, the rest of the military will receive its training.
A U.S. military source said the repeal should take place by the end of the year and the training will begin next week and last three months.
The effort could be complicated by discussions over benefits and base housing, since the Defense of Marriage Act still defines marriage as that between members of the opposite sex -- this could curtail the military's ability to apply benefits to same-sex partners as it does for married couples, said the source.
For instance, there would be a question over whether a same-sex partner would be allowed to live on a military base, a benefit extended to married couples.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama urged college campuses to reinstate ROTC programs in the wake of the landmark legislation.
Fox News' Justin Fishel and Jennifer Griffin and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
US Military to Announce Three-Month Timeline Until Gay Troops Can Serve Openly
Updated: Friday, 28 Jan 2011, 11:19 AM EST
Published : Friday, 28 Jan 2011, 11:19 AM EST
By Justin Fishel
(FOXNews.com) - The Pentagon will announce Friday a three-month timeline for allowing gay members of the military to serve openly.
Cliff Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were expected to lay out a plan that gives the military services roughly three months to train their forces on the new law that allows gay and lesbian service members to serve openly, a US official said.
The officials will outline major changes needed in order for the military to smoothly move away from norms associated with the repeal of the Clinton-era legislation commonly known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.”
The military will be trained in three major phases. First, lawyers, chaplains, administrators and civilian personnel will be briefed on what the changes mean for their jobs. Next, the leadership, including commanding officers, will be briefed. Finally, the rest of the military will receive its training.
Changes to personnel and recruiting methods, as well as new policy regulations for sensitive topics such as barracks arrangements, will also be discussed in Friday's briefing.
The legislation passed late last year stated that before repeal can occur, the secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president have to certify that the risks to readiness and unit cohesion and effectiveness have been eliminated for all branches of the military.
BETWEEN THE LINES
Whom is Obama kidding?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah proves president doesn't care about sanctity of human life
Whom is Obama kidding?
January 28, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
On the 38th anniversary of one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in the history of the Constitution and the American republic, Barack Obama expressed his firm support of Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand, saying, "Government should not intrude on private family matters."
Government should not intrude on private family matters?
Whom is this guy kidding?
Can we even count the ways Obama and his administration seek to intrude on private family matters?
· The hallmark legislation of his regime is Obamacare, a completely unconstitutional program that mandates individuals and families purchase government-approved health-care insurance. There is to be no "choice" in the matter. The government intrudes directly in the doctor-patient relationship, determining what is appropriate care and what is not. And, of course, Obama himself has stated unequivocally his preference is for a single-payer system in which government is ultimately responsible for all health-care decisions.
· Obama and his party approve of legislation that will eventually ban "choice" in what kind of light bulbs individuals and families can purchase.
· How about private family matters like personal finance? Obama not only wants to preserve a tax system that requires individuals and families to make all the details of their personal, private financial matters available to the government, he has sought to raise taxes on the most productive individuals because, after all, it's not really their money. It belongs to the government to redistribute as it sees fit.
· Obama seeks to monitor and regulate how much energy individuals and families use in their homes and offices.
· Obama wants individuals and families accountable to government on how they educate their children.
· Obama supports rewriting the laws of nature and nature's God in redefining what constitutes a family.
I could go on and on. This is not a matter of "privacy rights" for Obama. He doesn't believe in privacy rights.
He also adds: "And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."
Nor is abortion a matter of women's rights.
Women are disproportionately victimized by abortion.
Family planning is not the government's business. But Obama's federal government supports with tax dollars the largest abortion mills in the country through grants to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood promotes abortion for any reason, including for the purpose of sex selection. Where sex-selection abortions are widely employed, baby girls are exterminated in astonishingly high percentages.
Women who have abortions have a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer later in life. They also have emotional scars from their choices to terminate the sovereign lives in their wombs – individuals, by the way, who have their own heartbeats, their own brainwaves, their own fingerprints, their own unique DNA and their own souls.
Whom is Barack Obama kidding?
Abortion is not a constitutional right. Not even the Supreme Court has the power to invent new constitutional rights. Our rights, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states, are unalienable gifts from God. No branch of government can legitimately take them away or create new ones – most particularly the right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."
Yes, Americans want government out of our personal and private family lives. But government is ordained to protect innocent lives from being destroyed. And that's what happens every time an abortion takes place.
Obama doesn't care about the rights of women. He doesn't care about privacy. He doesn't care about "choice." And he doesn't care about or believe in the sanctity of human life.
Enabling Abortion by Default
Thursday, January 27, 2011 - By Judie Brown
The stories about abortionist Kermit Gosnell are gut-wrenching. But will the shock effect last?
Gosnell is accused of taking the lives of seven babies born alive and he overdosed a young woman who died at his hands. Some writers suggest that it is the pro-abortion side of the discussion that enabled his dastardly deeds, yet an honest assessment of history exposes a painful truth. The pro-life movement’s political maneuvering bears much of the blame as well.
History tells the tale.
January 22, 1973: Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority of the United States Supreme Court, stated, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
February 15, 1975: The city was Boston, Massachusetts. After a trial during which testimony was heard about abortionist Kenneth Edelin and the born-alive infant whom he allowed to die following an abortion he performed, Edelin was found guilty of manslaughter. Time magazine reported the courtroom was stunned. The implication of the conviction was, “A fetus approaching viability is a person and, as such, is entitled to the full protection of the law.”
Edelin appealed his conviction and eventually it was overturned by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He was hailed by pro-abortion groups across the nation, and in 2008 he was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In its tribute, PPFA explained that an “all white” jury had convicted this black abortionist. It went on to say, “One of the heroes of the reproductive rights movement, Dr. Edelin’s lifelong commitment to women’s health and rights truly embody the values and courage of Margaret Sanger.”
The Edelin conviction occurred 36 years ago and in the intervening period of time many such practitioners of death have maimed expectant mothers, killed preborn children and made a living doing one of the most heinous things any human being can think of—taking the lives of babies.
During the same period, many in the pro-life movement’s ranks have focused on regulating abortion, reducing the number of abortions and making sure that most abortions are not paid for with tax dollars. These efforts are logical and certainly worthwhile, but are they getting the job done?
Let’s face it, in cases like those involving the Edelins and Gosnells of the world, regulation and denial of government subsidy is not enough.
Callous disregard for innocent human beings continues unabated while we pat ourselves on the back, celebrate a new majority in Congress and tell ourselves things are going to be different now. Are they really?
In 1973, Blackmun challenged the entire country to consider what would happen to Roe v. Wade if personhood for the preborn child were established.
In 1975, Edelin was found guilty of the cold blooded murder of a baby born alive after an abortion and the media screeched that the child was considered a person. Edelin’s conviction was later overturned.
In 2007, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which stated that most dilation and extraction abortions (commonly known as partial-birth abortion) were against the law. In that decision, the Court recommended alternative methods for aborting the same children.
In 2011, editorial writers and commentators—salivating for a new twist on the 38-year-old abortion debate—found Gosnell a worthy subject and exposed his little shop of horrors.
But what difference do these landmarks make other than to teach us that we are losing ground? The babies are numbers on a counting machine, check marks on a voter survey, dead people who don’t even receive a decent burial.
Something dramatic needs to happen to restore awareness in the public arena. Each child is a person, and we must begin to speak and act like we know that each innocent preborn child has human rights that must not be denied.
We must commit ourselves to victory and therefore we must remember:
• You don’t regulate murder!
• You don’t publicly proclaim your commitment to making murder rare!
• You make sure that murder is always defined by law as a crime!
Let’s resolve to achieve this goal and never default on our obligation to God and the preborn.
Cheers for Repeal of ObamaCare
by Phyllis Schlafly
January 28, 2011
The U.S. House did what its candidates had promised and the voters expected: the House passed 245 to 189 a repeal of ObamaCare, the centerpiece of Socialism. Three Democrats joined every single Republican, with Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) spearheading the charge. According to public opinion polls, support for repeal remains strong among the American people despite Obama's prediction that once his favorite bill was enacted into law we would like it. In addition, 200 distinguished economics experts, mostly professors of economics, signed a letter predicting that an implementation of ObamaCare will be a barrier to job growth, inflict us with a crushing debt burden, and is not real health care reform.
The House should keep up its momentum by specifically repealing the most obnoxious section, which 26 states are now trying to get the courts to rule unconstitutional: the mandate on individuals to buy insurance. How can President Obama veto that repeal? When he campaigned against Hillary Clinton, he accused her of supporting such a mandate and promised to oppose it.
The Congressmen who voted for repeal should keep reminding the public why it is a bad, dictatorial, and offensively expensive law. They should taunt the Senate into having a vote so we will know who is on which side of this issue.
When repeal is finally achieved, either through a change of U.S. President in 2012 or a Supreme Court ruling that ObamaCare's crucial provision is unconstitutional, Americans will enjoy some rights that ObamaCare will otherwise take away.
For example, you won't be hit with a big fine by the government for not buying the insurance the government orders you to buy. You will retain your right to buy health insurance that includes the benefits you need instead of a more costly policy mandated by the bureaucrats. When the repeal of ObamaCare is final, you won't lose your job because your employer struggles to comply with this expensive mandate. Your children and grandchildren won't be hit with $1 trillion of new debt to burden their future.
If you are young, you won't be forced to pay higher premiums for mandatory health insurance to subsidize people who are older and sicker. If you are a senior, you won't suffer a half a trillion dollars taken out of Medicare to pay for new health entitlements.
You won't be standing in long lines as you try to see a doctor. You won't be put on a two-year waiting list for surgery you need.
The Center for Health Transformation just issued 1,968 reasons to repeal ObamaCare. A chart reveals the ways in which the 2,700-page law grants 1,968 powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, along with control over 18% of our entire economy.
For example, the regulators will decide what clinical drugs seniors will be allowed to get. The regulators will instruct doctors whether or not to give a drug to patients in long-term care.
The regulators are empowered to use "comparative effectiveness research" to determine whether seniors get care. That's code for the authority of bureaucrats to decide whether (based on your age and condition) you are worth spending any money on, a.k.a. death panels that will decide whether you live or die.
House Members should remember that some promised repeal AND replace. Their task is to detach health care from bureaucrats and appropriators because that's the only way to get health care costs under control.
We should also detach health care from the unfortunate link between jobs and health insurance that created the present system of third-party payers. That process began as a tax loophole during World War II wage and price control, and now traps millions of Americans in a tough compromise between an unproductive job and unsuitable high-cost health insurance.
This can be done by allowing us to make our own decisions by paying for smaller, routine expenses from our own tax-deductible health savings account, instead of relying on third-party payers whose rates constantly escalate. Employee group health insurance plans, with higher deductibles, should pay the major costs.
The House should hold weekly hearings in order to dispel the misinformation we are fed by the liberals, such as the foolish notion that government health care in other countries is more efficient and less costly. Tens of thousands of foreigners come to the U.S. every year for medical treatment because they know they have a better survival rate here.
Compare these statistics between the U.S. and U.K. released by the United Nations International Health Organization. The percentage of people who survived cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65%, U.K. 46%; diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within 6 months: U.S. 93%, U.K. 15%; seniors needing hip replacement who received it within 6 months: U.S. 90%, U.K. 15%; getting to see a medical specialist within one month: U.S. 77%, U.K. 40%.
Posted By Kathryn Nix On January 26, 2011 @ 1:00 pm In Health Care |
country nears its first anniversary of the passage of Obamacare, the health
care fight is just getting started.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a measure to fully repeal Obamacare, and 28 states have filed lawsuits  to contest the law’s constitutionality, a decision that will ultimately be made by the Supreme Court. At the same time, the states continue to resist the federal health care overhaul  by passing new legislation and delaying implementation.
Clearly, the future of Obamacare is anything but settled. Rather, its passage has served only to ignite the fire, fueled by accounts of the numerous negative effects of the law , which include everything from increasing premiums and loss of coverage to new taxes and job losses.
Now, Heritage health policy experts have compiled “The Case Against Obamacare: A Health Policy Series for the 112th Congress .” This collection of papers highlights the 15 major provisions of the new law. Our analysts explain the disastrous consequences these provisions of Obamacare will have for all Americans and highlight the right way for legislators to solve the issues that Obamacare fails to address.
For example, Obamacare’s individual mandate was intended to solve the “free rider” problem of individuals foregoing coverage and relying instead on taxpayer-funded emergency room care. Heritage expert Robert Moffit explains how this provision is not only an unconstitutional threat to liberty and the American tradition of federalism but will also have dire consequences on insurance markets, including a likely increase in the number of uninsured.
Instead of an individual mandate, Moffit writes that  Congress should address the “free rider” issue “through a judicious combination of positive economic incentives, such as tax credits and vouchers for insurance, creative new mechanisms to facilitate coverage (such as automatic enrollment with a right to refuse coverage), and transparency in personal choice and consequences, such as an upfront signed acknowledgement of financial liability for refusing coverage.”
The series points to the Obamacare provisions that will destroy jobs, create incentives for businesses to drop employer-sponsored coverage, raise premiums, reduce patient choice, crowd out private coverage, threaten seniors’ access to care—the list goes on. “The Case Against Obamacare” makes the next step in health care reform overwhelmingly clear: Obamacare must be fully repealed. If Congress is to successfully address the flaws in the health care system, it cannot begin on a flawed foundation. In the meantime, lawmakers must do all they can to block continued damage to the health care system under Obamacare.
To check out the series, click here .
