Saturday, August 15, 2009

Liberals whine over Whole Foods CEO who is against Obamacare.

CEO John Mackey starts out with a Thatcher quote! I may have to shop there just to give some financial support, but this does point out again that the liberal idea of debate and discussion is as long as you agree with them, everything is a-okay.

Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he'll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.

"I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.

Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.'s CEO John Mackey's views on health care reform, which were made public this week in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Wall Street Journal.

Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.

"I'm boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care," said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods "several times a week."

"While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn't seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit," said Lent.

In his op-ed, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," published Tuesday, Mackey criticized President Barack Obama's health care plan.

Mackey provided eight "reforms" he argued the U.S. can do to improve health care without increasing the deficit. He suggested that tax forms be revised to "make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance."

Mackey also called for a move toward "less government control and more individual empowerment" instead of "a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits."

He added that many of the country's health care problems are "self-inflicted" and are preventable through "proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices."

In the op-ed, Mackey outlines Whole Foods' employee health insurance policy. According to Mackey, Whole Foods pays 100 percent of the premiums for all employees who work 30 hours or more per week -- about 89 percent of his workforce.

Additionally, the company gives each employee $1,800 per year in "health-care dollars," says Mackey, that they can use at their own discretion for health and wellness expenses. This money can be put toward the $2,500 annual deductible that must be covered before Mackey says the company's "insurance plan kicks in."

....The op-ed piece, which begins with a Margaret Thatcher quote, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," has left some Whole Foods loyalists enraged. Many say Mackey was out of line to opine against the liberal base that has made his fortune possible.

Christine Taylor, a 34-year-old New Jersey shopper, vowed never to step foot in another Whole Foods again.

"I will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods," Taylor told ABCNews.com. "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients."

Obama calls opponents of immigration amnesty ‘Demagogues’

Obama's arrogance shines again.

At a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Guadalajara, Mexico on Monday, President Barack Obama referred to American opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as “demagogues.”

Obama was in Guadalajara for a trilateral summit with Calderon and Harper.

....Obama gave a long answer indicating that he believed he could secure an immigration reform package that included a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In his answer, he characterized opponents of this “pathway” as “demagogues.”

“Now, am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No,” said Obama. “This is going to be difficult; it's going to require bipartisan cooperation. There are going to be demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable. And those are fights that I'd have to have if my poll numbers are at 70 or if my poll numbers are at 40. That's just the nature of the U.S. immigration debate

Obama brings in his dead grandmother, lies about death panel

This was stupid because it is going to get throw right back at him and keep the death panel debate alive.

President Barack Obama invoked his own anguish over the death of a loved one as he challenged the debunked notion that Democratic efforts to overhaul the nation's health care would include "death panels."

"I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."

...."When you start making arguments like that, that's simply dishonest—especially when I hear the arguments coming from members of Congress in the other party who, turns out, sponsored similar provisions," Obama said.

.... The president is seeking to put to rest claims that the health care overhaul he seeks would set up "death panels" to rule on life-sustaining care for ailing seniors. It would not, and Obama has stressed that point repeatedly over the past week.

Obama reiterated his contention that the Democratic health care legislation would not create "death panels" to deny care to frail seniors. Obama has explained that the provision that has caused the uproar would only authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, living wills, hospice care and other issues, if the patient wants it.


From the NYTIMES magazine April 28th,2009.


THE PRESIDENT:"...Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care —

DAVID LEONHARDT: Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

DAVID LEONHARDT: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.


Translation: We need to set up a panel to determine when the costs outweigh the benefits which BTW means terminally ill and old people who take up the bulk of medical bills will be affected.

If you look at it from an emotionless objective point of view having this panel to guide and give recommendations like UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence(NICE) that is the NHS monitoring body may bring down the costs.

TELEGRAPH: Judge upholds restriction on Alzheimer's drug

Drug companies and campaigners yesterday lost a high court appeal for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's to be prescribed on the NHS a £2.50-a-day drug which is said to provide relief from the symptoms and respite for families.
In a complex judgment, the body that decides which treatments should be available on the NHS was told its guidance breaks the law by discriminating against people with learning disabilities and those who speak limited English.

The ruling means the drug will not be available for people in the earliest stages of the disease, allowing the decision of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), that Aricept's benefits are too slight to justify prescribing, to stand.


or Nurses being able to give the order to let you die.

DAILY MAIL: NHS nurses given power to end a life under controversial new guidelines

Nurses will be able to decide that a dying patient should not be resuscitated under controversial new guidelines.

