The New York Times reports that “President Obama, who has stood by his landmark health care law through court attacks (liberal translation: “unconstitutional court ruling”) and legislative efforts to repeal it, told the nation’s governors on Monday that he was willing to amend the measure to give states the ability to opt out of its most controversial requirements right from the start…The announcement is the first time Mr. Obama has called for altering a central component of his signature health care law…”
The man hasn’t budged on his support and promotion of Obamacare, so why is he now willing to make ‘alterations’?
We find the answer in a Politico report revealing:
“…a source on a White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.
Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans -- as Vermont seeks to -- and true government-run plans, like Connecticut's Sustinet.
The source on the call summarizes the officials' point -- which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically -- as casting the new "flexibility" language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.
"They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible," the source emails.”
Ah, yes…what Obama has effectively done is instead of providing the discussed ‘flexibility’ to states hesitant in implementing an unconstitutionally-ruled law, he’s requested an allowance for blue states to setup single-payer government-run healthcare systems. Then as Levin covered on yesterday’s broadcast, this has the potential to provide the irrational, liberal judiciary with an opening, much like Roe v. Wade, to conclude that “what one should have, all should have!” Once again, they confuse ‘rights’ for privileges and use legal plunder to advance defiant implementation and acceptance.
A good rule to walk away with here is when ‘flexibility’ is discussed, it ALWAYS leans left. Don’t fall for it, Governors. Don't fall for it, America!
Business Insider has published the Mary Meeker/Kleiner Perkins chart presenting the U.S. "income statement", and title with the sobering message: "Here's the one chart you need to see to understand why the US is screwed."
Blodget asks us to note a few things:
First, "Revenue" is tiny relative to "Expenses."
Second, most of the expense is entitlement programs, not defense, education, or any of the other line items that most budget crusaders normally howl about.
Third, as horrifying as these charts are, they don't even show the trends of these two pies: The "expense" pie is growing like gangbusters, driven by the explosive growth of the entitlement programs that no one in government even has the balls to talk about. "Revenue" is barely growing at all.
The phrase "Welcome to the Welfare State" is now dwarfed by the proof that we're already in the throes of it. How long is it going to take for us as a Nation to realize that we need genuine leadership more than ever?
If ever we needed a 'flip-flop', it's with this chart: lower taxes to increase employment, then CUT, CUT, CUT spending! We can start to curb the spending by looking at the latest GAO report and ridding the system of redundant programs that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year! We can lower taxes and increase employment...well, when we get rid of the leftists in Washington, particularly the alpha head of the bloated hydra.
Here was ‘Mr. Civility’ just over a month ago:
And here he is taking a shot at Scott Walker on Monday while speaking to the nation’s governors:
Where’s ‘Mr. Civility’ now? Where was he when FOX News reporter Mike Tobin was hit by 'peaceful demonstrators' during a live broadcast from Wisconsin, while chants of “FOX News lies” were attempting to drown him out?
What did he have to say when a rabid union thug at the Moveon.org union solidarity protest in Chicago spewed hateful violent rhetoric against the GOP and “Teabaggers”?
Not a peep from Obama; not a peep from any Democrat. And a couple of things to note. First, you’ve NEVER seen or heard this kind of behavior at a tea party rally! Despite what the liberal media reports, they've failed at every request to produce any supporting evidence. Secondly, to put things in crystal clear perspective, these protests over union bargaining privileges effect a whopping 7% of America's workforce...so shouldn't we look at this as 'evening out the playing field'? Or are we just to accept that 7% of the workforce holds a monopoly over the rest by means of the taxpayers' money?
The dirty little secret is that Obama has never worn the genuine mantle of civility, nor has his party. That title would be more appropriately fitting of WI Gov. Scott Walker, with a 'civil' response to Obama’s cheap shot earlier in the day…
“I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay. And I'm sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.
Furthermore, I’m sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.
I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isn’t acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.”
You’ve got him pegged, Governor. Obama speaks of ‘civility’, yet agitates with the best of them. The man and his party are 'bought and paid for' by and for a unionized utopia that has run its course!
