"Former[?] Communist and White House “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, is partnering with Moveon.org in calling on progressives to engage in a massive protest at state capitols in all 50 states this Saturday."
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
"Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and 'get a little bloody,' a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin."
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin."
Monday, February 14, 2011
American Thinker: The Coming Battle for Egypt
American Thinker: The Coming Battle for Egypt
The Coming Battle for Egypt
By Steve McCannThe Egyptians, in what has become the first social networking-precipitated revolution, (as described by Google marketing executive Wael Ghonim) have succeeded in the first phase of revolution. They have forced the resignation of the face of the Egyptian government for the past thirty years: Hosni Mubarak. With the military now assuming power, the rest of the world and in particular the citizens of the United States will quickly and at their country's peril turn their attention to other matters.
However, history has shown, starting with the French Revolution in 1789 through the Iranian Revolution in 1978, that these uprisings succeed or fail based on either economic or social factors or a combination of both, particularly when there is no one standing in the wings ready to assume immediate power.
However, history has shown, starting with the French Revolution in 1789 through the Iranian Revolution in 1978, that these uprisings succeed or fail based on either economic or social factors or a combination of both, particularly when there is no one standing in the wings ready to assume immediate power.
UPDATE 1-Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel | News by Country | Reuters
UPDATE 1-Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel | News by Country | Reuters: "TRIPOLI, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Palestinian refugees should capitalise on the wave of popular revolts in the Middle East by massing peacefully on the borders of Israel until it gives in to their demands, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Sunday.
Gaddafi is respected in many parts of the Arab world for his uncompromising criticism of Israel and Arab leaders who have dealings with the Jewish state, though some people in the region dismiss his initiatives as unrealistic."
Gaddafi is respected in many parts of the Arab world for his uncompromising criticism of Israel and Arab leaders who have dealings with the Jewish state, though some people in the region dismiss his initiatives as unrealistic."
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Thomas Sowell : The Fallacy of "Fairness" - Townhall.com
The Fallacy of "Fairness"
If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair." It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it.
This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word.
Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and "unfair" to many individuals or groups. Fortunately there was one voice of sanity-- David Riesman, I believe-- who said: "The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results."
Monday, February 08, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Extraordinary Measures Needed to Kill the Bill — Updated with Vote Numbers
The corruption of using the public treasury as a check book to buy the votes of Senator Nelson and Senator Sanders — in the face not only overwhelming public opposition, but also in the face of a public that now wants Congress to do nothing on health care — means that extraordinary measures are needed to kill ObamaCare.
This plan, if executed properly, will kill the bill and it will give opponents two more bites at the apple, after it passes the Senate.
There are some atmospheric conditions that will help this plan work. For example, both sides of the net roots should cease fire on posts against each other. There must be a truce until the bill is dead. The target is the bill, not each other.
So, for those on the left who have decided to kill this bill, they are welcome to join in this the kill-the-bill fun.
Rationale: There are many reasons in agreement between the right and the left and the American public about why this bill must be killed:
1. It will increase health care costs;
2. The individual mandate is massive government intrusion on individual freedom, and is a gift to the private insurers, and disproportionately impacts lower-income families;
3. The fantasies of CBO’s assumptions notwithstanding, this bill will accelerate our march to financial insolvency; and,
4. Passage of the bill merely reinforces the practice of buying votes with debt issued by the U.S. Treasury;
5. Among many other reasons, in the words of Howard Dean, the bill does more harm than good.
The Plan: First, conservatives will object to the appointment of the conferees. This is not a motion, so it is non-debatable. An objection cannot be overcome unless the Senator making the objection caves. Let’s hope Senator McConnell agrees with this approach — but regardless, the objection shall be made.
This forces two votes in the U.S. House, one vote to amend the Senate bill on the House floor, since the Senate bill likely cannot pass the House unamended, and will force another vote on final passage of the amended House bill.
So, first, conservatives force two votes in the House, by preventing the appointment of the conferees, and therefore, preventing a House-Senate Conference.
Second, the left will focus on three separate issues to kill the bill in the House. The object of these issues is not to support these policies per say, but to add items to the House bill that will be so objectionable that when the bill goes back over to the Senate, that the Dems lose one or more of their 60 votes.
The Public Option: The progressive’s net roots should hold accountable the Democratic House members who said they would not vote for the bill if there was no public option. Progressives need to produce enough votes to force the public option back into the bill. Forcing the public option back into the bill is in the progressive’s interest since it will show they have the political power to do it, and will set a precedent for a new health care reform baseline in the House for Democrats. It is in conservative’s interest for this to happen because if it does, Senator Lieberman’s vote reverts to a NO.
The Nelson Buy-Off: Both the left and the right net roots will focus on pulling the Nebraska and Vermont free pass on increased Medicaid spending, on the basis that it is a corrupt back room deal that may be unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the equal protection clause (the 14th amendment to the Constitution.)
Unions: Unions must pull the Senate tax on Cadillac health plans, and replace it with the House tax on individuals. (I know, I can’t believe I just wrote that either!) This will force Senators, when the bill goes back to the Senate, to oppose the bill which could force the Dems lower than 60 votes.
