Thursday, February 27, 2014

Killing Medicare Advantage: Another lie about Obamacare exposed!

SENTINEL ^ | 2/27/2-14 | EDITORIAL
February 27, 2014 Lewistown Sentinel
 About 16 million older Americans rely on Medicare Advantage policies to supplement their government health insurance. We have warned for years that drastic cuts in federal funding for Medicare Advantage were part of the Obamacare scheme.  President Barack Obama and his fellow liberals have accused those of us sounding the alarm about Medicare Advantage of lying. That sounds strange indeed, coming from a White House exposed repeatedly for not telling the truth about Obamacare.  Once again, the liberals' dishonesty is being unmasked.  Medicare officials have released a 148-page report on plans for the program next year. It includes a cut in funding for Medicare Advantage.  When Obamacare was being debated, some analysts warned it would involve billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. It turned out that among liberals, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was the least dishonest of all when she commented that Americans would have to pass the Obamacare bill to know what was in it.  Now we know the critics were right. Obamacare will cost senior citizens dearly. They can pay more to maintain existing health insurance or settle for reduced benefits. Another Obamacare lie has been exposed. How many more will have to be revealed before the program is repealed?

In My CHair?

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore were in an airplane that crashed. They're up in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first: "Al, what do you believe in?" Al replies, "Well, I believe that the combustion engine is evil and that we need to save the world from CFCs and that if any more freon is used, the whole earth will become a greenhouse and we'll all die." God thinks for a second and says "Okay, I can live with that. Come and sit at my left." God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?" Bill replies, "Well, I believe in power to the people. I think people should be able to make their own choices about things and that no one should ever be able to tell someone else what to do.
I also believe in feeling people's pain." God thinks for a second and says "Okay, that sounds good. Come and sit at my right." God then address Hillary. "Hillary, what do you believe in?" "I believe you're in my chair."

Is Cruz out of Control? (Absolutely not) ^ | February 27, 2014 | Cal Thomas
What you think of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) depends on who you believe. Is the freshman senator on an "ego trip," putting himself before country (Dana Milbank, The Washington Post), or is he standing on his principles (Cruz's conservative supporters)? ABC chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl says Cruz is "so hated" among GOP senators that "he's going to need a food taster." In a telephone interview with me, Cruz acknowledges he would not win a "Mr. Congeniality" contest if it were up to the Republican leadership in the Senate, but contends that they and some of his colleagues are out of touch with the will of the people: "The reaction in Washington is the polar opposite of the reaction outside Washington," he says. "People across the country are frustrated that so many elected officials in Washington are not listening and ignoring the concerns of the people." I ask him about his controversial move last week to change Senate rules by requiring 60 votes to pass the debt ceiling increase, instead of a 51-vote majority. Cruz responded, "...there is no universe in which I would be willing to consent to allow (majority leader) Harry Reid to raise the debt ceiling with no spending reforms on only 51 votes. The reaction from a significant number of my colleagues was considerable anger and dismay." Cruz rejects the notion that a vote against raising the debt ceiling would have produced another government shutdown, favoring Democrats. He points to history: "The last 55 times the debt ceiling has been raised, Congress attached significant conditions to it 28 times. Virtually every major spending restraint Congress has passed has come through the debt ceiling." As two examples, he cites the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which, according to its co-author Sen. Phil Gramm, was "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending" and last year's Budget Control Act, nicknamed "sequestration." How does Cruz expect to get the reforms he wants without a Republican Senate majority, not to mention a Republican president? "We have the same number of votes we had when we got the Budget Control Act," he maintains. "If we had stood together and voted no, we could have blocked this from happening. ... We would (then have sat) down and negotiated a resolution, a compromise, with some meaningful spending restraints." What about the Republican and larger Washington establishment and the Tea Party? The prevailing wisdom is that the Tea Party harms incumbents, replacing them with conservative purists, who then lose the general election. Not true, says Cruz. While acknowledging that Tea Party candidates Christine O'Donnell (Delaware) and Sharon Engle (Nevada) lost to Democrats in 2010 races that stronger candidates might have won, Cruz says the overall record of Tea Party candidates is far better than the establishment's record. He cites Florida, where Marco Rubio beat Charlie Crist in a primary despite Crist's support from the GOP establishment. Cruz says Rubio was the right candidate given Crist's post-election switch to the Democrats. Crist is now running for governor as a Democrat. Cruz offers other examples in which Tea Party candidates won over hand-picked establishment candidates: Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania; Mike Lee over Robert Bennett in Utah; Rand Paul over Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's candidate, Trey Grayson, in Kentucky. He might add himself to that list. "Every one of these," he says, "was elected by the Tea Party against huge opposition from the establishment and all of their money." Can promoting such candidates win back the Senate for Republicans in November? Cruz says, "Many of the critics are saying the path to victory in November is for Republicans to put their heads down, don't rock the boat, don't take any stands. ... I think history has proven that that is a consistent path to failure. The way to win in November is for Republicans to take principled stands. ... That doesn't mean we need to fight on everything. You pick your battles. ... When Washington politicians retreat on every issue, it demoralizes grassroots conservative activists who are the key to winning in November." Given the results of the last two presidential elections and their own poor record, the GOP establishment may want to put themselves on "Cruz control."

