GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Did the NY Times Just Lose the Election for the Empty Chair?

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct -- Obama Is Lousy CEO

Forbes:

h/t to Deonia Copeland

A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

“For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr.

“Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.

With some digging, you learn, to your horror, that the troubled CEO spends a lot of time on — what the hell? — bowling? Golf? Three point shots? While the company is going south?

What do you do? You fire that CEO. Clint Eastwood was right. You let the guy go.

The Empty Chair Is Losing

American Thinker:

President Obama is headed to defeat in November, and it won't be close. Forget about the polls, and forget about the cadre of delusional Democrats who can't stop telling us how great and successful the last three and a half years have been. Slick Willy can shill all he likes, but seriously, he's preaching to the choir, because the only ones believing his shtick are bought and paid for sycophants, crony capitalists, and members of the mainstream media.

Can you think of a single person who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 but will vote for him this time around? Yet it is easy to find former minions admitting to the dissolution of their belief in the primacy of the "one." These people will not vote for him again -- and they are legion.

Pols like Bill Clinton say what they have to say, and election polls are often designed to say what the designers want them to say. But Americans, ever the social creatures they are, remembering the hopes and dreams they had for a better world in 2008 -- and the hopes and dreams they have today for a better tomorrow -- are reluctant to tell someone taking a poll that they don't like Barack Obama. It doesn't matter how well a case can be made against the man's disastrous and disgraceful leadership; guilt can often preclude telling a stranger they plan to vote against the black guy -- especially today, when all opposition to the president is framed as racist.

Yet, at some point, that curtain closes in the voting booth, and a decision has to be made as to which candidate is better for voters, their children, and the future of America.

When watching the news or any of the president's campaign speeches, it is easy to get the message that Barack Obama is way ahead and can't lose. His successes are portrayed as many and significant, although he needs another term because much still needs to be done. After all, the Republicans have stymied his every selfless effort these last three and a half years, and "we can't go back."

He did his best, and there was nothing more he could have done to improve what was an unprecedented (everything with Barack is unprecedented) decline in economic activity. Didn't Obama call the downturn the "great recession?" The misery the nation feels now is an illusion -- or else, they tell us, it is simply the "new normal."

But usually in mainstream media world, all is well -- and Americans should pay no attention to the price of gasoline, or the unavailability of financing for mortgages or business investment, or the price of groceries and the dearth of jobs. Who needs a job when they have Barack Obama?

The media, Obama, and his adulators have become the "check is in the mail" bloc. Things are better; we just haven't noticed.

Yet there are no real accomplishments, which would be bad enough if it stopped there, but in actuality, everything is much worse since many trusted the "one" in 2008 to solve all the ills of the nation and humanity. All he has done during his tenure is torture the economy into submission with poor decisions, bad legislation, overregulation, and threats of onerous taxation.

It's been said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Americans, but it is also true that no one ever got rich continually assuming that Americans were idiots. You see, just when a demigod like Barack is convinced he has demagogued his way into the hearts and minds of the electorate, the nation wakes up, and a deafening "thud" can be heard as he falls back down to earth.

Seniors see the true danger to Medicare comes from ObamaCare, a legislative nightmare. Obamacare strips $716 billion from Medicare, and as a result, seniors in states like Florida will make their voices heard this Election Day.

Workers and commuters see the price of gasoline as a function of Barack's desire to be the one who breaks America's dependency on fossil fuels. Yet like everything Obama does, he seeks to do it backwards. Because he can't make alternative energy cheap enough to overwhelm fossil fuels as the main source of energy in America, he chooses to make fossil fuels so expensive that his green energy dreams seem cheap by comparison. Gasoline at $4 a gallon and necessarily skyrocketing electric bills are the "new normal." Didn't you know?

If people's lives have to be destroyed to usher in this new era, then, so be it. They should be grateful that the destruction of their hopes and dreams is in service of the greater Barack Obama good. History books will not remember the individual whose life was ruined today, but they will certainly remember Obama as the man who saved humanity from what might have happened in a hundred years. And isn't that what's important?