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
 28 states have filed lawsuits: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare
 states continue to resist the federal health care overhaul: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/21/how-the-states-can-carry-the-torch-to-repeal-obamacare
 numerous negative effects of the law: http://blog.heritage.org/tag/side-effects
 The Case Against Obamacare: A Health Policy Series for the 112th Congress: http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/the-case-against-obamacare
Building on decades of Heritage research, The Case Against Obamacare: A Health Care Policy Series for the 112th Congress examines 15 key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Each report:
· Cites specific sections of the 2,700-page health care law
· Provides detailed analysis of specific Obamacare provisions
· Identifies key principles for a better way to reform health care
The unmistakable conclusion of this series is that Obamacare must be fully repealed. Congress cannot build sound market-based health care reform on the flawed foundation of this health care law. Until it can be repealed, Congress must employ its full powers authorized by the Constitution to:
· De-fund the new law’s critical aspects
· Block any further provisions from going into effect
· Engage in aggressive oversight of Obamacare – its regulations and implementation.
Congress should pursue a careful and thoughtful process to develop targeted solutions
that address practical problems in the health care system based on the
principles of personal ownership, consumer choice, and free markets.
Introduction: Repealing Obamacare and Getting Health Care Right
Introduction: Repealing Obamacare and
Getting Health Care Right
by Nina Owcharenko
The new law transfers vast powers to Washington bureaucrats who will control the dollars and decisions that should be in the hands of individual patients and their families.
1. Obamacare and the Individual
Mandate: Violating Personal Liberty and Federalism
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
The individual mandate is an intrusion into personal liberty.
2. Obamacare and New Taxes:
Destroying Jobs and the Economy
by Curtis Dubay
Tax increases in the new health care law will impede an already stagnant economic recovery.
3. Obamacare and the Budget:
Playing Games with Numbers
by James C. Capretta and Kathryn Nix
An honest accounting of the new health care law’s fiscal impact reveals Obamacare as a trillion-dollar budget buster.
4. Obamacare and the Employer
Mandate: Cutting Jobs and Wages
by Brian Blase
The employer mandate will raise the cost of doing business and discourage job growth.
5. Obamacare and Health Subsidies:
Expanding Perverse Incentives for Employers and Employees
by Edmund F. Haislmaier
Health care exchanges and subsidies in Obamacare further complicate the tax structure and discourage work.
6. Obamacare and Federal Health Exchanges: Undermining
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
The new law’s concept of health insurance exchanges reduces states to mere agents of federal health policy.
7. Obamacare and Insurance Benefit
Mandates: Raising Premiums and Reducing Patient Choice
by Edmund F. Haislmaier
Benefit mandates prescribed by the new health care law will make all health benefits uniform, increase the cost of coverage, and stifle insurance innovation.
8. Obamacare and Insurance Rating
Rules: Increasing Costs and Destabilizing Markets
by Edmund F. Haislmaier
The age-rating rules of Obamacare and blanket prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions will destabilize insurance markets.
9. Obamacare and the Hidden Public
Option: Crowding Out Private Coverage
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
Giving the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) power to sponsor national health insurance plans could crowd out private coverage in the health insurance exchanges.
10. Obamacare and Medicare Advantage
Cuts: Undermining Seniors’ Coverage Options
by James C. Capretta
The new health care law cuts deeply into Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in substantial reductions in the value of health care services for enrollees.
11. Obamacare and Medicare
Provider Cuts: Jeopardizing Seniors’ Access
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
Using projected Medicare savings to finance new entitlements expansion jeopardizes Medicare beneficiaries’ access to care.
12. Obamacare and the Independent
Payment Advisory Board: Falling Short of Real Medicare Reform
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
The new Medicare board is prohibited by law from making any meaningful reforms.
Instead of reforming Medicaid, the new health care law doubles down on the program’s existing flaws.
14. Obamacare and the CLASS Act:
Creating a Long-Term Care Entitlement Burden
by Brian Blase
A new entitlement created by Obamacare, the Community Living Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) program is actuarially unsound and fiscally irresponsible.
by Chuck Donovan
The new health care law fails to protect the conscience rights of physicians who refuse to provide or refer patients for abortions… or the conscience rights of taxpayers who refuse to pay for abortions.
In the House Budget Committee, the Experts Expose the Fiscal Consequences of Obamacare
Posted By Kathryn Nix On January 27, 2011 @ 5:30 pm In Entitlements,Health Care |
Yesterday, the House Budget Committee convened a hearing  to explore the fiscal consequences of Obamacare. Lawmakers heard from Richard Foster, Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); James Capretta, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; and Dennis Smith, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.
Foster’s remarks echoed the findings of the CMS Actuary’s report  released last April. Of the promise that “if you like your current insurance, you can keep it,” Foster claimed that this would be “not true in all cases.” His analysis shows that 7 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will have to seek other coverage, and Americans with all types of coverage could be subject to displacement from their current plans.
When asked if Obamacare would reduce steep growth in health costs—a central promise of the President’s health plan—Foster responded that this claim was “false, more so than true.”
Rather than bend the cost curve downward, Obamacare will increase overall national health expenditures by $311 billion. It won’t reduce the cost of federally run programs: The new law expands Medicaid, and though it includes sweeping cuts to Medicare, Foster warns that these are unsustainable and could threaten seniors’ access to care if fully implemented. Finally, the law increases premiums , failing to reduce costs on all fronts.
Obamacare also fails to address the federal spending crisis facing the nation in coming decades as a result of the skyrocketing costs of federal health programs. Instead, as Capretta explains , “at a time when the federal budget is already buckling under the weight of existing entitlement programs, the new law stands up three new ones which will enroll tens of millions of Americans into taxpayer-financed programs promising permanent access to uncapped benefits.”
The negative fiscal consequences of Obamacare won’t be felt solely in Washington, Dennis Smith points out.  In Wisconsin alone, state spending will face a net increase of $433 million between 2014 and 2019. All told, Wisconsin taxpayers will face $560 million in new costs, despite the fact that the state already has a higher insurance rate than will be achieved nationally under the new law. Obamacare is projected to bring the insured population to 94 percent of all Americans; 95 percent of Wisconsinites already have insurance.
Indeed, in the Badger State, the cost of Obamacare will far outweigh its benefits for a majority of residents. According to Smith, 457,000 Wisconsin residents will be displaced from their current coverage. Premiums in Wisconsin’s individual market will go up 6.6 percent on average (and significantly more for younger individuals) and choice among health plans will be reduced.
Moreover, says Smith, “46 percent of individuals who will move into public subsidies either through Medicaid or the new tax credit entitlement already have private coverage. When you add in the federal “buy out” of existing state coverage, a substantial amount of the new federal spending will simply replace federal dollars for existing private sector or state dollars without insuring a single new individual.”
The example of Wisconsin highlights how ineffective a one-size-fits-all federal overhaul will be. One of Obamacare’s main goals is to increase coverage, but in a state with already high rates of insurance, reform would be better off addressing other priorities.
The Budget Committee hearing laid bare the fact that Obamacare will fail at several key components of its mission. The new law ignores existing problems in the health care system while creating countless new ones for all Americans.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
 convened a hearing: http://budget.house.gov/healthcare/hearing1262011.htm
 the CMS Actuary’s report: http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf
 increases premiums: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums
 Dennis Smith points out.: http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/dsmith012611.pdf
By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2011 08:20 PM
The nation’s capital is freaking out over a winter snowstorm.
But everyone else should be up in arms over the real snow job in Washington this week.
While the Democrats continued to extol Obamacare and the president defended the behemoth law during the Date of the Union, HHS was quietly presiding over a massive Obamacare Waiver-mania explosion.
When last we examined the growing list, privileged escapees topped 222.
Now: The list now at 729 — plus 4 states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee).
Among the many new union refugees are 4 new SEIU locals :
-SEIU Health and Welfare fund, 2000 with 161 enrollees
-Service Employees 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund* representing 7,020 enrollees
-SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund representing 2,000 enrollees
-SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620
This is in addition to the three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees.
Which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare escapees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.
HHS puts the total number of union waiver recipients at 182:
Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants: Most of the other health plans receiving waivers are multi-employer health funds created by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and two or more employers, pursuant to the Taft-Hartley Act.
These “union plans” are employment based group health plans and operate for the sole benefit of workers. They tend to be larger than other typical group health plans because they cover multiple employers. There are also single-employer union plans that have received a waiver. In total, 182 collectively-bargained plans have received waivers.
Of all the waivers granted to date:
* Employment-Based Coverage: The vast majority – 712 plans representing 97 percent of all waivers – were granted to health plans that are employment-related.
o Self-Insured Employer Plans Applicants: Employer-based health plans received most of the waivers – 359.
o Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): HRAs are employer-funded group health plans where employees are reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period. In total, HHS has approved 171 applications for waivers for HRAs.
* Health Insurers: Sixteen waivers were granted to health insurers, which can apply for a waiver for multiple mini-med products sold to employers or individuals.
* State Governments: Four waivers have gone to State governments. States may apply for a waiver of the restricted annual limits on behalf of issuers of state-mandated policies if state law required the policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010.
A snort-worthy new escapee: Obamacare sympathizers at The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, whose board of trustees includes Obama health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle.
Culture of Corruption – DeParle flashback:
Former Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius won Senate confirmation as Health and Human Services Secretary. But the real power lies with with newly-created health czar Nancy-Ann Min DeParle. Her official title: Director of the White House Office for Health Reform.
DeParle ran the behemoth Medicare and Medicaid programs under Bill Clinton. She parlayed her government experience into a lucrative private-sector stint. Over the past three years, she made nearly $6 million from her work in the health care industry. Despite President Obama’s loud denunciations of the revolving-door lobbyist culture in Washington, DeParle’s industry ties didn’t bother the White House.
She served as an investment advisor at JP Morgan Partners, LLC; sat on the board of directors at Boston Scientific Corporation; and held directorships at Accredo Health Group Inc., Triad Hospitals (now part of Community Health Systems), and DaVita Corporation. In all, she sat on at least ten boards while advising JP Morgan and working as managing director at a private equity firm, CCMP Capital.
From 2002 to 2008, while holding all those titles, DeParle also served as a member of the government-chartered Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC), an influential panel that advises Congress on what Medicare should cover and at what price. Last month, former MedPAC member DeParle cozily announced that Obama was “open to making recommendations of [MedPAC] mandatory unless opposed by a joint resolution of Congress.”
Obama famously signed an early executive order requiring appointees to pledge not to participate “in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to any former employer or former clients” for a period of two years from the date of his or her appointment. But it’s hard to imagine any health care reform-related issue that won’t involve one of DeParle’s former employers, clients, and corporate boards in the health care industry. She earned at least $376,000 from Cerner Corporation, for example, which specializes in health information technology. As health czar, DeParle has unmeasured clout in directing $19 billion of federal stimulus money earmarked for, yes, health information technology.
Last week, a Washington, D.C. citizen watchdog filed suit to force the White House to disclose which health care lobbyists and executives it had met with this year to discuss insurance takeover legislation. White House counsel Greg Craig refused to disclose which administration officials attended the meetings. But at least two of the industry visitors have ties to DeParle. William C. Weldon is chairman of Johnson & Johnson, which paid DeParle $7,500 for a recent speech. Wayne Smith is chief executive of Community Health Systems, which merged with Triad Hospitals – where DeParle served on the board of directors. DeParle’s options were converted to cash payments worth $1.05 million.
