Forget any talk about rationing or “death panels” or whether the government is gonna rifle through your wallet before deciding whether you’re worth saving. That’s irrelevant. You want a simple answer as to why ObamaCare is bad for America?
Further, writes Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan:
The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created “insurance exchanges,” but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO’s cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.
The administration’s claim that the health-care plan would be “self-financing” is both false and irrelevant. It is false because it would only be self-financing if one counts a variety of President Obama’s proposed tax increases—and even those would produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations. The claim is irrelevant because those tax increases have nothing to do with health care and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.
So forget debating about whether the government is gonna kick grandma to the curb because she’s too old to treat or whether the public option covers illegal immigrants. The simple reality of President Obama’s health care plan is that it is too expensive.
“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” opens this Friday, and here in the good ol’ US of A, Paramount Pictures has taken a rather unique approach to marketing the movie. Instead of letting the usual Left-Coast critics review (and turn their blue-blooded noses up at) the movie, the studio has taken it directly to patriotic Red State America: a preview at Andrews Air Force Base, promotion on CMT, and heavy marketing in places like Kansas City and Charlotte. Seems fitting. After all, G.I. Joe is a “Real American Hero”, right?
[O]verseas, where big action films often earn 60% or more of their ticket sales, rah-rah American sentiment doesn’t play well. So those references have vanished from the advertising.
European marketing, rather, focuses on action sequences set in Paris — where the Eiffel Tower collapses — Egypt and Tokyo, and emphasizes that G.I. Joe is an international team of crack operatives and not some Yankee soldier.
When it comes to selling “G.I. Joe” outside the U.S., the message is “this is not a George Bush movie — it’s an Obama world,” director Stephen Sommers said. “Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can’t be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that’s made up of the best of the best from around the world.”
In 1823 President James Monroe established a policy which came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine stated that efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in North, Central, or South America would be viewed by the U.S. as an act of aggression. The policy effectively marked the entire western hemisphere as being under the protection and influence of the United States, and revolutions like the one in Cuba in the 1950s were seen as a direct threat to the U.S.
The Monroe Doctrine drove much of America’s foreign policy in Latin America through the 20th Century, but that may be coming to an end, if President Obama’s stance on the recent upheaval in Honduras is any indication.
Obama should have welcomed the removal of Zelaya from Honduras. Zelaya had recently sided with the Iranian ayatollahs in their suppression of a democratic election: no wonder he demanded readmission to Honduras in the name of God. His illegal attempt to defy the constitution through a plebiscite his supporters were tooled-up to rig was condemned by the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the chief Electoral Tribunal. …
But Obama has a soft spot for socialists, hence his insane cosying-up to the Bolivarian fruitcakes. He has invented a brand new kind of foreign policy: supporting regimes that are violently anti-American. Call it neo-masochism. Obama has reversed the Monroe Doctrine as well as the definition of “democracy”. In supporting the megalomaniac dictators who are trying to drag Latin America into the year 1917, he is mouthing the same claptrap as Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly and former lieutenant of Ortega in the Sandinista dictatorship, and Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Fidel Castro’s champion.
It remains to be seen how the crisis in Honduras will play out or what the repercussions will be for that nation and throughout Latin America. But whatever the outcome, Obama’s lack of support for the Honduran government is alarming, and coupled with his equally flaccid stance against nations like Iran and North Korea, the position of the U.S. has been significantly weakened, not just in the western hemisphere but worldwide.
On June 28, the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was seized by that country’s military on the orders of the Honduran Congress. Upon being escorted out of the country, he was replaced by the head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president until the scheduled election in November.
Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution. Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law. But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.
Who’s right?
Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the George W. Bush administration, argues that the Honduran government acted correctly in removing Zelaya, a “capricious blowhard” whose friends include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.
Zelaya’s self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras’ constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.
Noriega’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise. He is an ardent supporter of free market oil and energy investments in Latin America by American companies, a vision of a U.S.-backed “corporatocracy” that reads straight out of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Such a vision requires fairly weak but stable Central and South American governments who are friendly to the United States, exactly the opposite of those led by Chavez and Castro. By backing Zelaya’s attempt at extending his power beyond constitutional limits, U.S. corporate interests in Honduras could be greatly damaged.