Meeting at a school house in Ripon on February 28, 1854, some thirty opponents of the Nebraska Act called for the organization of a new political party and suggested that Republican would be the most appropriate name (to link their cause with the Declaration of Independence). The group also took a leading role in the creation of the Republican Party in many northern states during the summer of 1854. While conservatives and many moderates were content merely to call for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise or a prohibition of slavery extension, the group insisted that no further political compromise with slavery was possible.
The February 1854 meeting was the first political meeting of the group that would become the Republican Party. The first meeting by a group that called itself "Republican" took place later in 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. Both cities, along with Exeter, New Hampshire and Crawfordsville, Iowa, bill themselves as the "Birthplace of the Republican Party," however, Jackson is most often associated with this idea, as the event taking place was the first official Republican Party meeting.
The modern Ripon Society, a Republican think tank, takes its name from Ripon, Wisconsin.
Fittingly, Publius writes today in Big Government: "Today, in 1854, the Republican Party was organized in Ripon, Wisconsin. Odd that today, in many ways, the future of the GOP - and the nation - rests on individuals from the same state."
It is high time this Party return to the "revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people" as Reagan spoke of, and as conservatives actively seek today!
Source: Wikipedia
More and more, we hear this phrase ‘social conservatives’ tossed around, and in more instances used as a negative connotation against those observers of traditional values. Furthermore, this phrase is seen by some as a force that stunts the growth of the conservative movement, and falsely so. Let me break this lightly…the problem is not, nor ever has been, with 'social conservatives’, and the mere labeling is a joke! You're either conservative or you are not. Either principles, morality and traditions, as the Founders implied, as Bastiat and Burke inferred, factor into being a conservative, or you fall into some other category. Sadly, most Republicans can't even live up to this prescription. And to be perfectly honest, so as not to appear to be 'holier than thou', I absolutely struggle, yet aspire, to reach these truths...but I know it's what is honestly prescribed to be principally conservative. If one says, "I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" that is an honest statement...but it doesn't make you a 'Conservative'.
In his book The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk discusses Edmund Burke’s thoughts on the negative elements that detach man from Divinity, but to be wise in acknowledging that the establishments of positivity alone do not gain Providential favor; rather, overcoming ones vices through these principled establishments set man on a more righteous path. This idea is among many of Burke’s that present a perfect example of the social principles all conservatives should embrace:
Ours is a moral order, then, and our laws are derived from immortal moral laws; the higher happiness is moral happiness, says Burke, and the cause of suffering is moral evil. Pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, disorderly appetites – these vices are the actual causes of the storms that trouble life. “Religion, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men, are the pretexts” for revolution by sentimental humanitarians and mischievous agitators who think that established institutions must be the source of our afflictions. But the human heart, in reality, is the fountain of evil. “You would not cure the evil by resolving, that there should be no more monarchs, nor ministers of state, nor of the gospel; no interpreters of laws; no general officers; no public councils…. Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names.”
… “When we know, that the opinions of even the greatest multitudes are the standard of rectitude, I shall think myself obliged to make those opinions the masters of my conscience. But if it may be doubted whether Omnipotence itself is competent to alter the essential constitution of right and wrong, sure am I, that such things, as they and I, are possessed of no such power.” Now and again, Burke praises two great virtues, the keys to private contentment and public peace: they are prudence and humility, the first pre-eminently an attainment of classical philosophy, the second pre-eminently a triumph of Christian discipline. Without them, man must be miserable; and man destitute of piety hardly can perceive either of these rare and blessed qualities.
For solitary man in search of spiritual peace, for society in search of permanent order, Providence has furnished means by which mankind may apprehend this moral universe. Tradition and prescription are the guiding lights of the civil social man; and therefore Burke elevates to the dignity of social principles those conventions and customs which, before the eighteenth century, most men accepted with an unreflecting confidence.
Would those who differentiate ‘social conservatives’ as being separated from the core of conservatism also castigate the “father of modern conservatism”?! Perhaps those who tout “the era of Reagan is over”, or adhere to the ‘new’ notion that the Republican ‘big tent’ no longer has enough room for prescribed social values, might reconsider the principles, morality and traditions of conservatism before their professed separation and abandonment, which would otherwise lose the battle against the forces of the Left, ultimately leading to tyranny. These values should not be compromised, nor could such a dismal outcome be afforded.
A seemingly 'simple' lesson from the Heritage Foundation asking, "Why shouldn't we raise the debt ceiling?"