Until now, only GPs and consultants could say whether there was any point in continuing efforts to save a life.
But guidance issued last night by the British Medical Association will allow 'suitably experienced nurses' to make this crucial decision.

New powers: A senior nurse attends to a critically ill patient, but she could soon be deciding whether to proceed witih treatment at all (posed by a model)
Patients' groups criticised the move, calling it 'another nail in the coffin' of the safety of the elderly and vulnerable which would condemn many to an 'early death sentence'.

The rules, published by the BMA in conjunction with the Royal College of Nursing and the Resuscitation Council, aim to help medical staff decide whether to resuscitate patients if their heart or breathing stops.

It says medical staff should use their judgment over whether there is any point in using the most common resuscitation method - chest compression, or 'cardiopulmonary resuscitation'.

But for the first time, this includes 'suitably experienced nurses'.

After a while even Doctors in the system can be emotionless enough to recommend death as well.

TELEGRAPH: Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "out­rageous" and "disgraceful".


Update: I have been mulling it over for a couple of hours and now I am thinking it is ghoulish that whenever something pops up he drags his grandmother into the fray.

Gov. Crist under pressure to pick Hispanic for replacing Mel Martinez.

An intolerable racist attitude shown by a supposed non partisan group.

Under pressure to pick a Hispanic to replace U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, Gov. Charlie Crist said Friday that U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and former U.S. Attorney Bob Martinez are on the short list.

Mel Martinez, the first Cuban-born U.S. senator, announced last week that he would step down as soon as Crist chooses a replacement. Both the congressman and former U.S. attorney live in Miami and were born in Cuba.

Crist, who is seeking election to the Senate himself in 2010, recently drew criticism for opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. On Friday, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials urged the governor to choose ``a qualified Latino or Latina'' to finish Martinez's term.

``We believe the appointment of Sen. Martinez's successor provides an opportunity to ensure that Florida's congressional leadership reflects the full diversity of the state,'' says the letter from the non-partisan group's executive director, Arturo Vargas.

Clermont police going after Obama joker suspect

There must be nothing else more pressing that waste man hours on a simple case of vanadalism. The way they are talking about it you would think a serial killer is on the loose. Did they put in the same effort for other posters or pro Obama signs last year? I doubt it.

Clermont police have interviewed one suspect who is admitting to putting up the dozens of posters pasted around the city depicting President Obama as the Joker character from the Batman film The Dark Knight, city officials confirmed.

Assistant City Manager Darren Gray said city officials have an individual "admitting to putting up 500" of the posters.

Clermont Police Capt. Eric Jensen said the male individual has admitted to putting up some signs, but investigators suspect others were involved and their investigation is continuing.

"We have talked to an individual," Jensen said. "He only admitted to some of it...We're still tracking down leads and talking to folks. We have not arrested anybody."

At this point officials are not sure how much damage was caused by the signs or the dollar amount associated with the clean-up.

Dozens of the posters were pasted around the city earlier this week. A pair of the posters were pasted to a Clermont Post Office collection box. They prompted the postmaster to contact the Postal Inspector's office, which is looking at potential federal crimes for defacing federal property.

Friday, August 14, 2009

"It's free money!" Yep, this is Obama's audience.

I have a feeling an economic class would be useless in this situation.

A $200 back-to-school giveaway for needy kids sparked a mad rush for money on the streets of New York on Tuesday.

"It's free money!" said Alecia Rumph, 26, who waited in a Morris Park, Bronx, line 300 people deep for the cash to buy uniforms and book bags for her two kids.

"Thank God for Obama. He's looking out for us."

Thousands of people lined up at banks and check-cashing shops to withdraw the cash that magically appeared on their electronic benefit cards.

Some rushed out because of rumors the money would vanish by the end of the day.

James Clyburn plays the race card over townhall protesters.

I am not surprised and thinking about it I was wondering when the usual suspects other than Rev.Al would play the race card against protesters. They can't argue on merit so demonize.

The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives on Thursday compared the disruptive protesters at recent health care town halls to people who unleashed dogs and spat on civil rights demonstrators during the 1960s.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Rep. James Clyburn, (D-S.C.), said that there was "absolutely" an analogy to be drawn between the horrid experience that he went through as a civil rights leader and the boisterous conservatives who have disrupted health care forums.

"I have seen this kind of hate before. I have seen this discussion before," he said. "I have seen snarling dogs going after people who were trying to peacefully assemble. I have seen the eyes of people who were being spat upon."

"This is all about activity trying to deny the establishment of a civil right. And I do believe that health care for all is -- a civil right," the House Majority Whip argued. "And I think that is why you see this kind of activity. This is an attempt on the part of some to deny the establishment of a civil right."