More details on the union recipients:
Allied Building Inspectors IUOE Local 211 Welfare Fund
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 60*
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 60*
Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Health and Welfare Fund
IBEW Local 3 NYC Electrical Division Health & Welfare Fund
Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers’ Health and Welfare Plan
Laborers’ District Council of Virginia Health and Welfare Trust Fund
Laborers National Health and Welfare Fund
Local 1245 Health Fund
Local 295 Welfare Fund
Local 381 Group Insurance Fund
Local 805 Welfare Fund
Pipe Fitters’ Welfare Fund, Local 597*
District Council 1707 Local 389 Home Care Employees Health & Welfare Fund
Health and Welfare Plan of the Laundry, Dry Cleaning Workers & Allied Industry Health Fund, Workers United
Northern Illinois and Iowa Laborers Health and Welfare Fund
United Food and Commercial Workers Retail Employees and Employers Health and Welfare Plan
Board of Trustees for the Operating Engineers Local 101 Health and Welfare Fund
Carpenters Local No. 491 Health & Welfare Plan
Central Laborers’ Welfare Fund
Electrical Workers Health and Welfare Fund
Health Care Employees Dental and Medical Trust
Hotel, Restaurant & Bar Employees Health and Welfare Fund
IBEW Local Union No. 126 Health and Welfare Fund
International Union of Operating Engineers, Supplemental Benefit Fund Local 409*
Local 888 UFCW
Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Retail Food Health & Welfare Fund
Roofers Local #96 Health & Welfare Fund
Security Benefit Fund of the Uniformed Firefighters Association of New York City
Roofers Local 8 Insurance & Trust Fund
The HHS list has been completely re-numbered and re-ordered, so it’s difficult to delineate where the new enlistees end. Here’s just a sampling/reminder of other union beneficiaries of Waiver-mania:
Teamsters Union Local # 35
U.A. Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Plan*
UFCW & Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Health & Welfare Fund
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund
UFCW Local One Health Care Fund
Local 237 Teamsters Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare Trust Fund
Roofers Local #96 Health & Welfare Fund
Superior Officers Council Health and Welfare Fund
Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund
Service Employees Benefit Fund
1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund
Teamsters Local Union 966 Health Fund
IBEW Local Union No. 728 Family Healthcare Plan
Communications Workers of America, Local 1180 Security Benefits Fund
Florida Laborers Health Fund
Electricians Health, Welfare & Pension Plans I.B.E.W. Local Union No. 995
NECA-IBEW Local 480 Health and Welfare Plan
Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 177 Health and Welfare, Pension and Vacation Funds
South Central Laborers’ Health & Welfare Fund
Theatrical Teamsters Local 817 IBT Welfare Fund
IBEW Local Union No. 728 Family Healthcare Plan
Sports Arena Employees’ Local 137 Welfare Fund
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 355 Health and Welfare Fund
Health and Welfare Fund of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, Inc. Police Department City of New York
Amalgamated, Industrial and Toy & Novelty Workers of America, Local 223 Sick Benefit Fund
Atlanta Plumbers & Steamfitters Fringe Benefit Funds
Central Texas Health and Benefit Trust Fund Locals 520, 60 & 72
Electricians Health, Welfare & Pension Plans I.B.E.W. Local Union No. 995
Florida Laborers Health Fund
IBEW Local No. 640 and Arizona Chapter NECA Health & Welfare Trust Fund
NECA-IBEW Local 480 Health and Welfare Plan
Plumbers and Pipefitters Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 719
Southeastern Pipetrades Health & Welfare Fund
UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health & Welfare Fund
Plumbers Local Union No. 690 of Philadelphia and Vicinity Health Plan
United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund
Construction Workers Local 147 Welfare Fund
Blasters, Drillers &Miners Union Local No. 29 Welfare Fund
International Union ofBricklayers & Allied Craftworkers
Construction Workers Local 147 Welfare Fund
Local 298 HealthBenefit Fund Plan
Local 803 Health and Welfare Fund
Louisiana Laborers Health and Welfare Fund
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 823 Health & Welfare Fund
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 6 Health and Welfare Fund
Southwestern Teamsters Security Fund
Teamsters Local 455 Welfare Plan
Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated Health and Insurance Fund
Teamsters Welfare Fund of Northern New Jersey Local 1723
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan
UNITE HERE Local 74 Welfare and Dental Trust
United Service Employees Union, Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW
IBEW Local 613 and Contributing Employers Family Health Plan (Union
Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DC
I.B.E.W. Local 1249 Insurance Fund**
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers**
International Brotherhood of Trade Unions Health and Welfare Fund – Local 713
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 295-295C Welfare Trust Fund**
International union of Operating Engineers, Local Union Number 137**
Iron Workers Local Union #28 Health and Welfare Fund**
Local 1102 Amalgamated Welfare Fund
Local 1102 Health & Benefit Fund
Local 1102 Welfare Fund– Lerner Employees
Local 272 Welfare Fund**
Local 338 Affiliated Benefit Funds
Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund**
Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers**
Operating Engineers Local 835 Health and Welfare Fund
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 430 Health and Welfare Fund**
Retail, Wholesale & Dept. Store Union Local 1034 Welfare Fund
Sheet Metal Workers Funds of Local Union 38**
Teamsters Local 522 Welfare Fund Roofers Division
Teamsters Local Union 72 Welfare Fund**
UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund**
United Crafts Benefits Fund**
United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Local No. 348 Health & Welfare Fund**
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 New Hampshire
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464a**
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 911**
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1459 and Contributing Employers Health and Welfare Fund**
Alaska Pipe Trade U.A. Local 367 Health and Security Trust**
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630 Welfare Fund
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000
United Wire, Metal & Machine Health & Welfare Fund**
Cleveland Bakers Teamsters
Laundry and Dry Cleaning Workers Local No. 52
Social Service Employees Union Local 371
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Mount Laurel, NJ)
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1459
United Food and Commercial Workers and Participating Employers Interstate Health and Welfare Fund
Laborers’ International Union of North America Local Union No. 616 Health and Welfare Plan
UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1995
Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
UFCW Local 227
UFCW Maximus Local 455
You can see the updated list for yourselves right here.
Big hat tip to John Sexton in the Hot Air Green Room, who reports the rather curious delays in HHS’s posting of the new updates:
Last year, the HHS website was very efficient posting a list of ObamaCare waivers that had been granted. Ususally by the 3rd of the month the list was updated to included waivers that had been approved in the previous month. But something happened in January. Two weeks into the month no new waivers had been posted.
I was curious what caused the delay so I made some calls. Last Tuesday I spoke by phone with a media relations employees of HHS. She was not allowed to speak on the record, but after checking with folks at OCIIO who handle the ObamaCare waivers, she was able to inform me in a “not for attribution” way that the latest batch of waivers had in fact been processed. There was no specific hold-up that she could identify, they were simply running behind in getting the information on the website.
Well today, the day after the President’s State of the Union, the new waivers are up. You may recall that there were 222 such waivers approved in November. That number has now jumped to 729 through the end of December. The total number of people covered by the waivers has gone from 1.5M to just under 2.2M. The list includes the usual assortment of union locals and businesses.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that OCIIO was asked to hold this development until after the SOTU. Indeed the latest waiver approved in the list is from December 30th. There is an addendum at the bottom of the page noting that four states–Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee–have applied for waivers covering another 93,000 people. The addendum is dated 1/21/11, but I can assure you it was not there on 1/21 or even Monday…
More rich fodder for the House and Senate GOP probes of the Obamacare Waiver-mania program the Democrats don’t want to talk about…
1/24/10 Investigating Obamacare Waiver-mania
12/7/10 Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222
11/19/10 The Obamacare Waiver-mania! movement builds
11/17/10 Dude, where’s my Obamacare waiver?
11/14/10 Waiver-mania! The ever-expanding Obamacare escapee list
10/6/10 Obamacare waivers: Torquemada Sebelius spares McDonald’s, unions
January 28, 2011 5:08pm EST
President Barack Obama will visit Penn State's University Park campus Wednesday.
His visit will be part of an effort starting
next week to promote the initiatives for innovation, entrepreneurship and clean
energy he outlined in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, according to the
The visit to Penn State includes meeting at the University Park campus with those involved with the Energy Innovation Hub at the Philadelphia Naval Yard. Penn State received a five-year, $129 million U.S. Department of Energy grant for that project, the largest in its history.
The Energy Innovation Hub is a research center focused on developing technologies that will make buildings more energy efficient.
The White House said late Friday that the president will tour labs focused on energy-efficient building solutions and deliver remarks on the importance of investing in innovation and clean energy to put people back to work and grow the economy.
No further details were available Friday afternoon.
See tomorrow's Centre Daily Times for a complete report.
Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/01/28/2484023/obama-to-visit-state-college-wednesday.html#ixzz1CNuEwHG0
pro_life 7 minutes ago
The best way to put people back to work and grow the economy would be for Obama to resign. Everything that Obama has done to date has been antithetical to putting people to work and growing the economy. How many times do the drones have to be conned by a pathological lying Administration whose modus operandi is to give the country skyrocketing debt, printing funny money to finance it, as if that will make it magically go away, and in the process practically destroy the private sector with draconian regulations that discourage the development of abundant natural resources in America and along with it the attendant jobs? Sorry you coal miners in Appalachia, sorry you oil workers in Louisiana, you're not one of Obama's favorite constituencies, read those who will keep him in power at all costs to include the destruction of the country from within. And how about that wonderful Obamacare robbing Peter to pay Paul, like the Ponzi scheme that social security became with Medicare being cut to fund the Medicaid millions of claimed uninsured who weren't so in reality, i.e., many didn't want or need insurance, at least when they had the freedom to do so, good bye to that, thanks to tyrant in White House, and those who were in need of care not having it denied except in the agitprop of the Obamunists who couldn't care less about the truth! Seniors are now being told you better have supplemental care; else you won't have any with the Medicare cuts. Wow, so much for the golden years where Grandma and Grandpa will ultimately have a duty to die which is what end-of-life counseling translates too with incentives given to doctors to do so, moreover with doctors being coerced to do what the state says to do for their patients as opposed to what they deem is necessary. Good bye doctor-patient relationship. See this site for proof of the wonders, NOT, of Obamacare. http://www.defendyourhealthcar.../
Repeated statements from what's left of entrepreneurs in the small business arena, the engine of the economy, tell us that with the uncertainty of the aforementioned draconian regulations, don't look for more hires but rather layoffs. And does anyone think that those who are not crony capitalists are going to risk everything with only a 2 year waiver from the benevolent Obama in regard to retaining the Bush tax cuts by expanding and creating the jobs necessary to give confidence to everything else dependent upon same like the housing industry which is in the biggest tank in American history?
So please, CDT, spare us the garbage of the great job and economy creator when the truth of the matter is that everything that Obama has done since assuming office has been to destroy the private sector.
Hey, maybe we might all be lucky enough to get waivers from Obamacare like all of Obama's cronies when the real estimates of the cost increases are made known that have been hushed up to date by PRAVDA USA who shills for Obama on a daily basis. I mean if it's good enough for Obama's supporters, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us. Oops, I forgot, that's not the way a thugocracy works! We know that by the union types who beat up a black man opposing Obama at one of his town hall performances in the Midwest, I seem to recall, and about the demonization of any who dare to oppose Obama turning the American dream into a nightmare for our children and grandchildren.
What about national security while we're at it? The middle East is in turmoil and we're supposed to have confidence in an Administration to be on the right side when their priority is turning NASA into a Muslim outreach and stopping production on the next generation stealth fighter, which by coincidence, is now part of Communist China's arsenal that is increasing exponentially while we unilaterally disarm by agreeing to jokes like NEW START which keep us from defending ourselves missile wise in the way of new development. Gee, that's great, huh?
But don't worry. The sodomization of
the military, an Obama priority, will take care of all these trivial problems!
Yep, we got a guy who really cares about jobs necessary to keep America at the forefront in terms of industrial capacity and technology when he embraces policies that destroy children by the millions, about 50 million to be exact, since Roe v. Wade to the extreme of seeing nothing wrong with allowing babies to die after they miraculously survived attempts to kill them in the womb via his non support of Born Alive Infant Protection Acts. If you don't have any people, you're not going to have any workers. If you don't have any workers, you're not going to have a tax base to fund your social programs, you liberal drones. These things happen when generations are contracepted and aborted into oblivion.
The day Obama leaves the White House will be a day akin to the Hebrews leaving the bondage of Egypt as the cry in the land will be so loud rejoicing that it will be heard from coast to coast. And that day can't come soon enough for those still capable of rational thought who have had quite enough with the machinations of a narcissistic megalomaniac masquerading as president!
First They Came for the Lasers…
Posted By Conn Carroll On January 27, 2011 @ 3:00 pm In Protect America |
Making his case for cuts in defense spending, The Washington Post ‘s David Ignatius wrote yesterday:
Trimming the defense budget is one of the hardest tasks in Washington. … Senior Pentagon officials recognize that new technologies make it possible to reshape the budget without putting the country at greater risk.
… The new technologies that will drive these changes are detailed in a study called “Technology Horizons” that was prepared last year by Werner Dahm, who was then chief scientist of the Air Force. He urged research on “cyber resilience” and “electromagnetic spectrum warfare,” including lasers and other beam weapons.
… Lasers are only a few years away from being practical weapons, Pentagon officials say. Ground-based lasers could revolutionize air defense, and a new generation of solid-state lasers may be small enough for airborne platforms. “Directed-energy systems will be among the key ‘game-changing’ technology-enabled capabilities,” wrote Dahm.
This is all true. There is just one problem: lasers were among the first things the Obama administration put on the defense budget chopping block. The Washington Post  reported on October 29th, 2009:
President Obama signed a $680 billion defense authorization bill Wednesday that he said begins the difficult process of eliminating “some of the waste and inefficiency” from the defense budget. … The president had threatened to veto the measure if Congress did not cut several costly programs that military leaders said they did not need. Congress did eliminate … an airborne laser and the Future Combat Systems, a space-age Army initiative to link sensors, soldiers, and information systems with unmanned and manned vehicles.
All of the systems that Obama cut are exactly the type of technologies that Ignatius says we need to better defend ourselves in the future. Does Ignatius not know this? Maybe he should reconsider his zealous defense spending cut beliefs.
This is not to say that our defense budget is perfect. Far from it. Heritage Foundation defense policy analysts Mackenzie Eaglen and Julia Pollack have identified  defense spending reforms that could save taxpayers more than $70 billion. But it is vitally important that these savings are plugged back in to the new technologies that Ignatius says are needed to defend this country.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
 The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012504783.html
 The Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/28/obama_signs_defense_authorizat.html
2011 09:52 AM by Michelle Malkin
By Michelle Malkin • January 27, 2011 09:52 AM
Grim reaper photoshop credit: Manly Rash
President Obama used the word “jobs” 31 times in his State of the Union Address.
Did you add “-killing” under your breath every time he read the word on his teleprompter? Me, too.
While Obama was out on the trail filming 2012 campaign ads on the taxpayer’s dime, workers in industries demonized by this White House were getting more bad news.
The Obama administration’s own experts estimate their proposal for protecting streams from coal mining would eliminate thousands of jobs and slash production across much of the country, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement document says the agency’s preferred rules would impose standards for water quality and restrictions on mining methods that would affect the quality or quantity of streams near coal mines. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations that set up buffer zones around streams and were aimed chiefly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.
The proposal — part of a draft environmental impact statement — would affect coal mines from Louisiana to Alaska.
The office, a branch of the Interior Department, estimated that the protections would trim coal production to the point that an estimated 7,000 of the nation’s 80,600 coal mining jobs would be lost…
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu again is urging the Obama administration to issue deepwater drilling permits.
The Louisiana Democrat called on the administration to approve new permits at a Senate Energy Committee meeting Wednesday.
Landrieu says that deepwater drilling has been “virtually shut down” since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion last April. She says drilling can be done safely.
She says five deepwater platforms in the Gulf have left to drill in other parts of the world, costing the Gulf Coast about 5,000 jobs.
The Forest Service will not allow development on 44,720 acres of contested oil and gas leases in the Wyoming Range, officials announced Tuesday.
Bridger-Teton National Forest supervisor Jacque Buchanan announced her decision with a statement, which sportsmen and conservation groups hailed as a victory in the quest to protect Wyoming’s most important wild places from energy development.
The leases were proposed 35 miles southeast of Jackson in Sublette County.
…U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) criticized the move.
“The Forest Service’s decision took into account everything but jobs, the economy, energy independence and national security,” she said. “Gas prices are creeping upward toward four dollars a gallon and America is continually increasing our reliance on foreign countries for energy.