We get it, and they know it. No political power or special interest is so great that they overshadow the threat to our very existence as a nation. Just ask the responsible legislators of Wisconsin!
Lest we forget, five years ago, a freshman Senator said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills." Now that freshman Senator is in the White House asking for the very thing he adamantly opposed. THAT is leadership failure, sir!
We need not raise the debt limit, but begin tackling the debt by limiting excessive and unnecessary federal spending, including real reforms in entitlement spending, while paying down outside debt obligations with current projected revenue. Avoid defaulting the responsible way.
In Wisconsin, Obama sides with public sector unions siphoning off the taxpayers. It’s no surprise that most of the MSM follow suit…and yes, even FOX has its drones misinforming. THANK YOU, MARK! (BTW, ‘Shemp’ should have researched)
On Libya, while slaughter is occurring daily, Obama remained hesitant to criticize Gadhafi, perhaps due to their ‘kinship’? And the MSM continues to provide excuses.
On Obama’s recent ‘jobs tour’, one MSM report temporarily breaks rank and tips us off to the fact that “In eight trips outside Washington since Election Day, Obama - who frequently says he uses such travel to better understand the lives of Americans - has held almost no formal meetings with groups of unemployed people or organizations that advocate for them. White House officials were unable to give a single example of him on these trips interacting, even in private, with a person who had recently lost a job…”
And seemingly out of the blue, Obama has instructed the DOJ not to defend standing DOMA law, because…well, he doesn’t like it anymore. Never mind that he doesn’t have the authority to do so. But as much as media outlets trumpet the celebration of Obama’s 'declaration', they reflectively fret over the ‘what ifs’ of a Republican presidency (oh, dear!).
The list goes on and on and on…both continue to be on the wrong side of the American citizenry.
But let’s end this on a positive thought (PLEASE!). Where Obama wavers on Libya, Palin sores. Expounding on Palin’s decisiveness and reflecting on Obama’s latest whim, Jeffrey Lord brings the point home in this anecdote on the ‘what if’ fears of the Left! As Rush commented today, "could you imagine the outcry?" Oh, the irony…
ADDENDUM: More of the 'on and on and on'...
Early in his presidency, we were told that we had to pass that economic stimulus law to save the economy and create or ‘save’ jobs…now, not only are we in a fiscal hole, but the CBO informs us that ‘each’ of those jobs cost a minimum average of $228,055!!! And guess who’s collecting those salaries? You got it: the public sector workforce. In Wisconsin alone, three-fourths of stimulus-related jobs went to public sector unions. I guess that makes sense in a ‘bribe your constituents’ sort of way! And the media condones the current practice with ‘anti-union’ or ‘union busting’ headlines.
And it’s no wonder that this administration would shrug aside laws that it doesn’t agree with, like DOMA, when they openly defy court rulings lifting the federal ban on drilling and against implementation of Obamacare. Consider the former issue of Obama’s defiance towards drilling, when observing the latest report that shows offshore drilling could make Alaska the eighth largest oil producer in the world!
They no longer ask "How can we fool them today?", but rather "How can we RULE them today?"
Aside from the related rationale in a previous post, there may be no better advocate for the complete dismantlement of ALL public sector unions, starting with the NEA, than from its former top lawyer, Bob Chanin. Listen to his speech given at the NEA’s annual meeting in July, 2009, and tell me this isn’t so…
“Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”
“And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.”
No creative ideas, no merit, and no vision for public schools, nor a care for the children that attend them. Despite what many among THEM would have US believe, it is ultimately about POWER that through collective bargaining, regardless of ideas, merit, vision or lack thereof, is granted to them from the state to the detriment of taxpayers. In a nutshell, they don’t give a damn about educating your kids, they just want to get paid MO’ MONEY! Thanks for being SO HONEST, Mr. Chanin.
From Tunisia to Egypt, now Bahrain and Libya, the question continues to allude many: What’s happening in the Islamic World? Everyone’s guessing what these uprisings are about. Are they unique unto each given country, or do they share a common disdain for their rulers? I believe it to be a little of both. And, despite Western understanding and media intentions, these ‘democratic revolutions’ are far from what we recognize as “democratic” (I’ve read some who question using the term “revolution” as well). In any case, something indeed is going on in this part of the world that has never known Democracy, but has always been surrounded by, and in some cases embraced, authoritarian forms of government, usually of the Islamic variety.