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Spain's Zapatero still clueless about the economy.

Scary part is if you switch his name out with Obama it wouldn't read odd.

Mr. Zapatero, 48, is a young Socialist visionary with an old entrenched economy. In an hourlong interview at the Moncloa Palace here on Wednesday, Mr. Zapatero explained how Spain could confront its economic crisis. His strategy is to invest in Spain’s future — education, research, biotechnology and renewable energy — without moving an inch to infringe on worker’s rights, and while extending government unemployment benefits.

In a country poised between innovation and stagnation, experts say, this could be a bold strategy — or pure naïveté. They contend Mr. Zapatero is long on visions for the future but lacks a plan for creating jobs in the medium term, or for financing his generous social policies.

Certainly, for many, the numbers do not add up. Spain’s budget deficit is expected to rise to 9.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts, although Mr. Zapatero has promised to bring it back within the 3 percent limit set by the European Union by 2012.

Skeptics say that Mr. Zapatero, for all his imagination, has run up against his own unwillingness to implement the painful structural changes that business leaders and the country’s central bank say are inevitable if Spain is to fight unemployment and bring its economy into the 21st Century.

.....Talks between the government, unions and business leaders broke down last week because the government would not meet the business sector’s demand that its contributions to the social security system and the cost of firing or laying off workers be reduced. Under the current system, to fire workers, Spanish companies must pay them 30 to 45 days of salary for each year worked. Businesses had unsuccessfully asked the government to lower that to 20 days of salary.

Mr. Zapatero said he would not try to make it easier for businesses to fire workers. “21st Century democratic Spain is not a country that is going to take a single step back in terms of rights that we have conquered,” he said. “When I see a worker, I see a citizen.”

Such talk does not go over well with business leaders. Lorenzo Amor, the head of the national federation of self-employed workers, who make up about half the companies in Spain, said that the small- and midsize companies were staggering under the burden of inflexible labor rules, worker absenteeism and lack of credit.

“In this country we have over a million households where nobody has a job. Ask those million households if they would prefer a work contract that offered 20 days’ pay,” he said, referring to the reduced compensation proposed by business leaders. “They would say yes. They want to work,” Mr. Amor said.


What fueled growth was easy credit and overbuilding which is not going to be repeated anytime soon. Zappo thinks he can change one part without messing with the other parts of the economy or workers rights making it hard for businesses to operate he fail miserably.

Christian Teen Flees Home, Says She Fears Honor Killing

Via ABC NEWS.

An Ohio teenager who secretly converted from Islam to Christianity has fled to Florida because she claims her father threatened her with an "honor killing" for abandoning her Muslim upbringing.

The girl's father has gone to Florida where she sought refuge with a church that she found online. Although the father insists he is not a menace to his daughter, a Florida court has placed the 17-year-old girl in foster care until her claims can be investigated.

Fathima Rifqa Bary, who goes by Rifqa, left home in New Albany, Ohio, last month and hopped on a bus to Orlando to meet with husband and wife pastors Blake and Beverly Lorenz, who she met through a Facebook prayer group for the couple's non-denominational Global Revolution Church.

"When she came to our house, she told us her parents would not report her missing," Blake Lorenz told ABCNews.com.

But they did report their daughter missing and the disappearance reached local news stations and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Lorenz said Rifqa, a native of Sri Lanka, had secretly converted from Islam to Christianity four years ago, but her religion was only discovered recently. Rifqa had snuck out to an area church where, according to Lorenz, she had an "incredible encounter with Jesus."

Lorenz said Rifqa was so moved she posted about it on her Facebook page, writings that would later be seen by her friends from her family's mosque and reported to her father, Mohamed Bary.

"That's when he threatened to kill her for the first time," Lorenz said, adding that he didn't know on how many other occasions that threat had been made.

Yale Press bans images of Muhammad in New Book

about the images of Muhammad. Brave courageous academia does the politically correct thing. Once again those people in academia and book publishing can talk a good game about values and freedom of expression until the chance of getting punched in the face gets serious, then they back down like cowards.

It’s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book. After all, when the 12 caricatures were first published by a Danish newspaper a few years ago and reprinted by other European publications, Muslims all over the world angrily protested, calling the images — which included one in which Muhammad wore a turban in the shape of a bomb — blasphemous. In the Middle East and Africa some rioted, burning and vandalizing embassies; others demanded a boycott of Danish goods; a few nations recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. In the end at least 200 people were killed.

So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.

The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.” The book is due out in November.