“Through modern environmentally responsible methods, these resources can provide the country with secure, affordable fuel and offer people in Wyoming high-paying jobs that help support nearby communities,” Lummis said. “This misguided decision puts our multiple use lands under lock and key.”
Related NYPost editorial: O’s big Fisher Story
Related IBD editorial: Carol Browner Goes, Draconian Policies Stay
Update: Heckuva job, Obamacare. Abbott Labs announces it will slash 1,900 jobs due to Obamacare and a “challenging regulatory environment:”
Laboratories, maker of the rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira,
said it will cut about 1,900 jobs as part of a restructuring of its
…The job cuts come “in response to changes in the health-care industry, including U.S. health-care reform and the challenging regulatory environment,” Abbott said in the statement. The move will “streamline commercial and manufacturing operations, improve efficiencies and reduce costs.”
Obamacare Forces More Layoffs at Daley’s Old Firm
Posted By Brandon Stewart On January 27, 2011 @ 1:00 pm In Health Care |
Major Chicago pharmaceutical company Abbott Laboratories will be forced to cut 1,900 jobs  (more than 2% of their entire workforce) it announced late yesterday afternoon. As Bloomberg notes, these cuts follow almost 9,000 jobs the company cut just last September.
In a statement announcing the cuts, a spokesman explained that Obamacare had already cost the company $200 million in the past year and that the layoffs were “in response to changes in the health- care industry, including U.S. health-care reform and the challenging regulatory environment”. Maybe this time the White House will listen. Up until just two weeks ago, Bill Daley, President Obama’s new Chief of Staff, served as a member of Abbott’s board of directors .
While the President continues to oppose repeal , despite public disapproval , it is increasingly clear that the facts are not on his side. As Heritage reinforced recently in our Case Against Obamacare series , it is hard to study this massive new law and not come away with the realization that it’s a raw deal for the American people. So as Obamacare repeal efforts begin to take shape  in the Senate, we can only hope that Obama’s Chief of staff will use his firsthand experience to point this out to his new boss the devastating impact that this law has already had.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
 will be forced to cut 1,900 jobs: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0127-abbott-side-20110127,0,171236.story
 served as a member of Abbott’s board of directors: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9KLPO6G0.htm
 continues to oppose repeal: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFlu/state-union-2011-obama-open-fixing-parts-health-care-reform-bill/story?id=12766606
 Case Against Obamacare series: http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/the-case-against-obamacare
 begin to take shape: http://heritageaction.com/2011/01/senators-demint-and-vitter-introduce-obamacare-repeal-bills/
Obama administration and health care skeptics clash over whether or not the law will save money for families
Health Care Costs in Question as Obama Administration Grants Waivers
By Jim Angle
Published January 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
The Obama Administration claimed Friday its health care law will bring down costs for everyone once it takes full effect in 2014, even as the President made fun of its critics.
"You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That's about how it's been portrayed by opponents," he joked to laughter among the crowd at a Families USA conference in Washington.
A new Health and Human Services Report states that families will save money under the law.
The original source of that conclusion is a 2009 analysis from the Congressional Budget office that looked at some provisions and predicted that "Average [health care] premiums would be seven to 10 percent lower..."
But the same analysis also predicted that other provisions of the law would have the opposite effect, saying "Average [health care] premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher..."
That prompted Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to issue a statement saying "This report would be laughable if it wasn't so disingenuous. The facts remain clear: the Democrats' health care law increases health care costs."
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has now tripled the number of waivers granted to employers who cannot meet with the requirements of the new law -- from a little more than 200 to more than 700.
"Even the Obama administration is admitting by granting these waivers that they better make some exceptions or they're going to have the unintended consequence of having more uninsured, not less," according to Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says "What's happening is the federal government is trying to force workers to have a health insurance plan that's more expensive than they or their employers can afford."
The law now forces all plans to offer at least 750,000 dollars in annual benefits, but the administration has already granted waivers to McDonald's and other low wage firms.
Goodman and others fear employers will just drop insurance altogether and pay the penalties, or hire fewer people.
"The cheapest thing for an employer not to do is not to hire people," Goodman says, "to hire only temporary workers. To hire contract laborers. And then you get out from under the fines. You get out from under the mandates, but is that really where we want to go?"
Hundreds of entities from banks to church groups to school districts are saying they can't live up to the law.
The group also includes dozens of unions chapters, most of which supported passage of the bill -- from electrical workers to Teamsters to the Service Employees Union, which organizes low wage workers.
Even a union representing NY Firefighters asked for a waiver, as well as several states whose own health care requirements were lower than the new federal law.
The waivers last for a year but can be renewed until 2014, at which point everyone has to get insurance from their employer, or through state run exchanges where those making less than 80 thousand dollars a year will get federal subsidies.
"They will be eligible for a new federal subsidy structure that will provide them with discounted premiums. That's the new entitlement in the health care law that's going to be so expensive."
And at the moment, the cost is the hottest issue. The administration promises everyone can have better health care at lower prices. Critics say they're spending a trillion dollars over ten years... and that money has to come from somewhere.
What happens if Egypt becomes an Islamist State? Has anyone considered this, given that Egypt is a relatively a big powerful country that could easily be taken over by nut jobs who are all gathering now like vultures looking over the dead? We had better be sure who we're backing, which means that we're in a mess because having confidence in the Obamunists whose leader wants to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach is like trusting Bill Clinton in a room full of coeds. The bottom line is that we don't have the right administration in place to handle explosive situations like this, which is the mother of all understatements! - Gary L. Morella
Caller has broken a story about how the Southern Poverty Law Center, a source
of information for the major media on such matters as the Arizona shooting rampage,
is now placing its articles in a communist newspaper through a left-wing “news
Liberal Journalist Ken Silverstein has written several articles about the questionable fund-raising techniques of the SPLC, including exaggerating alleged right-wing threats to make money.
John Rossomando of The Daily Caller has broken a story about how the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a source of information for the major media on such matters as the Arizona shooting rampage, is now placing its articles in a communist newspaper through a left-wing “news service.”
The paper is the People’s World, the official on-line publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The CPUSA is the old Moscow-line party which was funded by the Soviet Union and infiltrated the U.S. government with agents and spies. It was an official sponsor of the October 2, 2010, “One Nation Working Together” progressive rally in Washington.
The Rossomando piece reports that Mark Potok, the director of the “intelligence project” of the SPLC, “declined to comment when asked whether ‘People’s World’ should remove his commentary or whether he disapproved of the CPUSA newspaper’s decision to publish his piece.”
The no-comment is unusual for Potok, who has been widely quoted by the press as some kind of authority on the “far right,” with National Public Radio portraying him as an expert on “extremist groups.” Now, the SPLC itself stands accused of being in bed with an organ of a political party whose ideology The Black Book of Communism says is responsible for about 100 million deaths.
Paul Kengor, author of Dupes, a book on how communists use liberals for their own purposes, told Rossomando, “It is ironic that liberal groups such as the SPLC, like other liberals, never see the pro-communists as the bad guys.”
But this isn’t the first time that Potok has appeared in the People’s World. An article from March of 2010 claimed he had played a role in forcing Lou Dobbs to leave CNN and quoted him as saying that constituents of Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann should pressure her to “stop” making “false allegations” about President Obama.
The SPLC President J. Richard Cohen said Dobbs was a racist and had to go because he dared to assert that Obama’s certification of live birth, released by the Obama presidential campaign, is not the “original document” because it fails to include basic information about the hospital where he was born and the attending physician. Legitimate or long-form birth certificates include such information.
While attempting to protect Obama from serious scrutiny into his background, the SPLC labeled communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, an associate of the President, “a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education,” and even promoted an American Indian group that celebrates the killer of two FBI agents.
The Potok article in the communist paper denounces an obscure event sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Liberal Journalist Ken Silverstein has written several articles about the questionable fund-raising techniques of the SPLC, including exaggerating alleged right-wing threats to make money. In regard to the Arizona massacre, the SPLC was quick to cite a Fox News report, later exposed as false, that a right-wing group had influenced shooter Jared Loughner.
The Potok article on the southern heritage controversy was provided through a news service, OtherWords, sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
The IPS came under criticism in the 1980s, even from a New York Times Magazine article “Think Tank of the Left,” for being a mouthpiece for anti-American and communist regimes. One of its officials, Orlando Letelier, was exposed as a Cuban agent in briefcase papers found by law enforcement authorities after his death. Bill Ayers himself had been an IPS speaker on educational issues.
Rather than being just one of several sources of articles being placed in “progressive” publications like the People’s World, the SPLC is a “partner” in the IPS OtherWords news service, along with such organizations as the George Soros-funded Free Press, founded by Marxist Robert McChesney. Potok spoke at a Free Press conference.
By Doug Hagmann Friday, January 28, 2011
Insight into the historical framework of our current national peril
This is the most difficult report update I’ve ever filed on any investigative matter on which I’ve worked, and certainly the most important. It strikes directly at the heart of the national security of the United States, which has been under attack from within for the last 75 years or longer. What exists today began with people who are long dead, but whose agendas live on through others to whom the torch has been passed. It is the proverbial rabbit hole that goes deeper than most can fathom.
At center stage stands Barack Hussein Obama, the man who currently holds the highest office in the free world. He is the contemporaneous result of decades of treasonous deceptions and socialist penetration into areas of our government that we were warned about by Senator Joe McCarthy, a man whose legacy has been deliberately rewritten so that the mere mention of his name evokes undeserved revulsion by the majority of people in America. Even though Mr. McCarthy has not been with us for over 50 years, his investigative work as a U.S. senator figures prominently into our current state of affairs.
Before you accuse me of taking leave of my senses, I ask that you research the declassified revelations of the 1990s that came about after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Consider the documentation that was exposed, such as the Venona papers, and other once classified yet still heavily redacted documents released under the radar to be the predecessor of Wikileaks. Look carefully at what McCarthy was trying to warn Americans about, and then analyze for yourself the well crafted methodology of marginalization through obfuscation used by those in power, those in the media, and even many in Hollywood. You will find that what existed over 50 years ago not only exists today, but has been magnificently refined.
The marginalization of McCarthy and the deliberate expunging of historical records exposing the Marxist, Socialist and Communist infiltration into nearly all levels of our government of that era explains why we still find ourselves questioning not only the eligibility status of our current president, but the majority of his background. It is an undeniable fact that Barack Hussein Obama has refused to provide authenticated evidence of his eligibility to occupy our White House, the house of the American people. In fact, he has fought the release of records that would prove, once and for all, this most basic issue, and further refused to release documents that would provide insight into America’s most mysterious president.
The mystery behind Obama extends well beyond the birth certificate controversy, although that has grown into the most recognizable issue of late. For better or worse relative to the truly important aspects of Obama, the actions and behavior of Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie have fueled speculation among “birthers,” a pejorative term assigned to Americans who care about constitutional issues and the rule of law. Over a half-century ago, it’s likely that birthers would have been referred to as “McCarthyites” instead. The names have changes, but the template of marginalization is the same.
Students of history – true history, not the revisionist type – would do well to recall the communist infiltration of the U.S. State Department and other federal agencies under the watch of Roosevelt and Truman. History shows that they were aware of what was taking place, but for reasons that are still applicable today, allowed the progression of infiltration to continue. Like a game of geopolitical chess, wars were fought under pretense while the coffers of the power elite hedged their bets by financing all sides in these conflicts. Nation building and the implementation of “fundamental change” of America was underway long before Obama uttered that promise on which he is delivering.
The infrastructure of infiltration was designed for the long term, having the ultimate objective of one day taking control of the United States from within. Through a series of hand-offs otherwise known as elections of those who were selected before they were elected, the fundamental change was well in progress by those in power behind the scenes.
The objective then was to institute a communist agenda within America, from the inside out as our status as a military superpower would disallow a takeover by any other means. So, too, was the formidable patriotic American psyche that existed. The time was just not right. But the power brokers of the day, the globalists, knew that times would change and Americans would become softer. They have, and we have, thus leading to our current state where the U.S. Constitution is under daily attack.
Consider then that assuming the office of the U.S. presidency, the highest office in the free world, is the ultimate subversion of the Constitution. The safeguards built into the Constitution by our founders were left to individuals who were the products and by-products of the infiltration and ultimate compromise of our legal and moral principles that began long ago. It was and continues to be a metastatic infiltration that involves all branches and levels of our government and both sides of the political spectrum.
This history of infiltration provides the answer to how America could possibly elect a president who has refused to prove his eligibility under the provisions of the Constitution. It provides insight into how our electoral vetting process was compromised, and why there is such a vociferous campaign by politicians and pundits alike to disparage anyone questioning the legitimacy of Obama.
There are precious few in the media who lack culpability in this matter. Many pundits who command audiences of millions, whether on the radio or television, have made it a blood sport to mock reasonable people who deserve answers to legitimate questions. Some make it about race while others make it about conspiracy. Some intentionally obfuscate the issue, while others make false claims of having seen or holding a paper of historical importance. Meanwhile, the instruments of this administration have created, willfully and deliberately, a fictitious Internet clearing house to reportedly separate rumor from fact. There is ample evidence of intent to deceive the American people, and strong suggestions of criminal intent.
The things that do not make sense when considered individually, such as our schizophrenic approach to our national security, our borders, and the seemingly deliberate erosion of our national sovereignty, now become a bit more understandable, albeit in a most uncomforting way. The talk of a New World Order by both Republicans and Democrats that began over a half century ago, absurd denials of the existence of the coming of a North American Union, and the manner in which those who dare talk about these issues are marginalized now become more understandable.
The goals of the globalists have not changed. The desire to subjugate our national sovereignty has never before been so rabid. The closer our enemies within come to accomplishing their objectives, the greater the danger becomes to the freedom granted to us by God and our Constitution.