Small business understands that Obama built this. They understand this so well that there are trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines awaiting his departure next January. They may have supported him in 2008, but does anyone think business owners, long demonized by Barack and minions, are going to vote for Mr. Obama again? No, they will run kicking and screaming to the polls to vote for anyone but the man who has destroyed their incomes and futures, and those of their children.

States with a culture of coal mining are also running away from Barack. After all, miners have families, and killing King Coal has not only hurt the interests of America and Americans, but slain the future of an industry long important to the nation's prosperity. Who needs cheap energy anyway?

The United Coal Miners Union sat out the Democrat National Convention. Although they didn't jump ship, they weren't about to support the moron killing coal jobs while making electricity more expensive and ceding energy independence in the process. I suspect that Obama will get few miner votes this election.

I believe that the administration's war on coal and the slow realization that the EPA's future plan for war on fracking have already won Ohio and Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney, despite what the polls say. A union member working in the fossil fuel industry is never going to admit to supporting a Republican, yet he still wants to feed his family and send his kids to college...and maybe someday even retire. Four more years of Barack, and he won't even have a job.

At the Democrat National Convention, John Kerry said Americans should "ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago."

The answer would be "no," just as it is for most Americans, because Obama is killing us. Bin Laden at least has the luxury of being dead; the job is finished.

For us, Obama needs another 4 years.

On November 6, 2012, Americans will flock to the polls to ensure that Barack Obama does not get another term to finish the job he started, and the empty chair will lose in a landslide.

For anyone who thought that Clint Eastwood had lost it at the Republican National Convention with his  chair routine… carrying on a conversation with President Barack Obama (represented by an empty chair).

clip_image001

Clint knew exactly what he was doing…  Here is the only known portrait of Karl Marx… with the Barack Obama Chair.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

DOH! Extreme Leftist Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Reveals Democrat Strategy For Budget Bill & Rubio (R-FL) on Not Raising Debt Ceiling

Jared LawPosted by Jared Law on March 29, 2011 at 10:01pm in Elections, Issues, News, & Politics

This is rich, especially coming from such an extreme, radical leftist like Chuck Schumer. Talk about the soot-encrusted pot calling the gleaming, polished-stainless steel kettle (with a solid copper bottom) black!

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats in 'leadership' positions in the U.S. Senate are hardcore, radical leftists. Many who call themselves Communists are just as far left, as Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Frank Lautenberg, and other 'Progressives' in the Democrat party.

It's nice to see what we all know is happening, exposed to the light of day. Those dirty, radical leftists can't hide their scheming to combine against the liberty of the American People forever; thankfully, we have examples to show potential recruits to our cause. Cold, hard evidence which cannot be explained away by the honest and honorable.
--------

On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER | March 29, 2011, 12:30 PM 4:58 p.m. | Updated: Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button?

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.
How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

--------
CAUGHT: REPORTERS OVERHEAR DEM’S SECRET BUDGET STRATEGY — ‘ALWAYS U...

Posted on March 29, 2011 at 2:21pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
“Um, Senators, ever heard of the mute button?”
That’s how the New York Times — yes the New York Times — begins its story on how Democratic Senators were caught Tuesday morning discussing secret marching orders before a conference call. Apparently, the senators didn’t realize that several of the reporters were already logged into the call and began discussing just how they wanted to verbally paint the GOP, House Speaker John Boehner, and the Tea Party.

The instructions came from the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat, New York’s Charles Schumer. The Times explains his instructions:

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Tom Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John Boehner of Ohio, the Speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said, “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.” [Emphasis added]

Eventually, it seems someone did find that mute button. But Schumer‘s instructions didn’t fall on deaf ears. As soon as the call officially started the senators accomplished their mission:

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process. [Emphasis added]

Sure, this isn‘t we’re-involved-in-a-third-war shocking — securing messaging is a fact of political life. But it is, if nothing else, worth a chuckle. Especially considering the Democrats — possibly oblivious to the gaffe — said exactly what they said they were going to say.

That, folks, is how the political sausage is made.