Michigan Prison Is Considered for Gitmo Detainees

Why not, the state itself is fast becoming the welfare state of the nation and its politicians are happying to run it faster into the ground. Lets make keeping prisoners of all stripes its #1 job creation since everyone is leaving which means more room.

The prison under consideration is a maximum-security facility in Standish, northwest of Detroit, said Elizabeth Boyd, the spokeswoman for Ms. Granholm. It is among eight facilities the state is preparing to close because of reduced revenues.

An administration official said that the visit was intended only to gather information about the facility and that no decisions had been made.

Michigan, however, long-suffering economically, may have more reason than other states to welcome the money that would come with housing detainees.

Michigan has cut 10,000 employees since 2000, leaving it with about as many state workers as it had in the early 1970s. Annual general fund revenues, when adjusted for inflation, have shrunk in all but one of the last nine years. Revenue is expected to be $6.9 billion next year, a level last seen in 1991 (and when inflation adjusted, similar to the 1960s).

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Crazy Keith Olbermann thinks he is an actual reporter.

This is like a hooker claiming she is an urologist.

Olbermann then said O'Reilly should be fired for the report: "If I -- or any actual reporter, like me -- had gotten as much wrong in any story as Bill O'Reilly got wrong in this one, I'd be fired in 15 minutes. As he should be now!" And Olbermann did the segment without the O'Reilly voice.

Corruption Scandal coming closer to Brazil's Lula ?

I love a good political scandal and interesting enough for Lula he has been able to escape previous scandals without much political damage.

The corruption scandal involving José Sarney, the head of Brazil's senate, moved closer to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva after a former tax official said she was pressured to stop an audit of Mr. Sarney's family businesses.

Mr. Sarney, also a former president of Brazil, has been an important da Silva ally, although a member of a different political party.

The tax official, Lina Maria Vieira, is a former head of Brazil's equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service. In statements to Brazilian newspapers published over the weekend, Ms. Vieira said that Dilma Rousseff, Mr. da Silva's chief of staff, contacted her late last year to request that she "facilitate" the audit of Mr. Sarney's family businesses.

Ms. Vieira says she interpreted Ms. Rousseff's words as a request to end the audit. Ms. Vieira, who has since left her post, says she denied the request. Further details about the audit aren't available because it is protected by confidentiality laws.

Ms. Rousseff has denied Ms. Vieira's allegations.

Mr. da Silva has sought to shield Ms. Rousseff, who is his hand-picked successor as president, from scandals that could hurt her prospects in an election that is likely to feature corruption allegations as a major theme. After two terms, Mr. da Silva isn't eligible for re-election.

Asked about Ms. Vieira's allegations while attending a conference in Quito, Ecuador, on Monday, Mr. da Silva called them a "fantasy."

Chávez Loyalists Push to Close the Golf Courses

Why? It is the sport of the bourgeois! Viva la Revolution!

President Hugo Chávez’s political movement has found a new target: golf.

After a brief tirade against the sport by the president on national television last month, pro-Chávez officials have moved in recent weeks to shut down two of the country’s best-known golf courses, in Maracay, a city of military garrisons near here, and in the coastal city of Caraballeda.

“Let’s leave this clear,” Mr. Chávez said during a live broadcast of his Sunday television program. “Golf is a bourgeois sport,” he said, repeating the word “bourgeois” as if he were swallowing castor oil. Then he went on, mocking the use of golf carts as a practice illustrating the sport’s laziness.

The government’s broad nationalizations and asset seizures have gone far beyond the oil industry to include coffee roasters, cattle ranches and tomato-processing plants.

....Mr. Chávez’s loyalists have taken aim at the sport before. Juan Barreto, a former mayor of Caracas, tried to seize control of the 18-hole course at the Caracas Country Club to build thousands of homes for the poor in 2006. The move set off infighting among Chavistas, as the president’s followers are known. After a legal battle, Mr. Barreto backed down.

Critics of the antigolf campaign point out that Venezuela’s top ally, Cuba, is going in the opposite direction. Canadian and European investors are seeking to build as many as 10 new courses in Cuba as part of the Cuban government’s bid to raise tourist revenues.

“China has more than 300 golf courses, and look what’s happening here,” said Mr. Torres, the director of the Venezuelan Golf Federation, invoking another Communist country with which Venezuela has warm ties. “We’re going from 28 courses to 18.”

Childless man released from child support debt

There is so much wrong here for this guy I am surprised he can still smile.

"....For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning in 2000 that the boy might not be his. A DNA test that year confirmed the child was not fathered by Hatley, court documents said.