As long as Obama is permitted to occupy the highest office without any person, group or agency demanding answers and accountability, the more dangerous and perilous times become. The longer we allow our elected officials to disregard our demand for answers, dismiss us, ignore us, or impugn the reasonableness of our concerns, the closer we become to losing our Republic.
At issue is more than a piece of paper detailing the pedigree of Barack Hussein Obama. We need complete disclosure, and we need it now, not in 2012. Tomorrow might be too late.
Obama's Sputnik moment
Posted: January 28, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
By Brian Fairrington
by Sarah Palin on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 10:40am
Please read this article by the Hoover Institution’s
Research Fellow Peter Schweizer. Schweizer,
who has written
extensively on the subject of the decline and fall of the Soviet
Union, offers a Washington
Post writer an important refresher on the real history of Sputnik,
since many critics are engaged in misreporting:
Palin’s other point is that Sputnik was the sort of government bureaucratic program that got the Soviet Union in trouble; it’s an example of what eventually did them in. Citing Wikipedia (what journalistic ingenuity!), Stromberg argues that actually the Soviet Union didn’t have a debt problem until some “thirty years after” Sputnik. Perhaps instead of relying on Wikipedia, Stromberg might have consulted Robert Gates’ book From the Shadows which chronicles, in part, his career as a Soviet analyst at the CIA. (Just in case they are unaware at the Post, this is the same Robert Gates who is now the Secretary of Defense.) On page 173, he accurately points out that the CIA knew early on of the “Soviet economic crisis. From the late 1950s, CIA had clearly described the chronic weaknesses as well as the formidable military power of the Soviet Union.”
Read the whole thing here.
Now, in a recent interview I mentioned analogies that could relate to solutions to our economic challenges, including the difference between a communist government’s “Sputnik” and the private sector’s “Spudnut.” The analogies I mentioned obviously aren’t comparable in size, but highlight a clear difference in economic focus: big government command and control economies vs. America’s small businesses.
If you’re near Richland, WA, you should stop by The Spudnut Shop, where you’ll find an all-American success story of a family owned small business that for over 60 years has been serving up a product that people want to buy. Businesses like this coffee shop don’t receive big government bailouts. They produce something with their own ingenuity and hard work. And here we see the former communist Soviet Union’s advancement (before its government debt-ridden demise) vs. America’s small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.
We’d be better off if we had a greater appreciation for the free market ingenuity of ordinary American entrepreneurs, both great and small – whether they make high-tech gadgets or potato donuts. And this goes for all our small business owners – whether they run a family farm, a commercial salmon fishing business, an auto shop, a print shop, a consulting firm, a restaurant, you name it. Our government should show them more respect by not punishing their success and limiting their ability to hire more people by over-taxing and over-reaching into their businesses. Don’t stifle their growth with burdensome regulations like Obamacare and cap-and-tax. Government should be on their side, not in their way.
I believe and trust in the strength of America’s private sector. But I sometimes fear that the current administration in Washington distrusts or discounts the individuals who have built this country; hence their belief that only a distant bureaucratic elite in D.C. can make decisions for our small businesses that will provide American opportunity. This administration’s thinking is wrong. We don’t need a command and control economy that “invests” our money in their half-baked ideas. We need freedom, reward for hard work, and a re-invigorated sense of personal responsibility and work ethic, especially among our young people.
We need to be as motivated and optimistic as our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, many of whom started out with nothing but a dream as they built a life for themselves by the sweat of their brow. They didn’t ask for bailouts. They didn’t expect anything from anyone. They wanted the freedom and opportunity to work hard and prosper by their own merits. If at first they failed, they took their lumps, dusted themselves off, got back up, and tried again until they succeeded. They didn’t retreat. They built this country and they passed on to us more prosperity and opportunity than has ever been bestowed on any generation in human history. We must not squander that inheritance. Let’s get back to their common sense values.
- Sarah Palin
Posted on January 28 2011 - 4:30 PM - Posted by: Nicole Coulter
After the 2008 election, the right-leaning Washington Examiner learned through a records search that 88% of the campaign donations made by network news employees, including writers, producers, reporters, and executives, went to Democrats. Just 88%, huh?
Not coincidentally, a Harvard study conducted during the 2008 election found that 47% of the print and broadcast stories about Barack Obama were overtly positive vs. only 12% positive for John McCain, while the Washington Post’s own ombudsman acknowledged that Obama received three times more front-page coverage than McCain, and that reporters went over the top in their scrutiny of Gov. Palin compared to then-Sen. Biden. Fair and balanced, my friends!
And file this under the obvious, but a Media Research Study further confirmed the bias, studying every mention of Barack Obama since his appearance on the national stage in 2004, concluding:
The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. [...]
The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a “liberal” 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a “rock star,” “rising star” or “superstar” during the same period.
In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
For the longest time, I never understood conservative complaints about media bias. I was blissfully unaware of liberal media bias, much like a submerged fish is blissfully ignorant of the presence of water. That is, of course, because I was liberal. And a journalist.
Why is it, in fact, that so many journalists are liberal?
I have to go back to my own training and career in journalism. I was raised in a conservative-leaning home in Northern Utah, by Mormon parents. Then something radical happened. I went to college and decided to major in journalism and political science. Each of my journalism and political science instructors even at a red state public university were hardcore liberals. Many of my classmates, and best friends in college were liberal. I came to adopt the assumptions and worldviews of those around me. I don’t think my experience is unique.
What is it about journalism that attracts — and breeds – liberals?
For one, I’d have to concede that journalism is not a mainstream major or career. It’s akin to majoring in art history or sociology. When you tell most “normal” people you’re majoring in journalism, they immediately give you a look of complete pity and apprehension, as was the case when I told my mother that I planned to become a newspaper reporter. She asked: “Can you make a living doing that?”
No doubt, Mom, a savvy businesswoman, was doing the math: There is usually only one newspaper and very few broadcast affiliates in town, and what if they’re not hiring? Where do you find a job in journalism? Wouldn’t you have to live in a major city and move around quite a bit? And aren’t journalists notoriously poorly paid?
Indeed. Of course Mom was unaware of the myriad writing positions available in trade journalism or technical fields, which is where I ended up, quite by accident, writing feature articles for business trade publications for 15 years – not a bad career, although some journalism majors wind up going to law school or returning to academia, which I considered as well.
Because I wrote for Wall Street publications, later earning an MBA, I was exposed, perhaps more than most journalists, to the entrepreneurial spirit of true capitalists, not to mention a slightly higher pay scale. That gave me a fighting chance to overcome my radical liberal instincts (which I finally kicked in 2004). I think my traditional moral views — ever at odds with the Democrat party — also played a role in my “conversion” to conservatism, along with the fact I was married to a pro-life Catholic, and lived for a decade in America’s heartland.
Looking back at the journalists I’ve worked with over the years, however, most remain in their liberal bubbles, surrounded by likeminded liberals, convinced that they alone are doing idealistic work for the mythically oppressed – sometimes even as they “sell out” for media-related jobs in corporate America. They often wear their distain for Republicans, capitalists, corporations, the military, and organized religion on their sleeves, as if religious Republicans or the American military are the source of all oppression and injustice. Hey, we’re all products of our prejudices.
Even the business press is not immune. The last editor I worked for refused to let our staff portray Social Security negatively or refer to its ponzi scheme characteristics. He must be doing his best to cover up news that Social Security is now running a permanent deficit. I am so not missing being under his thumb.
In journalism school, Republicans are viewed largely as caricatures: heartless and greedy, and as always attempting to shove religion down people’s throats by opposing legalized abortion.
If you step foot on any major college campus, you will gain an insight into why journalists are liberal. Colleges bring together large numbers of people who run to the ideological left. Indeed, universities (especially humanities and communication departments) are havens and hotbeds for people who don’t fit in ideologically with the larger community or the center-right country at large. They are mini-Berkeleys and Haight Ashburies.
And so are newsrooms. For three years, I worked for a daily newspaper in Logan, Utah – one of the most conservative cities on the planet. But you’d never know it from the newsroom, which was filled with environmental extremists, hardcore feminists, and leftover 60s radicals. This small-town newsroom was so disconnected from the community it served, it still blows my mind. It was like a time warp. Outside the newsroom it was 1990 … Inside, 1970. Newsrooms, in general, are filled with iconoclasts, curmudgeons, and cultural rebels, even in small towns – and perhaps, especially in small towns. While a whopping 80% of my community was Mormon, I can only recall two reporters out of a dozen or more I worked with who were active members of any faith, let alone the predominant religion. I would dare say 80% of the newspaper staff was either agnostic or atheistic, especially among the editor ranks. Most of the staff, in fact, were secular East Coast and Upper Midwest transplants who flocked to Utah for the outdoor environment, not the cultural landscape.
Why the disconnect? Why don’t more conservatives go into journalism? Why are the devoutly religious severely under-represented in newsrooms?
I think it’s because conservatives have tended to pursue more traditional careers, jobs that pay better or that would lend themselves to family life in suburban or rural settings — closer to home. Even Governor Palin was forced to give up her career in sports journalism for family life. She no doubt would have had to relocate from Alaska to pursue her dreams of working for ESPN. She would have had to have been willing to move wherever the job took her, and that, often, I believe influences the transitory and cosmopolitan nature of the newsroom. So few of the people covering the “locals” are themselves “local.”
For whatever reason, journalism is still not the cultural equivalent of a career in accounting. Journalism is predominantly of, for, and by liberals – a career for those who either eschew normalcy, lean urban, or prefer the counter culture, kinda like a career in graphic arts or jazz.
Will this ever change?
Not likely. Especially as newsrooms are increasingly hit by economic reality. But I think we’ve reached a tipping point. I think it is now liberals who have become the establishment, and conservatives are the new rebels. Liberals dominate the culture: schools, media, courts, entertainment, some churches, and most of the federal government. How can they claim to be counter cultural when they run the culture? Moreover, just as fish don’t notice water, liberals in newsrooms don’t notice when nearly nine out of ten of their colleagues share their same liberal world view, the same view they perceive as “mainstream.”
We may very well see a conservative Woodward and Bernstein emerging from the right as a new generation rebels against their Baby Boomer predecessors. The pro-life and Tea Party movements are fertile ground for young conservatives to rock the liberal establishment.
That being said, thankfully, liberal journalists have lost their monopoly power on information. We may never see a rightward shift by the “mainstream” media. But conservative consumers are voting with their feet, their ears and their eyes – getting their news elsewhere, including talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere, where conservatism thrives.
As much as it pains me to say this about my former colleagues, I long for the day when much of the liberal “mainstream” media is rendered irrelevant, a footnote in history, an aberration in the long flow of human communication. I long for what Dan Calabrese at North Star National sees as an impending Berlin Wall moment for the mainstream media.
To those in my profession who still cling to the notion they are fighting a protracted battle with the “oppressive” right, I invite them to examine their own ideological pathology: are they projecting their own demons onto an entire group of people with whom they disagree? Are they still rebelling against their conservative parents or fighting the conservative church they were raised in? Isn’t this new generation of leftists simply regurgitating the nostalgic talking points of failed 60s radicals?
The best way to combat the liberal media is by going around them, ignoring their pathological hatred for all things conservative. This is what Governor Palin does, and it drives them batty. She defies their attempts to classify and caricaturize her as a dangerous “other” … when she clearly represents the common sense, balanced views of most Americans.
For much of journalistic history in this country, newspapers were balkanized into political categories. In the late 1800s, opposing party papers battled it out on equal footing. That is why we still see legacy papers with names such as The Fresno Republican or Hunterdon County Democrat. The notion of media “objectivity” is a relatively recent phenomenon coinciding with the emergence of radio and TV news, and a pure myth, at that.
In an ideal world, nobody would believe in media objectivity. We would have enough ideological competition among news providers that bias wouldn’t be a problem. Because biased reporters would not be able to pass themselves off as objective, as MSNBC attempts to do when its unhinged liberal commentators are allowed to host election night coverage. Even Fox News, much-maligned by liberals, doesn’t surrender its news coverage to hardcore partisans, unless you think mild-mannered Brett Baier qualifies as a rightwing flamethrower.
My goal is to shatter the illusion of objectivity far and wide, to affix a metaphorical consumer warning label on liberal news. Nobody should sit down to watch the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, for instance, expecting to receive “objective” information from a radical pro-abortion Upper West Side Manhattan liberal. And the Associated Press might as well rename itself the Angry Progressive for its role in defaming conservatism. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a list of all the “reporters” with their backgrounds and political contributions right out in the open? If a reporter like Rachel D’or of the AP wants to pass herself off as a legitimate reporter, we should paste a warning label to every one of her articles, exposing her ties to radical environmentalism.
Perhaps if she runs for president, Governor Palin could start calling liberal reporters the “Obama Media.” I like that better than “lamestream,” in fact. Nobody should suffer the illusion that they’re not his paid shills. In Obama, they have the ultimate radical realization of all their counter-culture dreams. He is the “mainstream” vision of liberal bliss. With anger simmering just beneath the surface, Obama is the media. Just as he cynically pretends to be a centrist, they pretend to be objective – while sending their money to the cause.
I say bring on the revolution. We in the conservative blogosphere don’t pretend to be centrist. We don’t pretend to be objective, though we do traffic in facts. And we can pursue our writing from the hinterlands, children in tow, loosed from the media’s Coastal urban groupthink. The new media is gonna drain the murky swamp, and leave the Obama Media “fish” out of water, exposed and gasping for breath.
Which is what aging rebels should expect. Everything old is new again, right? The times, indeed, are changing. Spread the news!