Hold the No Votes: Conservatives need to hold and add one or two more no votes to the 39 House votes against the bill, among those Democrats who have concerns about their own re-election or who have announced their retirement — since the leverage from the Speaker has substantially decreased. If every No vote on the original House bill holds, there only needs to be two additional no votes.
Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion Forces: In short, have at it. Given the Stupak amendment majority in the House, the pro-lifers must stick Stupak back on the bill, so that when it is sent back to the Senate, the pro-abortion majority can pull Stupak back off. When the bill goes back to the Senate, the pro-abortion forces can remove Stupak, just as they did a couple of weeks ago. Once Stupak is pulled again from the Senate it must go back to the House to be amended, or die there.
I am willing to coordinate these actions with the left in real-time, and work with the Progressives who want to kill the bill — to share intelligence and whip counts. This way the left and the right working together will accomplish not only what we want, but what the American people want.
Oh, I did not mention this in the original post, but should have:
we do not need any more than 42 votes on the House floor, and last time there were 39 No votes.
Assuming we have a hard base of 25 no Dem votes, then the net roots need to produce eight House votes on either the abortion or public option question.
The Stupak folks ought to be able produce ten additional no votes.
This is not difficult math. And MoveOn.org is already telling its members to oppose the Senate bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
They are eating each other
Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform
Howard Dean says he would not vote for the bill as it is.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Congress' power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...." also does not validate an individual mandate. The Constitution requires that a tax be apportioned on the basis of the census population, and not vary based upon factors such as the financial condition of the state's residents. "[But] this [constitutional] requirement will be impossible to meet based upon the variety of exceptions provided in the mandate,
The constitution is not a serious matter to them
Is Obamacare Constitutional?
A reporter recently asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Responding to a follow-up question to this non-answer, Pelosi's press secretary said, "That is not a serious question."
We think otherwise at The Heritage Foundation. So should all Americans who value the liberties which our Constitution protects. And once the mandate question is thoroughly examined through the lens of the Constitution's original meaning, the answer is inescapable: it is not constitutional.
"For those with a traditional understanding of the Constitution as a charter of liberty (as opposed to the 'living version'), the list of Congress' powers in Article I, Section 8, grants it no authority to require any such thing, "writes Heritage expert Bob Moffit. To defend their unprecedented expansion of federal power, Obamacare's proponents rely upon excessively broad interpretations of Congress' powers -- namely the powers to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com
Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com: "Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill
The second leg of Quinnipiac's big national poll dropped this morning -- and it shows a serious erosion of support for Congressional health reform efforts and the president's performance on the issue -- along with an all-time low 46 percent approval rating for the POTUS.
Most ominously for Dems: Nearly two-thirds of registered voters polled said extending coverage to 30 million-plus people will result in a decline in the quality of their own health care. That gives plenty of room to the GOP to personalize attacks on the plan, Obama and Congress."
The second leg of Quinnipiac's big national poll dropped this morning -- and it shows a serious erosion of support for Congressional health reform efforts and the president's performance on the issue -- along with an all-time low 46 percent approval rating for the POTUS.
Most ominously for Dems: Nearly two-thirds of registered voters polled said extending coverage to 30 million-plus people will result in a decline in the quality of their own health care. That gives plenty of room to the GOP to personalize attacks on the plan, Obama and Congress."
Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com
Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com: "Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill
The second leg of Quinnipiac's big national poll dropped this morning -- and it shows a serious erosion of support for Congressional health reform efforts and the president's performance on the issue -- along with an all-time low 46 percent approval rating for the POTUS.
Most ominously for Dems: Nearly two-thirds of registered voters polled said extending coverage to 30 million-plus people will result in a decline in the quality of their own health care. That gives plenty of room to the GOP to personalize attacks on the plan, Obama and Congress."
The second leg of Quinnipiac's big national poll dropped this morning -- and it shows a serious erosion of support for Congressional health reform efforts and the president's performance on the issue -- along with an all-time low 46 percent approval rating for the POTUS.
Most ominously for Dems: Nearly two-thirds of registered voters polled said extending coverage to 30 million-plus people will result in a decline in the quality of their own health care. That gives plenty of room to the GOP to personalize attacks on the plan, Obama and Congress."
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
State of the Union as I see it
Over 10% unemployment
(actual # is getting close to 20%)
Spending out of control
No health care bill
Were losing in Afghanistan
The president in Copenhagen
Global warming proven a scam
Yet Congress still wants Cap & Trade
Democrats cannot agree with democrats
GOP in a coma
Terrorists including KSM coming back to NYC
Still no Osama
Obama @ 47% approval (a record low)
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Shhh! Don’t confuse Reid with history while he’s playing the race card!
It was the GOP that fought slavery and the Democrat Party that battled to preserve it.
It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders.
But don’t confuse Harry Reid with history while he invokes slavery to lambaste the GOP for opposing the government-run health care takeover.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)