He returned to court and was relieved of any future child support payments, but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 he owed the state before the ruling.

Since 2000, Hatley paid that debt down to about $10,000, Geraghty said. Court documents showed he was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments, continuing to do so even after he lost another job and became homeless in 2008. But last year he became unable to make the payments and was jailed.

The argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments, according to the attorney who represented him in 2000, was that he signed a consent agreement with the Office of Child Support Services.

The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period he believed the child was his son, said attorney Latesha Bradley.

But many, including Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey, didn't think Hatley's incarceration was fair, given that the child was not his. "I knew the gentleman's plight and didn't know how to help him," Daughtrey told CNN last month.

Obnoxious Sen.McCaskill stunned voters don't trust her.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) throws off the how dare you question me vibe big time.

Eugene Robinson admits Grandma better be concerned over Obamacare.

When one of the biggest Obama suckups admit there is something there about the end of life section, you know you have a problem.

The unvarnished truth is that services are ultimately going to have to be curtailed regardless of what happens with reform. We perform more expensive tests, questionable surgeries and high-tech diagnostic scans than we can afford. We spend unsustainable amounts of money on patients during the final year of life.


Yes, it's true that doctors order some questionable procedures defensively, to keep from getting sued. But it's a cop-out to blame the doctors or the tort lawyers. We're the ones who demand these tests, scans and surgeries. And why not? If a technology exists that can prolong life or improve its quality, even for a few weeks or months, why shouldn't we want it?


That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending. It's irresponsible for politicians, such as Sarah Palin, to claim — outlandishly and falsely — that there's going to be some kind of "death panel" to decide when to pull the plug on Aunt Sylvia. But it's understandable why people might associate the phrase "health-care reform" with limiting their choices during Aunt Sylvia's final days.

About that girl at the Obama campaign rally..townhall.

Plant. Not that was a surprise, the crowd was pre-screened and threw so many softballs at him even Obama realized it was looking awful.

President Obama rolled out his health care road show yesterday before a fawning audience at a town hall meeting here that was a far cry from the “vigorous debate” he promised on the controversial plan that has sparked bitter protests across the nation.

“It was obviously packed with Obama’s supporters, and I don’t think that it was especially effective. I don’t think he convinced anybody who doesn’t already support it,” said Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

“I think it would have been better had there been opponents asking some tough questions,” he added. “Obama no doubt can handle them.”

....Even the president seemed self-conscious about the lack of tough queries coming his way.

“I don’t want people thinking I’ve got a bunch of plants here,” Obama said, as he asked for contrary views

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Post Office Vandalized With Obama 'Joker' Posters

Everyone is upset and offended.



CLERMONT, Fla. -- A vocal and graphic Internet campaign attacking President Barack Obama just hit Central Florida and one of its first targets was a U.S. Post Office Several Lake County residents called WFTV when they spotted the 'Joker' posters on stop signs and saw workers scraping them off the post office in Clermont.

The postmaster told Eyewitness News he was deeply offended by what he saw, as were many residents who drop off mail at that location. He said he was getting so many calls he had to come out and scrape them off himself.

Obama's hilarious Post Office Healthcare comparison.

Forget he insulted the Post Office and its workforce, forget the fact he just compared Fedex/UPS as the better run private companies vs his health plan which is the Post Office that lost $2.4 billion in the third quarter. Forget that the Post Office is yet another quasi-government governed entity that is terribly mismanaged and operated. Its about 20 seconds into this clip where he sets up the public option as a mere competitor to private insurers that has to watch its revenue/expenses just like any other company.



Anyone believe the public option will be self sustaining or when expenses get out of control they will cut costs. If it doesn't work they would scrap it? That is the bigger lie coming out of this clip than the stupid Post Office insult.

Obama: I never said I was a single payer supporter?

Oh Really?
From todays Townhall/Campaign Rally.




From not so far back in the past.



If you listen closely, he never does disavow single payer, he just believes the transition to a single payer would be too "disruptive." Which leads to the third clip to show what he really wants to happen is lay the groundwork to single payer down the road.



So he is trying to lay down the foundation to boost up single payer and he really believes as long as he keeps saying that everything being said about his plan is a lie people will trust him. People are reading the bill, they are viewing these same video clips and getting irritated by a President who seems to believe that American people are stupid enough to go along with him despite the facts.

Even the NYTIMES has pointed out that the you can keep your plan is basically a lie because as the government will be competing with private insurers, they are going to fix the rules.

Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.

The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.

The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.”

The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies.

Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”


Other words he is lying.

Obama backing away from Zelaya?