Corporate interests aside, however, the reality is that the Honduran Congress and military acted within constitutional guidelines by removing Zelaya, an act also backed by that nation’s Supreme Court. Therefore, the call to return Zelaya to power makes absolutely no sense.
Imagine if this had happened in the United States. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried to push through a referendum that would’ve allowed him to serve unlimited presidential terms, something disallowed by the 22nd Amendment. Had he then been impeached and ultimately removed from office, would the international community still expect him to be returned to the Oval Office until his term expired? Of course not! So why is it demanding that of Zelaya?
President Obama called the removal of Zelaya a step backward from the “enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.” Yet it was actually the democratically-elected Congress that was following the constitution, not Zelaya. If Obama really believed in upholding Latin America’s “democratic traditions”, then he would be siding with the Honduran Congress, not with the likes of Hugo Chavez.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, supporting Zelaya is “one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.” At some point, that appeasement must end. It may be too late for Venezuela and Cuba, but it’s not too late for Honduras.
Update: This editorial explains that while removing Zelaya wasn’t the government’s only choice, it was by far the best one:
The Honduran institutions had only three options. The first was do nothing and let things follow their course leading to an irreversible situation of an established regime administered in perpetuity by Chavez and Zelaya. The second was to try to get rid of the president for willingly, which would have allowed sufficient time Zelaya to request support for the Venezuelan military, making Honduras the scene of a bloody war. They opted for the third option, an unexpected and bloodless military coup to prevent Zelaya to consummate his plans to remain in power.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. …
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity. …
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. …
9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. …
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror. The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:
What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech. In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)
Now, you may be asking, so what? Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world? After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith. It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration. He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons. He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world. But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.
The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead. They still want to destroy Israel. While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.
The point is that now is not the time for apologies. Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. Now is not the time to “change course.” If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it. It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.
Today is the National Day of Prayer, an annual event dating back to 1952, and this year’s observance will be much different than those of the past 8 years. That’s because Barack Obama is now in the White House.
Prior to George W. Bush, most presidents honored the day with proclamations or other low-key events. But President Bush went further during his administration, inviting Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House for a more formal observance. President Obama, however, is not continuing his predecessor’s tradition, instead opting for a proclamation and nothing more.
Does that matter?
Surely this nation needs strong Christian leadership in the White House and Congress. But should we as Christians be depending on the president to be our spiritual leader? Even with the strongest of Christians in office, I would say no.
As I wrote shortly after the election in November:
But Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and as Christians we understand that real hope doesn’t come from a politician. Real change — eternal change — doesn’t come from a political party or a presidential election. It can only come from the grace of God through the death and resurrection of His Son.
Two Senate bills, 773 and 778, introduced by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe would, if passed, give the federal government virtually unrestricted control over the Internet, including private-sector Internet services, applications, and services.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws. …
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, “it makes it more vulnerable to intruders,” Granick says. “You’ve basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down.”
The bill’s scope, she says, is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.”
I’m all in favor of increasing cybersecurity but clearly not at this cost. The Obama administration already has proved it has no qualms about removing executives from private sector companies, despite having absolutely no constitutional authority to do so. If this bill were to pass as-is, what’s to stop the White House from seizing control of AT&T, Verizon, and other ISPs and dictating what information is allowed and not allowed to pass over their networks? As it stands now, nothing.
And you thought the Bush-era NSA wiretapping was bad.
As the old gospel song goes, “He’s got the whole world in his hands.”
He’s going to make sure your new car from General Motors or Chrysler gets fixed. He’s going to make sure you get health care — sooner or later. And if your town is crippled by the demise of the auto industry, he’ll send a “czar” to protect it.
Look out folks, he’s Super Prez! …
His first instinct did not seem to be to order up “more government,” let alone more power for the presidency. In fact, he spent months criticizing the aggrandizements of George W. Bush.
But then, as it often happens in the back-story of a member of the Legion of Superheroes, a laboratory experiment went horribly awry. It was called the global-credit economy, and it got caught in a white-hot meltdown just as Obama assumed the presidency. And the man who emerged from that scorching vat was a rather different character.