Why socialists hate America's founders
Exclusive: Alan Keyes thrashes Chris Matthews for disparaging nation's framers
Why socialists hate America's founders
January 29, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
This week Chris Matthews threw an adolescent fit, calling Michele Bachmann a "balloon head" because she claimed that America's founders "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
Matthews' petty tirade must be viewed against the backdrop of the socialist-leaning left's longstanding inclination to diminish the standing and putative authority of America's founding generation. These people never miss an opportunity to point out that some of the founders were slaveholders. Some of the founders drank too much. Some of the founders were sexual libertines and adulterers. Not only were they no better than we are, their racism and bigotry make us their superiors. We are, therefore, no longer bound to think their views about politics or government have any special status or deserve any special consideration.
Though couched in terms of personal disparagement, this denigration of the founders isn't at all about personal feelings or sensitivities. Sure, many on the socialist left still feel obliged to pay lip service to the U.S. Constitution. Like Obama, they even occasionally mouth the language of rights, as if to echo the famous affirmations of the American Declaration of Independence. But the idea of government limited by the moral requirements of unalienable right contradicts the efficient pursuit of socialist goals. Structural constraints like federalism or the separation of government powers inhibit the imposition of socialist change. People who view politics as the realm of "Yes we can" have little patience for an understanding of government that tells those with power what they can't rightly do on account of the God-endowed rights and responsibilities of natural individuals and families, or the communities (like our religious institutions or our states and localities) they voluntarily comprise.
As I have frequently pointed out in articles here and on my blog since Obama took up residence in the White House, the key leaders of the Obama faction Democrats have, from day one, signaled their contemptuous impatience with constitutional constraints. Obama sloughs off the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" requirement for the office of president. Nancy Pelosi laughs off the question of Obamacare's conformity with the Constitution's limitations on the U.S. government's powers. And as for voters being intimidated by leftist blacks, Eric Holder waives off the requirement that all citizens be accorded equal protection by the law.
These attitudes illustrate the deep animosity for limited government that gives the leaders and pundits of the overtly socialist faction the motive to assail the respectability of founders like George Washington. Who cares what slaveholders thought about rights? Who cares what racist imposers of human bondage thought about the limits on government power? Discredit the people and you discredit the notion that people should bother to consider what they thought. Discredit the founders and you can banish from public discourse and education any serious consideration of what they introduced as the basis for justice in political life.
There's no denying the effectiveness of this deployment of the tried-and-true ad hominem attack. It has worked so well that many people in the black community actually believe silly slurs like "The founders thought blacks were only three-fifths of a person" as if the oft cited phrase in the Constitution applied only to black slaves and not, for example, to noncitizen permanent residents. And, of course, this slur entirely ignores the fact that the whole point of the provision was to prevent the states with large slave populations from getting more votes in Congress on that account, thereby empowering and encouraging slavery in the states.
People unwilling to think through relatively simple matters like that surely don't want to consider the profoundly difficult challenge faced by those in the founding generation who sincerely held to the truth that God-endowed right pertains to all human beings, and who therefore trembled for their country (as Jefferson said) when they remembered God's justice. Given the age-old roots of slavery, what's truly remarkable about the American founders is not the injustice they practiced or tolerated, but the fact that they acknowledged, and enshrined as the basis for America's political life, principles that revealed and condemned that injustice.
In this respect, they were in fact very different from left-leaning pundits like Chris Matthews. Such folks vociferously oppose people who claim the right to discriminate against or enslave others based on the physical characteristics of race. But they adamantly insist that all people have the right murderously to discriminate against their helpless offspring based on the progress of their undeniably human development. As most of us sometimes do, America's founders violated a standard of justice for all that they acknowledged to be true. Today, people like Matthews passionately connive at getting all of us to deny the true standard of justice so that some of us may violate it with impunity.
Is it just coincidence that this recants the premise that forbids a few to oppress all the rest? Is it just a coincidence that it re-establishes the assumption that when some people have others in a position entirely dependent upon their power (as mothers have their children in the womb), they may dispose of them at their convenience, with no rule of right to hinder them? When they promote the oxymoron of "abortion rights," do elite talkers like Matthews serve the freedom of women, or do they quietly restore the premise of age-old elite tyranny?
However that may be, given a choice between America's founders and folks like Matthews, Obama and the rest of the "abortion-rights" crowd, the right choice is clear: Better to have people with the will and courage to establish the premise of right, though constrained by lack of power from its fulfillment, than powerful people who treat wrong as right in order to free their power from all constraint. Through the founders, God helped America to be born in justice. As for the others, well, God help us all!
COLUMN DU JOUR
Cold truth about electric cars
in icy weather, power outages
Charles Lane: Obama wants taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions on plug-in hybrids
Editorial writer Charles Lane, a skeptic of General Motors' new electric car, goes for a test drive in the Volt with the company's Washington, D.C. spokesperson, Greg Martin.
By Charles Lane
Friday, January 28, 2011
Count me among the many thousands of Washington area residents who spent Wednesday night stuck in traffic as a snowstorm sowed chaos all around us. Being car-bound in sub-freezing weather for six hours can make a guy think. I counted my blessings. The situation could have been worse, I realized: My fellow commuters and I could have been trying to make it home in electric cars, like the ones President Obama is constantly promoting, most recently in his State of the Union address.
The exact loss of power these cars would suffer is a matter of debate, partly because no one has much real-world experience to draw on. But there would be some loss. Running the heater to stay warm, or the car radio to stay informed, would drain the battery further.
Here's how thecarelectric.com, a pro-electric Web site, candidly summarized the matter:
"All batteries deliver their power via a chemical reaction inside the battery that releases electrons. When the temperature drops the chemical reactions happen more slowly and the battery cannot produce the same current that it can at room temperature. A change of ten degrees can sap 50% of a battery's output. In some situations the chemical reactions will happen so slowly and give so little power that the battery will appear to be dead when in fact if it is warmed up it will go right back to normal output. . . .
"In a car where all power is supplied by a battery pack you can see where this would be a problem. The batteries don't produce as much power so the car has less power. The batteries also have to work harder so the effective range of the car is also significantly reduced. Charge time will also be longer. Cold has a negative impact on all aspects of battery operation."
"Alongside the negative impact on the batteries cold also has a negative impact on the driver as well. Drivers need to be warm to operate the vehicle effectively so on top of the reduced range and power of the batteries just from the temperature they also must operate the car heater to keep you warm. This will further reduce the range of the car.
"If you live in an area where the winters get extremely cold an all-electric vehicle will have to be garaged and equipped with some kind of plug-in battery warmer for it to be effective in the coldest months of the year. Keep these thoughts in mind if you're planning an electric car purchase; we don't want you finding out the range of your car has been halved when it's five below zero and you're fifteen miles from home."
To be sure, gas-powered cars are hardly invulnerable. Plenty of motorists ran out of fuel in Wednesday night's mega-jam. But my hunch is that electrics would faced similar problems or worse. And many electric-car drivers who did manage to limp home Wednesday would have been out of options the next day: You can't recharge if you don't have electricity, and hundreds of thousands of customers were blacked out Thursday from the snow. The Post reports that this will be the case for many of them for days.
Carmakers say they are on top of these issues. General Motors has tested the Volt's battery in cold conditions and says it includes a margin of reserve power for such weather. Indeed, the Volt comes equipped with a backup internal combustion engine, so you need never fear, as long as the tank is full of premium gas (the only kind a Volt can use). Of course, burning gas rather defeats the "green" purpose of the $41,000 (before federal tax rebate) four-seat car. But at least you won't die of exposure on the road.
As for the Leaf, which touts a 100-mile range under optimum conditions (i.e., mild weather and no big hills like the ones I had to negotiate on 16th Street), Nissan is designing a "cold weather package" of options. But neither the cost nor the availability date has been announced.
Now, if the cars were cheaper than gas-powered cars of equal performance, these cold-weather risks might be acceptable. But electrics are substantially more expensive than cars of greater capability - and will be for years to come. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would consider buying one - especially if he or she lives north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
In his address Tuesday, the president reiterated his goal of putting 1 million plug-in hybrids and all-electrics on the road by 2015 and insisted that Congress spend hundreds of millions of additional dollars to achieve it. At present, fewer than 5,000 electrics are out there, so auto companies would have to make and sell about a quarter of a million vehicles annually between now and 2015 to meet his target.
Even with substantial government subsidies, I doubt the president will get there. Michael Omotoso of J.D. Power and Associates - a consulting firm that, unlike the Obama Energy Department, has spent a lot of time asking consumers what they actually want - told me the number could reach 750,000 by 2015, and 1.1 million by 2020 if all goes well.
But the million-car goal is meaningless: It would represent 0.4 percent of the U.S. automotive fleet, yielding no substantial reduction in carbon emissions or U.S. dependence on foreign oil for the government's multibillion-dollar investment. Alternative policies, such as a modest increase in the gas tax or support for more efficient internal combustion engines, would do more to accomplish the administration's legitimate goals faster and at lower cost.
Call me a curmudgeon, but I think J.D. Power is optimistic. This subsidized market niche is just one well-publicized malfunction away from disaster. Perhaps a Volt battery will overheat and burst into flames, as some computer batteries have been known to do. Or maybe a Leaf driver will suffer frostbite while stuck in the next blizzard. Let's just hope one of his neighbors pulls over to help him out.
Green Jobs Cronyism and Cannibalism
Posted By Ernest Istook On January 28, 2011 @ 10:00 am In Energy and Environment | No Comments
To rephrase President Obama’s State of the Union theme: “This is our generation’s apparatchik moment.”
Yes, he said “Sputnik” instead, but his actual agenda is about the apparatchik—government by party leaders, bureaucrats and the well-connected.
His agenda is symbolized by his push for “green jobs” as the path to a better future.
Simply put, the green jobs agenda spends billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy existing jobs and replace them with jobs in politically-favored businesses, raising the costs of energy along the way.
The politically-connected win. Existing job-holders and companies lose. Home electric bills go up. Power also costs more for companies, making it more expensive to go into business or to stay in business.
It’s cronyism that is building a political power structure based on false claims about clean green jobs. It’s cannibalism because creating the green jobs requires killing off existing jobs.
As Bloomberg News reported , “Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.”
One Heritage Foundation study showed that proposed mandates for using “renewable energy” to generate electricity would cost 1-million jobs. Had last year’s cap-and-trade bill been passed, we might have lost almost 2-million jobs.  That compares to claims by the renewal energy industry that 274,000 jobs would be created by their producst. We would lose 3 to 7 jobs or more for every one that we gain.
This is Obamamath. Obama wants us to pay for the privilege of destroying jobs. His State of the Union called for “incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”
Guess what? If it requires incentives, it isn’t profitable!
“When the President and Congress talk about green jobs, they are talking about ones created via federal tax breaks, subsidies, or outright mandates,”  noted The Heritage Foundation’s Ben Liebermann.
The green jobs agenda is all about making a large group dependent on the politicians who provide them money and who in exchange receive campaign donations and other political support. It is the ultimate in Tammany Hall-style political bossism—the political earmark that dwarfs all others. The green jobs agenda is a political spoils and cronyism system operating in the open, justifying itself through political correctness and overblown claims that it is dictated by global warming.
POLITICO reported  that the alternative energy sector only spent $2.4-million on lobbying in 1998, but that grew to $30-million a year by 2009. The story noted, “The speed of expansion is eye-popping,” and added, “Wind, solar, ethanol up and other alternative energy groups are also stepping up their political contributions to candidates – almost all of them Democrats.” Yes, the fossil fuel lobby spends about five times more than the alternative energy lobby, but fossil fuel produces over 20 times as much power—about 70% of our national electricity compared to about 3%.
How about claims that existing federal policies already advantage fossil fuels? A report from the federal Department of Energy shows  that each megawatt of power produced by wind or solar power receives subsidies almost 100 times higher than for oil and natural gas, and about 50 times higher than for coal.
Even The New York Times reported that wind-generated power costs 50% more than power generated from fossil fuel, and power from solar energy costs 2-3 times more than wind power.
Perhaps someday those who profit from subsidizing alternative energy will admit what they’ve done, just as Al Gore now admits his push for billions in ethanol subsidies was a mistake based on political gain —not even counting his monetary gain since leaving office. As The Wall Street Journal said , “ethanol has become a purely political machine: It serves no purpose other than re-electing incumbents and transferring wealth to farm states and ethanol producers.”
But don’t some business interests support the green agenda? Sadly, yes. They tend to be those who profit from these subsidies. Writing in Forbes, Jerry Bowyer noted , “What is the difference between crony capitalism and socialism? Not much.”
We did not win the space race by putting extra costs and burdens on ourselves to benefit a team of politicians and businesses that scratch each others’ backs. Obama’s call to action isn’t based on Sputnik; it’s based on apparatchik. We don’t need that cronyism. Or to cannibalize existing jobs so cronies can build more power for themselves.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
 As Bloomberg News reported: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
 Had last year’s cap-and-trade bill been passed, we might have lost almost 2-million jobs.: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/meeting-america-s-energy-and-environmental-needs
 “When the President and Congress talk about green jobs, they are talking about ones created via federal tax breaks, subsidies, or outright mandates,”: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/02/green-jobs-environmental-red-tape-cancels-out-job-creation
 POLITICO reported: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36172.html A report from the federal Department of Energy shows: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/subsidy08.pdf
 Al Gore now admits his push for billions in ethanol subsidies was a mistake based on political gain: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/report-al-gore-reverses-view-ethanol-blames-politics-previous-support/
 As The Wall Street Journal said: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575634753486416076.html
 Forbes, Jerry Bowyer noted: http://blogs.forbes.com/jerrybowyer/2011/01/26/the-american-nomenklatura/
1-in-4 people in world will be Muslim by 2030
Islamic population to increase globally by 35% in next 20 years
--Fox News - See below in regard to commentary on this, which is something that the West couldn't care less about! - Gary L. Morella
In regard to the story below, THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS BEING INTENTIONALLY IGNORED, i.e., when you contracept and abort generations into oblivion, you don't have any workers to start with, which renders any talk about how out-of-control taxes are destroying their jobs moot! There are consequences for violating the Natural Law of God as evinced by an increasing number of countries not being able to reproduce themselves, thereby staring at extinction as sovereign nations! - Gary L. Morella
28 Jan 2011
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Scientists find glaciers growing, not shrinking
Say hotter summers may actually slow down flow to oceans
--London Daily Mail
By Alan Caruba Thursday, January 27, 2011
For New Yorkers and those in my part of New Jersey across the river, snow has fallen eight times since December 14, an average of once every five days, a reported 37 inches in Central Park, and people are, shall we say, taking notice?