Finally, Obama may have realized his kneejerk reaction was stupid.

Obama reaffirmed the US position that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was his country's rightful leader, a day before a mediation mission by the Organization for American States (OAS) begins.

He also assailed those who fault his approach.

"The same critics who say the US has not intervened in Honduras are the same people who say we are always intervening and Yankees need to get out of Latin America," he said, accusing such opponents of "hypocrisy."

"You can't have it both ways," he told reporters after the summit in the Mexican city of Guadalajara, adding that Washington had done everything it could since Zelaya was ousted in a coup in June.

Harper rode to Obama's defense in the open-air press briefing after a summit in an ornate former orphanage.

"The United States is accused of meddling except when it's accused of not meddling," Harper said.

Critics in Washington and elsewhere have complained that US policy is directed at reinstalling Zelaya's left-wing government and brand the ousted leader a dictator who deserved to be toppled.

On the opposite flank, others have claimed Washington has watered down its calls for Zelaya's restoration.


According to IBD, its has been watered down a lot.

In a welcome about-face, the State Department told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Richard Lugar, R-Ind., in a letter Tuesday that the U.S. would no longer threaten sanctions on Honduras for ousting its president, Mel Zelaya, last June 28.

Nor will it insist on Zelaya's return to power. As it turns out, the U.S. Senate can't find any legal reason why the Honduran Supreme Court's refusal to let Zelaya stay in office beyond the time allowed by Honduran law constitutes a "military coup."

This marks a shift. The U.S. at first supported Zelaya, a man who had been elected democratically but didn't govern that way. Now they're reaching out to average Hondurans, the real democrats.

Sure, the U.S. continues to condemn Zelaya's ouster and still seeks mediation of the dispute through Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. But no U.S. sanctions means Hondurans have won.

Stimulus saves states in 2009, 2010? DOOM!

The bailout money helped states not correct their budgets to reflect fallen revenue now with 2010 coming around the situation will be even worse. Good job morons.

As states across the country grapple with the worst economy in decades, most have cut services, forced workers to take unpaid days off, shut offices several days a month and scrambled to find new sources of revenue.

The good news is that much of the pain this year has been cushioned by billions of dollars of federal stimulus money, which has allowed states and localities to avoid laying off teachers, prison guards, police officers and firefighters.

The bad news is that for the next fiscal year, beginning in July, the picture looks even bleaker. Revenue is expected to remain depressed, even if the national economy improves. There will be only half as much federal stimulus aid available, and many states have already used up their emergency reserves.

Most states have just approved a budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, and their legislatures have adjourned for the summer. But in a dozen or more states, those budgets have already gone into the red less than two months into the fiscal year, by a total of about $24 billion. More than 30 states are projecting deficits for next year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based think tank, and other expert estimates.

The economic picture in state capitals has looked bad since last fall, when the national economy first went into freefall and many governors called their legislatures into emergency sessions to make drastic mid-year cuts for such things as health-care services and support for public colleges and universities. But as legislatures have just completed their regular budgeting process, the extent of the fiscal disaster is only now becoming clear -- and some are already talking about additional special sessions this fall, with more painful cost-cutting ahead.

Maryland, with a $1.9 billion budget, faces a $700 million gap, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The District has a new $650 million budget with a $150 million shortfall. Virginia, with a $1.8 billion budget, also faces a new deficit, but the size has not been determined.

For the next two fiscal years, the states face a combined budget shortfall of $350 billion, according to the center and the Council of State Governments, using roughly the same projections.

"I think that states are going to have to look at revenue and programs across the board, or they're going to have to raise revenue in an anemic economic environment," said Chris Whatley, deputy executive director of the Council of State Governments. "Either way you look at it, it's going to be about tough decisions in state capitals."

Monday, August 10, 2009

HUD forces Westchester County to market to nonwhites.

This is stupid, but here is the background.

Westchester County entered into a landmark desegregation agreement on Monday that would compel it to create hundreds of houses and apartments for moderate-income people in overwhelmingly white communities and aggressively market them to nonwhites in Westchester and New York City.

The agreement, if ratified by the county’s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments’ housing policies by the Obama administration.

“This is consistent with the president’s desire to see a fully integrated society,” said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. “Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people’s feet to the fire.”

The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.

The county, one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.

Affordable housing is defined by a complex formula, but generally it is meant to help working families keep from spending more than a third of their gross income on housing. A family of four could make up to $53,000 as a tenant and up to $75,000 as an owner and still qualify.