Out of all people to listen to during these uprisings, it would appear that the ideological Ayatollah Khamenei (Leader of the Islamic Revolution) has an ‘answer’ of sorts: “The recent popular movements are primarily against the dominance of arrogant powers.” Well, I’d say that much he has right, but he should also take a look in the mirror! Then the Ayatollah continues with his usual rhetoric: “He went on to say that the dominant powers' plots against Islamic countries have created discord among Muslim nations, calling on the Muslim nations and governments to become vigilant and stop the “great Satan” [the US] from interfering in their destinies. “If governments become united with their peoples, no power can take control of their nations,” the Leader continued.” Of course, the Ayatollah makes such comments striving for a 21st century Caliphate among these prominently Islamic countries.
Brandon Place, writer for suite101, doesn’t name the Ayatollah or any given leader as the Caliph to lead such a union, but rather gives an informative and analytical look at one possible direction for the region, asking, “Are the Middle East and North Africa on the verge of returning to the Caliphate, an Empire of Islam?” He goes on to explain: "As many of the nations of the Middle East and North Africa go into some form of revolution or social unrest at the start of 2011, what may be happening is not just about one nation or country, but about the region as a whole. The world may be one dynamic leader away from seeing a return to the Empire of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. The world may be witnessing a return of the Caliphate." Since the beginning of these uprisings, we’ve heard mention of this concerning scenario, mostly discredited by the mainstream media…but then again, look where they’ve gotten us so far!
So, considering this, and simply recognizing that ‘something’ is going on in the Islamic World, where does that leave the Obama administration on its handling of foreign policy in the region? What we’ve seen thus far may be even more indistinguishable than attempting to understand these uprisings! Here’s Obama’s wavering scorecard so far:
Egypt: an allied nation with obvious problems in government, extending in large part to its leadership. So what does the Obama administration do? Instead of solidly encouraging the government to make necessary reforms, Obama himself exacerbates the issue by cheerleading the unrest at the risk of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, sometimes wavering back and forth on who to support (protesters or Mubarak), then championing credit for something he had nothing to do with (oh, wait…I bet he thinks that speech supplied the ‘hope and change’), as the MSM continue to distort the administration’s role, the comments on the streets, and the all-encompassing coverage as ‘peaceful’ and ‘democratic’.
Iran: to the common American, an obvious enemy and threat to other parts of Europe and Asia, particularly Israel; to the Obama administration, still holding out for ‘reasoning’ and ‘diplomacy’ apparently. Towards the beginning of Obama’s administration, the world watched as Iranians defied Ahmadinejad, striving for a more democratic form of government. Obama said little then, and now less than a year later, he damn near ignores the plight of the Iranian people, once again leaving them to the devices of that deranged regime. Mr. President, if you want to encourage revolution, this is definitely where the encouragement should be!
Similar comparisons can be made between Bahrain (ally) and Libya (enemy): The administration does seem to approach the Bahrain uprising more cautiously, as the country houses the U.S. Fifth Fleet, but still asks that the government show restraint during protests, expecting its ruling body to contain unrest and restore order. Yet with the Libyan protests, the administration remains somewhat subdued while Gadhafi’s forces kill hundreds. Something’s extremely wrong with your policy when those outside the administration, like Sarah Palin, can speak out for Libya’s freedom, but our President remains near mute, choosing to instead send Sec. Clinton out to the cameras for some civil verbiage. (As I’m writing this, he’s finally responded...Bravo, Barry.)
Apparently, it’s possible to get a pass from our administration as long as you’ve been a longtime enemy of America, but we’re going to show ‘boldness’ by inciting near riots on allied soil, requesting governmental restraint while encouraging ‘peaceful’ revolution, and risk that our allies join our enemies when fundamentalist entities manipulate their ‘reformed’ governmental bodies.