Along with the snow come power outages, disrupted bus schedules, air travel delays, commuting by car becomes an auto body repair business bonanza, schools shut their doors, and some people die from weather-related accidents or just from trying to shovel the snow from the driveway.
Having battled the “global warming” hoax since it was first perpetrated in the late 1980s, I have had the good fortune to make friends with many of the world’s top meteorologists and climatologists who joined in the long effort to educate people to the fact that there never was a rapid rise in the planet’s overall temperatures.
Even so, some mainstream media news outlets have continued to file stories incredulously blaming the winter snow storms on “global warming.” The hoax for too many media folk has long since become a religion in which blind faith replaces the objective fact obvious to everyone. It is cold. There is snow. Lots of it.
Indeed, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since around 1998 as verified by meteorological satellite and other data. Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist and leading forecaster, said “We’re now headed for a Maunder minimum of very low solar activity. The globe will be much cooler until about 2035, so there will be a lot more of these cold winters in Europe and the USA.”
Considering how the climatologists and meteorologists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been telling everyone for decades of a coming warming, why should we believe Corbyn and others predicting decades of cold weather? Corbyn studies solar cycles and they determine how warm or cold the Earth is.
Corbyn’s astonishing record of accuracy has put his native England’s meteorological service to shame for deliberately misleading the British to believe the “global warming” hoax. Not given to vague talk, Corbyn recently said, “The claim that 2010 is the second warmest year on record is delusional, irrelevant and disingenuous. Warmist (warm is cold) explanations for extreme events are as useless as saying ‘Wet days cause rain.’”
It is useful to keep in mind that U.S. agencies such as NASA and NOAA have been issuing similar politically correct and meteorologically incorrect “global warming” claims for years.
Consider weather events just since the beginning of the year.
For the first time since 1945, the maximum daytime temperature in North Korea has remained below zero for nearly a month. In neighboring China, the snowfall in northwest China was accompanied by extreme cold and a snowfall that flattened or damaged 100,000 homes. All around the world there have been similar reports, including sunny Italy that set new cold records, -48.3 degrees on January 19.
In the United States, Minnesota shattered its cold records on January 21 reached an astonishing -46 degrees. In Florida, eight new record lows were set by January 17 and there was snow in every State of the lower 48. And spring will not debut until March 21!
It’s not like this is a new weather phenomenon. As any meteorologist will tell you, the Earth has gone through numerous warming and cooling cycles. In its 4.5 billion years, scientists estimate there have been at least seventeen full-blown Great Ice Ages. In near past history, the last Little Ice Age is well documented, having begun around 1300 and not ended until 1850. Whatever warming occurred since then, however, has amounted to just over one degree, but that was enough!
Reaching its peak in the 17th century, in England the Thames River froze over. The Little Ice Age is credited with bringing down the French monarchy and ruining Napoleon’s subsequent Russia campaign. In America, the tiny army of George Washington weathered a harsh winter at Valley Forge.
As in previous cooling cycles, it was low solar activity that determined the temperature, not carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
People’s lives depend on our government’s ability to measure and forecast the weather. A government that continues to tell people that “global warming” is real and then throws billions of money on “research” to prove it, while issuing utterly false claims, must be forced to acknowledge reality. The same applies to the energy policies on which everyone depends for electricity, a reliable supply of heating oil, and other elements of the infrastructure.
The lies must end. The end of the cooling cycle is nowhere in sight.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
Published January 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
As President Obama encourages the nation to spend heavily on creating a new, green-energy economy, he faces stiff resistance from lawmakers worried about deficits and what the administration's restrictions on existing power sources could do to the already rising cost of energy.
In May, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced a new focus described by National Public Radio as "turning transportation policy on its head."
Lahood's declaration: that pedestrians and bicyclists should be treated as equals with drivers and that more federal dollars should be devoted to walking and cycling projects. One wonders how his remarks might have been received in Beijing, where the opposite is happening, the ubiquitous bicycle is giving way to the automobile in that country's headlong thrust towards 21st Century industrialization and increased competition with the United States.
The contrast symbolizes the president's dilemma.
In his State of the Union address this week, he called for a re-invention of our energy policy.
"We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time."
It is our "Sputnik moment," the president said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., may have brought the president's enthusiasm back down to earth when he quipped there had been lots of "Sputnik" moments in years past, resulting in a lot of "space junk."
Coburn, and so many of the president's other critics contend that much of that "space junk" resides in the push for greener energies.
The U.S. is still overwhelmingly dependent on comparatively cheap fossil fuels for its energy needs. Fossil fuels power 83 percent of the U.S. economy. Any move to limit their use, critics contend, is deeply unwise as the economy tries to scrape itself out of a deep recession and stubbornly high unemployment.
Some point to Spain's experience with green technologies -- one that Obama once cited as a model -- as one example of the president's misquided policies. Researchers at Madrid's Juan Carlos University found that for every renewable energy job that Spain financed , 2.2 jobs were lost. In other words, nine jobs were lost in the broader economy for every 4 green jobs created there.
Here in the U.S., many worry that the same thing is already happening. Since the moratorium on oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico ended in October of 2010, only two new oil and gas drilling leases have been issued by the federal government. And huge swaths of domestic oil rich federal lands have remained off limits to oil and gas exploration and drilling.
Obama's call to re-examine all federal rules for bureaucratic inefficiency earlier this month came only days after his Environmental Protection Agency revoked a longstanding permit for a surface mine in West Virginia, one of the largest coal producers in the nation.
And since his executive order to re-examine the regulatory maze was issued, Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein reiterated the president's commitment to a congressional panel.
"Any rule that imposes significant costs, we have significant concerns about," Sunstein said. "We will be focusing very closely on the job impacts of new regulations."
But critics wonder if Sunstein's words will be matched by action. In the Obama administration, as in his State of the Union, environmental concerns get high billing. Only days before assuming the post of energy secretary, Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
Then-candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008:
"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
He was referring to proposed cap-and-trade legislation, which, under the weight of the last Congress' ambitious agenda, fell by the wayside.
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato suggests the president should not try to revive his plan fir global warming fees for carbon emissions.
"He may or may not recognize it, but the fight is over," Sabato told Fox News. "That energy bill as currently constructed has zero chance of passage."
Energy analyst Kevin Book of Clear View Energy Partners says while the tone has changed, the Obama administration's energy message has not.
"If you're a good politician you learn how to speak out of both sides of your mouth," Brook said. "EPA is still tightening on regulations for conventional fuels here in the U.S., and even if we're not explicitly calling for a new law, there's still a very restrictive policy in place that will require some form of intervention."
That intervention is now beginning to happen in Congress, where the Republican-controlled House is commencing its attack on the administration's regulatory structure. Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton released an opening volley directly at Obama's regulation czar on Wednesday.
"There has been an explosion of regulation and regulation issued in the first year of the Obama Administration," Barton said. "Quite frankly, I didn't see that your organization has done anything to slow that down."
The fact that his scolding came less than 24 hours after the State of the Union address suggest that stronger and more withering attacks lay ahead.
Decoding Obama's hogwash
January 27, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
By Eric Allie
country just might survive if this Communist gets
stuck in traffic for two more years. Are you
listening GOP? - Gary L. Morella
Obama spends hour stuck in traffic...
SNOWBLAST: 'ABSOLUTE GRIDLOCK IN DC'
The President’s State of the Union address boiled down to this message: “The era of big government is here as long as I am, so help me pay for it.” He dubbed it a “Winning The Future” speech, but the title’s acronym seemed more accurate than much of the content. American...
by Sarah Palin on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 12:22am
President’s State of the Union address boiled down to this message: “The era of
big government is here as long as I am, so help me pay
for it.” He dubbed it a “Winning The Future” speech,
but the title’s acronym seemed more accurate than much of the content.
Americans are growing impatient with a White House that still just doesn’t get it. The President proves he doesn’t understand that the biggest challenge facing our economy is today’s runaway debt when he states we want to make sure “we don’t get buried under a mountain a debt.” That’s the problem! We are buried under Mt. McKinley-sized debt. It’s at the heart of what is crippling our economy and taking our jobs. This is the concern that should be on every leader’s mind. Our country’s future is at stake, and we’re rapidly reaching a crisis point. Our government is spending too much, borrowing too much, and growing too much. Debt is stifling our private sector growth, and millions of Americans are desperately looking for work.
So, what was the President’s response? At a time when we need quick, decisive, and meaningful action to stop our looming debt crisis, President Obama gave us what politicians have for years: promises that more federal government “investment” (read: more government spending) is the solution.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree. Where once he used words like “hope” and “change,” the President may now talk about “innovation” and “competition”; but the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.
Real leadership is more than just words; it’s deeds. The President’s deeds don’t lend confidence that we can trust his words spoken last night.
In the past, he promised us he’d make job creation his number one priority, while also cutting the deficit, eliminating waste, easing foreclosures in the housing markets, and making “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” What did we get? A record $1.5 trillion deficit, an 84% increase in federal spending, a trillion dollar stimulus that stimulated nothing but more Tea Party activism, 9+% unemployment (or 17% percent if you include those who have stopped looking for work or settled for part time jobs), 2.9 million home foreclosures last year, and a moratorium on offshore drilling that has led to more unemployment and $100 dollar a barrel oil.
The President glossed over the most important issue he needed to address last night: spending. He touched on deficit reduction, but his proposals amount to merely a quarter of the cuts in discretionary spending proposed by his own Deficit Reduction Commission, not to mention the $2.5 trillion in cuts over ten years suggested by the Republican Study Committee. And while we appreciate hearing the same President who gave us the trillion dollar Stimulus Package boondoggle finally concede that we need to cut earmarks, keep in mind that earmarks are a $16 billion drop in the $1.5 trillion ocean that is the federal deficit. Budget cuts won’t be popular, but they are vitally necessary or we will soon be a bankrupt country. It’s the responsibility of a leader to make sure the American people fully understand this.
As it is, the American people should fully understand that when the President talks about increased “investments” he’s talking about increased government spending. Cut away the rhetoric and you’ll also see that the White House’s real message on economic reform wasn’t one of substantial spending cuts, but of tax increases. When the President talks about simplifying the tax code, he’s made it clear that he’s not looking to cut your taxes; he’s looking for additional tax revenue from you. The tax “simplification” suggested by the President’s Deficit Reduction Commission would end up raising taxes by $1 trillion over the next decade. So, instead of bringing spending down in line with revenue, the President wants to raise our taxes to pay for his massive spending increases. It’s tax and spend in reverse: spend first, tax later.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
With credit ratings agency Moody’s warning us that the federal government must reverse the rapid growth of national debt or face losing our triple-A rating, keep in mind that a nation doesn’t look so “great” when its credit rating is in tatters.
Of course, it’s nice to give a speech calling for “investment” and “competition” in order to reach greatness. It’s quite another thing to advocate and implement policies that truly encourage such things. Growing the federal government is not the answer.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
And what about that crucial issue confronting so many Americans who are struggling today – the lack of jobs? The President came to office promising that his massive, multi-trillion dollar spending programs would keep unemployment below 8%; but the lack of meaningful, pro-free market reforms in yesterday’s speech means his legacy will almost certainly be four years of above 8% unemployment, regardless of how much he increases federal spending (or perhaps I should say because of how much he’s increased it).
Perhaps the most nonsensical bit of double-speak we heard last night was when the President said that hitting job-creators with a tax increase isn’t “punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success.” But government taking more money from the small business entrepreneurs who create up to 70% of all jobs in this country is not “promoting America’s success.” It’s a disincentive that will result in less job creation. It is, in fact, punishing the success of the very people who created the innovation that the President has supposedly been praising.
Despite the flowery rhetoric, the President doesn’t seem to understand that individuals make America great, not the federal government. American greatness lies in the courage and hard work of individual innovators and entrepreneurs. America is an exceptional nation in part because we have historically been a country that rewards and affirms individual initiative and offers people the freedom to invest and create as they see fit – not as a government bureaucrat does. Yes, government can play an appropriate role in our free market by ensuring a level playing field to encourage honest competition without picking winners and losers. But by and large, government should get out of the way. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s leadership, government growth is in our way, and his “big government greatness” will not help matters.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
Ronald Reagan said, “You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.” President Obama’s proposals last night stick the little guy with the bill, while big government and its big corporate partners prosper. The plain truth is our country simply cannot afford Barack Obama’s dream of an “exceptionally big government” that may help the big guys, but sticks it to the rest of us.
- Sarah Palin
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, January 27, 2011
When the applause had died down and the softly glowing screen of the teleprompter faded to black, the echoes of the Leninist cadences of Obama’s State of the Union address, “We must out-educate, out-compete, and out-innovate the rest of the world”, “We have broken the back of the recession” and “We can’t win the future with a government of the past” suggest that we are now living in a land without history.
How else could Obama get up and deliver an address whose rhetoric represents a 180 degree turn, while the substance continues down the same track. The meat of the address was stolen from Clinton’s 1992 campaign stump speeches on the economy. There is the same invocation of personal stories of unemployment combined with promises of replacing the old bad manufacturing jobs with free educations for everyone. But Clinton was better at pretending to be one of the boys, a working class man who only got out thanks to a good education. Obama’s people must have known that dog wouldn’t hunt.