There is no minimum income level, “but it’s not going to be no-income,” said Craig Gurian, executive director of the Anti-Discrimination Center, which filed the lawsuit. “This agreement is not focused on facilitating housing for the poorest of the poor.” The center is a nonprofit anti-bias advocacy and litigation group based in New York City.


The gist is the county got money for affordable housing efforts, lied about it and HUD is going to force them instead of getting the money back to build or buy places to be affordable housing then market to nonwhites with moderate incomes.

Judge Cote concluded that Westchester had made little or no effort to find out where low-income housing was being placed, or to finance homes and apartments in communities that opposed affordable housing.

As part of Monday’s agreement, the county admitted that it has the authority to challenge zoning rules in villages and towns that in many cases implicitly discourage affordable housing by setting minimum lot sizes, discouraging higher-density developments or appropriating vacant property for other purposes. Westchester agreed to “take legal action to compel compliance if municipalities hinder or impede the county” in complying with the agreement.

It was unclear Monday to what extent localities could thwart the agreement, if any chose to do so. Mary Beth Murphy, the town supervisor of Somers, which is among the possible locales for new housing, said that while she was unaware of the agreement, “we certainly are committed to affordable housing and have amended our zoning legislation in recent years to create more opportunities.”

The agreement could spark challenges to suburban county governments across the country that have resisted pressure to undo decades of residential segregation.


Time for my bougie side to rear its head.

HUD and Ron Sims has this ass backwards. The best plan is affordable housing in areas that people can actually afford to live in based on their income without subsidies or sticking them in areas with your good intentions of forced integration which never works out.

How can you have affordable housing in an expensive county where either accepted owners can't afford to live there(paying various taxes, cost of living) or you have taxpayers subsidizing payments. Plus the fact you are going to see a suburbia exodus after this ruling gets around the population because "affordable housing" brings up the stigma of crime which in cases are true. My experience with affordable housing or Section 8 is high crime area and a bad reputation. I rarely read or hear about any successful areas.

If the affordable owners don't pay their fair share of taxes that will nurture even more resentment over this forced housing agreement.

It does put local governments on notice that HUD and Sims are going to twist arms with any community that accepts Fed money to put into actions the same sort of ideas that the likes of ACORN and other community organziers have demanded for affordable housing. This won't end well.

No MSNBC. Socialist not a code word for Nigger.

If its not clear now, liberals are going to connect any word use to criticize or describe black jesus as some sort of code for racist. It is meant to scare people off for daring to point out anything connected with Obama. Carlos Watson starts off the meme this morning that will surely be repeated by Olbermann and his sidekick after him.

Today I want to talk about a word that we're hearing more and more, and that's the word socialist. You hear it from a lot of conservatives these days, that's usually critiquing the President, or more broadly Democrats. And while that's certainly a legitimate critique, there certainly is an ideology that can and should be critiqued at certain times, it also some times is just a kind of a generic conservative bludgeoning tool. And that's alright, too, because you hear it on the Democratic side as well: rightwingnut, what have you.

But what concerns me is when in some of those town hall meetings including the one that we saw in Missouri recently where there were jokes made about lynching, etc., you start to wonder whether in fact the word socialist is becoming a code word, whether or not socialist is becoming the new N-word for frankly for some angry upset birthers and others. I hope that's not the case, but it sure does say to you what David Brooks said the other day on T.V. which is that more credible conservatives have to stand up and say that there's a line that has to be drawn, that there's a line of responsibility that's important, and that extends to the words that we choose including how choose even legitimate words like socialist.


1) David Brooks has become the magic negro of conservatives for liberals. If a liberal likes a conservative or uses him or her as a good example, he/she not really a conservative.

2) Carlos shows the liberal mindset that if you call someone a term because it is an apt description by a conservative, then it must have a hidden agenda and meaning behind it because conservatives views in his mind are suspect.

Al Sharpton implied the same in an op-ed at THEGRIO.COM. If you are against Obama, you must be racist.

"..... And since inauguration, we have witnessed dangerous words like 'socialist' and 'Marxist' touted around as if they didn't hold an ugly and troubling history.

Never before in our nation's history has the president of the United States been undermined and attacked so blatantly in the media, on Capitol Hill and in the court of public opinion. It happens in small manners when someone refers to him as 'Mr. Obama' rather than 'President Obama', and in more blatant manners by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world. Instead of supporting the president as he undertakes the daunting task of resurrecting the country out of our plethora of challenges, some chose to divide, incite fear, push their own agendas and reinforce age-old stereotypes. Now I ask you, who is the real racist?