The fact is though, this isn’t surprising anymore. When you invite China’s leader, one of the biggest violators of human rights, to a White House steak dinner (note: the 2009 Nobel Prize winner hosts a dinner for the man who’s imprisoned the 2010 Nobel Prize winner), yet you snub Israel along with the ilk of the UN for daring to build housing for its own people on its own soil, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that the rest of your foreign policy will be a debacle. Compound that with NO mention from Obama yesterday of the four Americans that were killed by Somali pirates, once again sending Hillary to the media hounds. Allen West isn’t afraid to confront this, and as ALWAYS, conservative clarity towards these terrorist continues to be a single steadfast solution: “crush them like the cockroaches that they are!”
To use a phrase from Obama, “Let me be clear,” the Obama administration is NOT ‘clear’ on any specific policy towards the unrest in the Muslim World, nor how to deal with Somali pirates, nor despots world over. To be fair, the previous few administrations had similar downfalls; however, not of these epic proportions of uncertainty, one after another with inconsistent treatment. The failure to instill a concise foreign policy is not only illustrative of the administration’s chaotic domestic policy (basically, ‘Democrat’ or ‘enemy’, support it; ‘Republican’ or ‘ally’, oppose it), but poses severe risk to our national security and the U.S. leadership role in the world. But as some might say, including myself, what would we expect from the leader of an administration intent on lowering America’s influence in the world?
If it’s not yet apparent to all Americans, let me spell it out: Our President and the Democrat Party have declared war on fiscal responsibility through their eternal devotion to their largest constituency: public sector unions!
Jonah Goldberg points out in his latest L.A. Times Op-Ed that “A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker's proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private sector unions.” Precisely. As Goldberg explains, private sector unions were born out of an adversarial relationship between labor and management, unlike government unions, who had no such narrative. The government doesn’t exist for the benefit of a profit as a corporation does. Does it? No! And even before Kennedy lifted the ban on government unions, civil service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed satisfactory working conditions. “The argument for public unionization wasn't moral, economic or intellectual. It was rankly political.” Goldberg elaborates:
“Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government.
And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and healthcare costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining.
But that is exactly what they need to lose.
Private sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests and, as we've seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government.”
Similarly, and going a step further, Mark Levin focused yesterday's monologue, and a good majority of the first hour, on the union at the helm of this current debate (the NEA) and its parallels to communist maneuvering.
Shane D'Aprile reports in The Hill that “Sen. Jim DeMint told supporters Tuesday the ongoing budget battle in Wisconsin offers a preview of what organized labor has in store for 2012.“ And he's absolutely right! "In a fundraising appeal to supporters of his Senate Conservatives Fund, DeMint said the union-led protest against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal "demonstrates how dangerously beholden the Democrats have become to their out-of-control union bosses.""
The sentiment is shared in Mona Charen's NRO piece: “In Wisconsin and other states facing severe budget crises, we are witnessing the clash of special interests against the public interest.” She further exposes these teachers as 'rent seekers' and concludes that "the protests, with their attendant disdain for the school kids (so many teachers fraudulently called in sick that schools in Milwaukee, Madison, and Janesville had to close), serve as huge neon signs alerting the sleeping electorate to what has been happening to their tax dollars."
And now, it appears that cowardice has spread to the Indiana Democrat legislature, as they've fled under a deadline to consider a right-to-work law, as John Hayward writes in Human Events: "The name of the Democrat Party seems increasingly inappropriate, since they have very little interest in democracy when it thwarts the agenda of their most powerful constituents. Let the voters of every state learn this important lesson: the only way to ensure functional government is to burn the Democrat Party down, until so few of them remain that they are no longer necessary to establish a quorum. Then you’ll be able to conduct state business without worrying about their temper tantrums."
Despite Democrat’s insistence that this will reflect poorly on the GOP, Rasmussen finds that “a sizable number of voters are following new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s showdown with unionized public employees in his state, and nearly half side with the governor.” Also, in a Fox News report, one economist reminds us that "there's a perception that was not present in 1995 that public employees are almost a privileged class."
The public unions may profess that their ‘democratic’ or ‘Egyptian-style’ campaign of protests concerns their collective bargaining 'privilege' (it's not a ‘right’), but a deeper look at the issue shows that the ‘bargain’ between union and government is yet again a collective rip-off of the private taxpayer.
ADDENDUM: From Herman Cain's facebook page: "Governor Scott Walker issued his first-ever "fireside chat," detailing his plans to save the state of Wisconsin and get their financial house in order."