Suddenly, the tactical boldness Obama had applied while seeking office was translated into an action plan for the economy. He concluded that presidential action — and lots of it — was the indispensable first step toward recovery and his own chances for re-election.
Longtime Obama supporter Patricia Jones Blessman donated $10,000 to the Presidential Inauguration Committee to ensure she would be able to attend the historic cermony in January, but unfortunately she missed the swearing-in due to “security mayhem”.
Blessman says she felt treated “like nothing more than an ATM” by the inaugural committee.
…”Bereft, bittersweet disappointment does not even begin to describe the emotions we are left with on what should have been a joyous mountaintop experience. The irony is that we paid for this madness,” Blessman wrote in an email dated Jan. 22 to Julianna Smoot, a co-chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee and the national finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.
That’s OK, Ms. Blessman. You’re not the only one to feel disappointed and ripped off by President Obama. You’re just the only one to get a refund as a result of it.
Over the last couple of days, everyone in Washington has suddenly been outraged over the revelation that AIG is contractually obligated to pay out $165 million in bonuses to its executives, even after the company has taken $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money.
The employment contracts became so complex, with pay packages consisting of stock options and other forms of deferred compensation, largely because of Congress’ attempts to control soaring executive salaries. In 1993, Congress limited the tax deduction companies could take for cash payments to $1 million. The result was a cottage industry of lawyers, consultants and advisors who structure even bigger pay packages with creative legal strategies that now make the AIG bonuses difficult to rescind.
Before Congress got involved we used to give them a $2 million salary and a corporate jet,” said Lynn Stout, a UCLA professor who specializes in corporate governance and securities regulation. “And it was much cheaper and safer.”
This is why Congress should just butt out and let the market decide how much executives should earn. But of course, that would be too easy, wouldn’t it?
For the record, I’m not in favor of seeing my tax money go to pay for these bonuses. But then again, I’m not in favor of any of these bailouts, so whatever.
“It’s just troubled,” the 50-year-old CEO said at the Thrivent Financial for Lutherans’ Business Leaders Forum. …
Davis went on to say in his talk that while government officials marketed the program as a way to entice banks to lend again, TARP actually was designed to give solid banks like U.S. Bancorp some extra cash to buy weaker banks in the system. U.S. Bancorp did just that late last year when it acquired the assets of two failed banks in California, Downey Savings and Loan and PFF Bank & Trust.
“We were told to take it so that we could help Darwin synthesize the weaker banks and acquire those and put them under different leadership,” he said. “We are not even allowed to mention that. … We were supposed to say the TARP money was used for lending.” …
“Now they’re punishing you for having the capital,” he said, adding that he refuses to stand by and let his company become “collateral damage” in an attempt to nationalize the banks.
So what does Davis offer as an alternative solution to government bailouts? Faith.
Near the close of his speech, Davis suggested that what the panic-stricken world needs more than ever now is a little bit of courage and some faith that it will get through this dark period.
“Perhaps what we should do is check ourselves and say, ‘OK, it is tough.’ What can we — any two of us, any five of us, any 200 of us — do to improve the outcome of this difficult circumstance,” Davis said. “And by the way, where’s the faith? … Where’s the belief that something is going to turn here and we might actually have a chance?”
Don’t worry, Mr. Davis. I’m sure President Obama will save us. He is, after all, the messiah.
I can't believe people still use fax machines in 2010... -- 3 hours ago
I don't know what's funnier: Dan Rather's "Obama couldn't sell watermelons" comment or that he's now being attacked for being a racist. -- 4 hours ago
Anyone else annoyed by the misuse of "I" and "me" in song lyrics? It's "the sound of you and ME", not "the sound of you and I".#grammarnazi -- 6 hours ago
I'm praying, too! RT @christyspooner: Praying for my friend that is having heart surgery today. God is in control! -- 6 hours ago
Bummed that#UT lost to Baylor, but at least there's always the NCAA tournament, right? ... Oh look! Baseball season! -- 6 hours ago
We can’t afford it.