Instead of going on a long rant on the stupidity of these paranoid delusions, MSNBC needs to show how exactly are you supposed to be against Obama and his policies the correct way. Show the world how to properly address black jesus without upsetting his groupies like Carlos.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Somalis in Australia brand police terrorists after terror raids

Not really helping out making people think your community can fit into Australian society with talk like this from community leaders.

HATE-filled messages on a Muslim website claim an alleged plot to attack an Australian army base would have been justified.

And Somali community leaders have branded police as terrorists in the wake of this week's anti-terror swoop.

Abdurahman Osman, a leader of Melbourne's 15,000 strong Somali community, said police acted unreasonably.

"What do you call waking people up at four in the morning with guns?" he said.

"It is the police themselves that are the terrorists.

"They had 400 police and 19 raids, but they did not find anything. No guns, no ammunition, nothing.

Mr Osman, until now a voice of moderation between Somalis and the wider community, said police should have consulted migrant leaders.

"The federal police could have come to us first and we could have helped them," Mr Osman said.


"We have met with them now, but we don't believe they have evidence of a terrorist plot and that is the feeling of the community."

Other Somalis accused Australian authorities of bigotry.


Why should the police treat the Somalis differently than everyone else in carrying out arrests? That is not how law enforcement works anywhere that I know of where you consult the self appointed leaders of a certain community before carrying out your law enforcement duties. That would be ridiculous.

AG Holder to investigate interrogation of terrorism suspects

Here comes the SOP for the left who demand heads on a silver platter from Obama as Holder who is not much for voter intimidation by black panthers goes in to fight a losing battle.

Reporting from Washington -- U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws.

Current and former CIA and Justice Department officials who have firsthand knowledge of the interrogation files contend that criminal convictions will be difficult to obtain because the quality of evidence is poor and the legal underpinnings have never been tested.


Given the narrow scope it can't please the left and it looks to be more of a distraction technique by Obama.

Sorta, there is an Obama "death panel" in House health care bill.

Tapper goes after Palin for her interpretation of Page 425, Section 1233 of the House Dems bill titled advance care planning consultation. Polifacts says its not true but they are not thinking the plan all the way to its logical conclusion.

In her chat with Thompson, McCaughey said the language can be found on page 425 of the health care bill, so we started there. Indeed, Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled "Advance Care Planning Consultation" details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions.

According to the bill, "such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy."

Medicare will cover one session every five years, the legislation states. If a patient becomes very ill in the interim, Medicare will cover additional sessions.

Jon Keyserling, general counsel and vice president of public policy for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which supports the provision, said the bill doesn't encourage seniors to end their lives, it just allows some important counseling for decisions that take time and consideration.

"These are very serious conversations," he said. "It needs to be an informative conversation from the medical side and it needs to be thought about carefully by the patient and their families."

In no way would these sessions be designed to encourage patients to end their lives, said Jim Dau, national spokeman for AARP, a group that represents people over 50 that has lobbied in support of the advanced planning provision.


Charles Lane is kinda disturbed by it.

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are "key questions"? Who belongs on "a list" of helpful "resources"? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?

Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life's end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it's good to have a doctor's perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

As it happens, I have a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care. I'm glad I do. I drew them up based on publicly available medical information, in consultation with my family and a lawyer. No authority figure got paid by federal bean-counters to influence me. I have a hunch I'm not the only one who would rather do it that way.


The bolded part is the problem because now the Dems have introduced an incentive for doctors or their offices to intiate end of life discussion and/or treatments that are not 100% in the patient's best interests of having a longer or healther life. Senior citizens trust their doctors and the influence of an authority figure who is being pressed to watch their payments could transfer over to their patients. Government run health care is all about rationing resources.

Look at this woman in Oregon.


Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."

Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

....Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. But he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.


But the medical director at the cancer center where Wagner gets her care said some people may have incredible responses to treatment.


Thank that attitude to a federal level and you see why people are outraged over section 1233. It pushes end of life consultation to the same level as prolonging someone's life instead of being a part of someone's legal rights to use of their own time and place.

Update: Malkin with various roundups on the death panel talk including links to the UK's NHS where medical treatment borders on get them in and get the out fast.

If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, all hell would break loose.

Via Jim Treacher twitter:

If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, right now he'd be more famous than Rodney King. Al Sharpton would have a whole rack of new suits.


Yep. There would be mass protests in the media and a permanent fixture on MSNBC, sites like blackamericaweb.com and theroot.com would put him up there with Henry Gates as this being the typical life of a black man in America.

But since as Tavis Smiley would say with a smile with nodding approval from the likes of Tom Joyner back in the day, he may be skinfolk but he ain't kinfolk.