As usual, the slogan du jour comes from the dictionary of the left. “Winning the future” was a common slogan on the left. While it was belatedly used by Newt Gingrich, it was most commonly employed in the 20th century by Communists and the far left. Two time Lenin prize winner, Danilo Dolci used it as the theme of one of his addresses. Jesse Jackson made use of it during his presidential campaign. Max Lerner gave a number of talks on “Winning the Future”. Mandella threw it in there. Most notably it was used by Lenin, “Our hopes must be placed on the young. We must win the youth if we are to win the future.”
The thrust of Obama’s agenda follows Lenin’s. The old jobs are gone. We must prepare for the future by educating our youth. The sturm und drang of the “We Musts” quickly becomes an argument for pandering to the teacher’s unions. Only by empowering the teacher’s union will we be able to compete with China. But China isn’t strong because of its teachers, but because it has no independent unions, no minimum wage, no pollution laws and nothing to get in the way of the terrible machine of its industry. The People’s Republic of China is not beating us in science or math, but in manufacturing cheap products with an undervalued national currency.
Handing out free educations to beat China is like going to college to fight a bear. Not only will it not improve your bear fighting skills, it actually gives the bear the upper hand. American math and science degrees are used to do research whose practical applications take the form of products manufactured in China. Even if all 300 million Americans all go to work as researchers, we are not going to “out-compete” and “out-innovate” by “out-educating” Americans. Russia has the highest percentage of college degrees by population in the world. China has the lowest. These figures have little to do with their economic success.
America already has a college degree program percentage rate on par with Sweden and Finland, countries that almost wholly subsidize higher educations. Greece subsidizes 99.7 percent of higher education, and yet has a lower degree rate than America and is in a state of complete economic meltdown. America has higher rates of graduates than many of the European countries which heavily subsidize their education systems. The takeaway is that state subsidized education does not ensure more graduates. And more graduates does not mean more jobs.
One of the more surreal moments in the address came when Obama mentioned Kathy Proctor, a 55 year old woman who after losing a job in the future industry is now a second year student at a community college working toward a biotechnology degree. Her plan is to become a biofuels analyst.
I can’t imagine a worse model for American workers than a 55-year-old woman amassing unknown amounts of student debt for a job in an industry that doesn’t exist except as a government subsidized program. Even if Obama succeeds in obtaining more ethanol subsidies and some biofuels company decides to hire Kathy to be their biofuels analyst, her job will only exist because of the billions poured into subsidizing the educations and industry that make it possible. A job and an industry that would not exist without those subsidies. This is not how a genuinely productive country is run. It’s not how we’re going to beat China.
What’s worse is that the odds are very good that Kathy Proctor will join the ranks of other struggling Americans whom Obama singled out as examples, only for them to lose their jobs and homes. Jennifer Cline was one of those success stories, using unemployment benefits to go to college. Then she had to sell Obama’s “Things will get better” card to make ends meet. It’s true, “Things will get better”, as long as you have a letter from the big man himself and there’s still a market for Obama’s autographs.
If you’re following Obama’s curve ball so far, the plan is to fund education for entirely new industries. The same clean energy industries he wants to subsidize. All in the name of innovation. But this isn’t innovation, it’s central planning. The Obama administration has decided which industries to promote. It will use taxpayer money to subsidize those industries. It’s a great plan aside from one small hitch, what if those industries don’t succeed? That’s the fallacy of central planning. It all looks good on paper. But paper isn’t life.
Obama acted as if he were delivering Lenin’s 10th congress speech on the New Economic Plan, but he has nothing revolutionary to say. He wants to cut spending, and all he does is talk about more spending. He wants to see more innovation, but what he’s actually proposing is economic central planning, the opposite of innovation. Lenin’s “Commanding Heights” approach allowed for socialism to be promoted through market economics, as long as the Communist party controlled the commanding heights of key industries. That seems to be Obama’s approach as well. Nationalize and subsidize the country’s remaining industries in order to shape the trajectory of the economy, while letting small businesses enjoy their freedom until the time arrives to shut them down. Even Obama’s talk of innovation seemed to echo Lenin’s “We are a party of innovators”.
The internet, GPS and the space program were mentioned as examples of government subsidized innovation. And he has a point. But the internet, GPS and the space program were all spinoffs of ARPA/DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They were outgrowths of the Cold War. Elements of a plan to checkmate the Soviet Union by protecting the homefront and denying them space supremacy. They are proof that subsidized government programs can create amazing and revolutionary technologies. But to do that there has to be a plan.
Obama’s speech is devoid of plans. We’re going to build rail, because China is building rail. China is also building factories, but we’re not going to do that. China is leveraging its exports in order to move manufacturing into the country, but we’re not doing that either. Chinese companies are moving into Africa, but we’re not doing that. So why are we building high speed rail?
China’s high speed rail program is impressive, but also a Communist party project that loses money every year. It’s more about control, than it is about economic necessity. If we had expanding urban infrastructure and a booming manufacturing sector, the way China does, then at least we would be building high speed rail in context. But we don’t. We’re building high speed rail, because the administration likes the idea. Not because American business is in desperate need of it. Like Kathy’s biofuels degree, it’s another program without context.
Had such a project been contemplated under the Eisenhower administration, it’s possible that it might have been revolutionary and feasible. But it’s just so much noise now. Connecting 80 percent of the country with high speed rail is doable, but we aren’t going to do it. And no one seriously thinks that we are. The money isn’t there and neither is the commitment. The only part of the government that can actually carry out grand projects is the military. No other part of the Federal government can successfully complete major infrastructure projects anymore, except for the new buildings they need to house their own bureaucracy. The Chinese are building high speed rail on the backs of a booming economy. We are not. And our own bureaucracy is not performance oriented. Instead of completing projects, we hand out subsidies for projects that never get built, or if they do, never get utilized. And we borrow the money to pay for all that from China.
In the Soviet Union, Khrushchev did the same thing when he tried to integrate innovations he picked up on his trip to the United States, into Soviet industry and agriculture with no context. The results were disastrous. Khrushchev tried to imitate America’s corn industry, by growing corn in the USSR. But Soviet farmers didn’t want the corn and didn’t understand how to plant it and where. Food production fell and usable land was ruined. Attempts to imitate American construction resulted in equally disastrous Khruschobas. That is what happens when techniques and approaches developed through innovation are filtered through a system of central planning.
This is our Sputnik moment, Obama says. But what is our Sputnik? Is it Chinese rail. What happens if the Chinese outrail us? Is it investing in clean energy, as he suggests the Chinese are doing. But China doesn’t care about clean energy. Try taking a brisk walk through Bejing if you think pollution is a major concern there. Liberals have cynically pushed the meme that we’re losing to China in the clean energy race. We’re not. We’re losing to China in every race.
China is building coal and nuclear plants, and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. It’s a diverse strategy, not an environmental one. The ChiCom leadership does not care whether energy is clean or not, but how much it costs and how much it frees them from concern over energy supplies. Obama mentioned that China has the world’s largest solar plant, but he failed to mention that the vast majority of their solar panels are manufactured for export to environmentally obsessed Western countries.
China’s clean energy industry is heavily subsidized by the government. Obama wants us to follow suit. But China’s export market for wind turbines and solar panels is us. What is our export market? Mostly Western countries which will also begin subsidizing their own clean energy industries. If every country subsidizes its own clean energy manufacturing, then there is no export market. Only a giant scam. Another closed loop of central planning as governments mandate the use of solar panels and wind turbines, and then subsidize solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing. Again this is not innovation. It’s money being moved around at the expense of jobs and innovation.
Clinton promised all Americans an affordable college education and a home. What millions ended up with were piles of debt. That debt mushroomed and imploded on itself. Obama is still promising the college education and green jobs. Take out a loan, get a biotech degree and sign up to be a biofuels analyst. All to be paid for by more debt, with no actual economic prosperity in sight. The future is here, except it’s more like the past.
“In the State of the Union, President Obama laid out a vision for the future,” Obama’s Organizing for America site proclaims in leaden Leninist tones. “We must out-educate, out-compete, and out-innovate the rest of the world… That work begins right now, with each of us committing to the work necessary to bring it about. The future is ours to win, but to get there, we can’t just stand still. Join the fight to make the President’s vision a reality.” The message concludes by encouraging the prospective young Komsomol member to sign a letter saying, “I stand with President Obama and his vision for winning the future.”
But what future has Obama actually laid out? There is the Khrushchevian “We will overtake you” directed at China. Calls for a Stakhanovitesque commitment by the masses. And a promise to win the future. But what future is that? We haven’t been told. It’s an unknown future with high speed rail, green jobs, college educations for everyone, but no flying cars unless they’re electric or solar flying cars. This isn’t a future. It’s more mouthwash. Soviet mouthwash.
There’s a 5 year plan to give broadband access to the masses. How did Khrushchev never think of that. More subsidies for solar and wind, at the expense of oil. Because 4 dollar a barrel oil isn’t expensive enough. A 25 year plan to give 80 percent of Americans access to high speed rail. Except there’s no actual plan either. It’s all mouthwash. Soviet leaders rinsed their mouths with talk like this to assure their citizens that the future was moving forward on schedule. Now Obama is spitting their mouthwash out all over the country.
But don’t worry, comrades. We’re winning the future. History is on our side.. This is not a State of the Union address. It’s a State of the Soviet Union address.
THE OTHER RUSH
They believe they're gods
Exclusive: Erik Rush reveals elites' incentive to eradicate U.S. grassroots movements
They believe they're gods
Posted: January 27, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
Over the last week, I've had conversations with colleagues which touched on the concept that the entire left-right paradigm of the political parties in America is fallacious, à la professor Carroll Quigley (1910-77). In the "real" model (according to those who argue so), neither of the two preeminent parties in America actually represent divergent ideals and policies, but only appear to. Those ignorant – but extremely useful – ideologues and voters who "fight the good fight" only serve to distract and to empower a cadre of global elites. These power players, like progressives, are essentially societal parasites, rather than visionaries or workers who produce wealth. They actually transcend, if you will, the political system in which most of us operate.
Let us presume for a moment that this is precisely the case. It would infer then, that the threat of progressive-Marxist collectivism against which so many of us preach is simply a "smoke soldier," having no real power to implement those odious things people such as myself claim are around the bend. The same could be said about Islamofascism then, since that doctrine would obliterate the power – and the wealth – of such forces.
I believe the truth is somewhere in between. Over the last decade in particular, many have recognized that there is scant difference between how the Republican and Democratic Parties operate, and this assertion certainly has some merit. If we are to take even a few people at their word, then we must presume that there are still some constitutional conservatives in our government. If that is true, then of course those who are attempting to reinstitute constitutional principles in government are on the right track. This would include members of the tea-party movement, who are operating through the GOP, for example.
Also true – in the "false left-right paradigm" – would be the threat perceived regarding the advent of such grassroots movements on the part of those power players operating through both political parties. Now, despite the supposed anonymity of these people, we do know who they are, because they have never really operated with the degree of secrecy claimed by some Americans.
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. – Mayer Amschel Rothschild, international banker
One we know to be Hungarian financier George Soros, who operates quite out in the open. Controlling money is what Soros is about. He has made billions manipulating currencies and creating untold suffering among "little people" all over the globe. His imperious and cavalier rhetoric concerning the restructuring of America and the decline of its currency have been nothing short of monumentally audacious, as well as manifestly seditious.
Does this mean that our situation is hopeless, that the system is hopelessly corrupt, and that all of our heroes – from grassroots citizens, to lawmakers and statesmen who remain faithful to the Constitution – are essentially micturating into the wind?
I think not.
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so persuasive that prudent men had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. – Woodrow Wilson, "The New Freedom"
This quote, familiar to many politically engaged Internet prowlers, is often used to validate the existence of a New World Order, the schema wherein international bankers and old-money dynasties essentially control – well, everything – and that all Western nations' systems of governance are but a sham.
It has been argued, however, that Wilson was referring to us, the American people. In the context of the passage, this may not seem so, however, it appears equally unlikely that this early progressive, elitist president would attempt to warn the American people against those dark forces marshaled to enslave them, the reason being that American presidents are generally well aware of the goings-on vis-à-vis globalist power players – if they are not in fact consciously working at their behest.
I submit that, although these dark lords do indeed exist and are certainly influential in sociopolitical developments worldwide, they do not possess the degree of authority that conspiracy theorists believe they have, nor the authority they believe they have.
They've made the mistake of believing that they are gods – and they're wrong. There is but one God, and I believe that those who are working toward the preservation of this nation as a constitutional republic are doing His work.
This is why I believe that so much effort is being put into demonizing grassroots movements in America, members of the tea party in particular. The elites I have elucidated upon here know that should Americans succeed in gaining real control of any political party (whether the existing ones, or others in the offing), their time as puppet masters in America will be short.
Someone on my mailing list today gave me some positive feedback today. Here was my response to him.
Thank you, you're welcome. We're fighting for everything, i.e., for eternity, for a God fearing country worthy of His blessings, not His condemnation, and we get little or no support from an institutional Church in the apostasy that Fatima foretold. By the Grace of God alone will the likes of an Obama and his minions be silenced politically for the grave damage that they're doing to humanity both naturally, and especially supernaturally because the Obamunists are disciples of the devil. There can be no other explanation of Obama's rise to power from nothing other than his soul is in the possession of the diabolic. How else can such a rise and Obama's irrational popularity be seen. Such are the ways of tyrants from the dawn of man, i.e., exploit the playing field set for them by indoctrination masquerading as education with the rest being history. In order to win this fight with the help of God, we must uncompromisingly defend the Church's traditional teachings on faith and morals in the public square because those charged to do so are AWOL, preferring to shill for an antichrist while smiling like Cheshire cats. That's about it.