IRS: “Not even a smidgen of corruption.” That’s why it’s a phony scandal!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 2-27-2014 | MOTUS
smidgenBig Guy told O’Reilly that there’s “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS actions taken to investigate conservative groups. Now Congressman Trey Gowdy wants to know just how big a smidgen is. Is it more than a soupçon? Less than a scintilla?With all due respect, and despite the fact that BHO has completed his own internal investigation and concluded that the IRS is a phony scandal, House Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa – and Trey Gowdy - are still not satisfied:
Worth watching the whole thing if you have timeAnd they want more answers from Lois-I-did-nothing-wrong-butt-I’m-taking-the-Fifth-Lerner.IRS Political GroupsAccordingly, the Chairman has recalled her to testify to Congress next week. Her attorney says she will only do so if granted immunity. Immunity for what? Not a smidgen of wrong doing? Not a scintilla of corruption? Congressman Gowdy says there will be no immunity until we know exactly how big a smidgen is.This is almost as good as the season premier of The Americans!Meanwhile, Harry Reid has called out all those lying Americans who are making up horror stories about their Obamacare experiences. He later walked back his accusations, saying only the “vast majority” of them were liars.I don’t know what to think; if Obamacare isn’t fraught with horror stories problems unrealized opportunities, why does Big Guy have to keep unilaterally changing all the rules?delayed obamacareButt enough of all this; let’s talk about something fun. Do you remember how anxious you all were to see the rest of this frock that Lady M wore at the 2012 Governor’s Ball?mo gov ballWell, finally, you can; it’s now on display in the Smithsonian, cleaned, nipped and tucked for display:5b8186b9e6adda074c0f6a706700db53The frock, designed by Indian-American designer Naeem Khan especially for Lady M, is part of a special Smithsonian exhibit - “Beyond Bollywood: Indian Americans Shape the Nation” - on the history of Indian immigration to the United States and the influence of Indian-Americans.*Hee* - “Indian Americans Shape the Nation.” Actually, it’s the NASA designed industrial strength containment systems that do most of the “shaping” for Lady M, butt the gowns are a nice finishing element. And Naeem is definitely one of Lady M’s favorite designers “shaping” America:
Screenshot Studio capture #1790Lady M in various frocks designed by Naeem KhanOf course, some of Naeem’s designs “shaped” America better than others.naeemAnd there’s not even a smidgen of construction involved in any of his creations. The man’s a creative genius!Maybe we should recruit him to redesign Obamacare.pj boy3Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror

Demonization of ObamaCare Opponents Intensify ^ | February 26, 2014 | Rightwingerpatriot
As the dreadful effects of ObamaCare continue to pile up, the far left shows their true beliefs as they savagely go after any person who dares raise a criticism. We all know how "tolerant" liberals actually are, but they continue to sink to new lows as they intensify their war on those who are most vulnerable to the Affordable Care Act. From the floor of the US Senate to individual states, liberals are looking to bully the unprotected into silence. Our first case in point takes place in Michigan, where a Democrat candidate for US Senator is going after a cancer patient. Gary Peters, the candidate in question, is attempting to bully Julie Boonstra and local television stations for airing an ad where she describes how ObamaCare has jeopardized her health. His campaign has ordered the stations to stop running the ads or they could lose their FCC license. Sadly, Gary Peters isn't alone. Practically every other leftwing media group is pushing the fake narrative that there are no ObamaCare horror stories. These entities include the New York Times, the LA Times, and Mother Jones. Probably the most odious was a blog post by Paul Krugman, who says, "the true losers from ObamaCare generally aren't very sympathetic." Guess people who lose their health coverage or have medication costs that are needed to keep one alive skyrocket thousands of dollars per month are just evil people, not sympathetic. What utter tripe. What this boils down to for the liberal is that, "We don't care who gets screwed as long as the state becomes more powerful and all-controlling. Don't you peasants understand you need big government to survive?" The ends justify the means no matter who gets hurt. On the national front, the paragon of wit and virtue, Harry Reid, said on the Senate floor that the ObamaCare horror stories being told are untrue. Reid also went after the liberal version of the boogeyman, the Koch brothers, calling them "un-American." (Reid conveniently ignores the fact that he has directly benefitted from George Soros, who is easily the most dangerous anti-American person with his tremendous wealth gained from manipulating the financial system.) All of this is done for a reason: to silence dissent and keep the truth from the American people. Democrats are running scared as their lies fall on increasingly deaf ears as people are seeing their health policies cancelled or their premiums shooting through the roof. Still, you have to admire their pluck (if not their morals) by continually shouting, "What are you going to believe? What I tell you or what you see with your own two eyes?"

The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class!

Amazon ^ | 2014 | Fred Siegel
This short book rewrites the history of modern American liberalism. It shows that what we think of liberalism today – the top and bottom coalition we associate with President Obama - began not with Progressivism or the New Deal but rather in the wake of the post-WWI disillusionment with American society. In the twenties, the first writers and thinkers to call themselves liberals adopted the hostility to bourgeois life that had long characterized European intellectuals of both the left and the right. The aim of liberalism’s foundational writers and thinkers such as Herbert Croly, Randolph Bourne, H.G. Wells, Sinclair Lewis and H.L Mencken was to create an American aristocracy of sorts, to provide a sense of hierarchy and order associated with European statism. Like communism, Fabianism, and fascism, modern liberalism, critical of both capitalism and democracy, was born of a new class of politically self-conscious intellectuals. They despised both the individual businessman's pursuit of profit and the conventional individual's pursuit of pleasure, both of which were made possible by the lineaments of the limited nineteenth-century state. Temporarily waylaid by the heroism of the WWII generation, in the 1950s liberalism expressed itself as a critique of popular culture. It was precisely the success of elevating middle class culture that frightened foppish characters like Dwight Macdonald and Aldous Huxley, crucial influences on what was mistakenly called the New Left. There was no New Left in the 1960s, but there was a New Class which in the midst of Vietnam and race riots took up the priestly task of de-democratizing America in the name of administering newly developed rights The neo-Mathusianism which emerged from the 60s was, unlike its eugenicist precursors, aimed not at the breeding habits of the lower classes but rather the buying habits of the middle class. Today’s Barack Obama liberalism has displaced the old Main Street private sector middle class with a new middle class composed of public sector workers allied with crony capitalists and the country’s arbiters of style and taste.

Shovel Ready

Minimum Wage


Socialism vs Capitalism

Hope and Change

Severe Depression

Dr. Feelgood


The Church

Cross the line!

Run Hillary Run!

Redness not Blackness


Another Detroit!