Why I Won't Vote to Raise the Debt Limit

Everyone in Washington knows how to cut spending. The time to start is now

By MARCO RUBIO

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

View Full Image

rubio

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

Related:

Red Ink Rumble | The American Spectator

Monday, December 27, 2010

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

death,panel,obama,palin,medicare,ruleThe new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.
“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

During the heated healthcare debate, supporters of the Obama vigorously denied rationing for seniors would take place and scoffed at "death panel" critics like Palin.

Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Read more: Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

The NY Times Concedes Governor Palin “Forced [Obama] Onto the Defensive.”

The NY Times concedes that Governor Palin put Obama “onto the defensive” with “death panels” (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

by Ben Johnson – Posted at

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Although the NYT just discovered this, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reported the regulation nearly a month ago. (We covered it at the time.) For once, the Times included some salient facts along with its whitewash of the administration’s activities.

This program will be overseen by the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, a fanatical believer in limiting (read: denying) care. The paper quotes Berwick as saying, “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Berwick added advanced directives were one of “several techniques” that led “to both lower cost and more humane care.” There is no question they lead to lower costs, in addition to providing an economic stimulus to tombstone carvers, morticians, and cemetery plot salesmen.

The Times reports the regulation was pushed by two Congressional Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. This backing unintentionally reveals the measure’s greater significance: The liberals could not ram a death panels provision through even the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, so Obama is imposing it with the stroke of a pen, without a single vote. The New York Times admits this is the wave of the future:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

This author first exposed Obama’s plan to rule by executive order, in October. The following month, the Center for American Progress released a lengthy report compiled by Sarah Rosen Wartell calling for the president to implement a “progressive” agenda by fiat over the next two years. In its foreword, CAP president and CEO John Podesta called on Obama to rule through:

• Executive orders
• Rulemaking
• Agency management
• Convening and creating public-private partnerships
• Commanding the armed forces
• Diplomacy

Just last week, the inside-the-Beltway Bible Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

The Left is irresistibly drawn to collecting as much unbridled power as possible, because its agenda is so unpopular it could never receive sufficient popular support to pass an election. Since the November election, Obama, Reid, and company have followed the authoritarian path I predicted. I wrote in November, “Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Harry Reid unleashed precisely these two measures (and passed one of them) in his lame duck power grab, cramming in a bid to pass a $1.27 trillion budget besides. Next, I wrote, “After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip.” This follows that prediction. Finally, I wrote, “Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.” If this regulation means anything, it means we have not seen anything yet.

How fitting one of the first expressions of Obama’s new strategy was a measure to let people die. He seems to have the same fate planned for the U.S. Constitution.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Obama Aide: Fox News Our 'Opponent'

“If you can’t take the heat… get out of the kitchen!” And if you want to be a leader, step up and talk to your critics!!

Fox News seems to enjoy being on the White House's enemies list. The last president to keep a press enemies list was Richard Nixon.

Singling out a so called enemy or source usually works out well for the “enemy” and not for the White House.

A festering enmity between the Obama administration and the cable network boiled over Sunday when The New York Times quoted White House communications director Anita Dunn as saying of Fox: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”

Fox Senior Vice President for News Michael Clemente fired back at what he called the White House’s “attack mentality.”

“Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues we are worried about,” Clemente said in a statement the network issued.

If Fox’s ratings are any clue, the administration’s attacks seem to be having the opposite of their desired effects. As of last week, the network has averaged 1.2 million viewers throughout the year, up from around 1 million viewers a year ago. This surpasses the network’s previous viewership record of 1.1 million viewers, which was set in 2003, the year the war began in Iraq.

In June, President Obama attacked Fox without mentioning it by name, saying it was devoted entirely to attacking his administration and that its coverage of his actions were all negative.

“Every time they [attack], our ratings go up,” Bill Shine, Fox’s senior vice president for programming, told the Times.

A Fox executive who declined to be identified said the attacks could solidify the network’s base. He quoted Fox Chairman Roger Ailes as having said: “Don’t pick a fight with those who like to fight.”

Paul Rittenberg, the network’s top ad executive, said, “People who watch Fox News believe it is the home team,” but Democrats don’t see it that way because of its critical coverage of the president and his political agenda.

Dunn’s comments followed press reports that Ailes had met with top Obama adviser David Axelrod for coffee in New York in what Politico called “a Fox summit.”

The White House communications director also took aim at controversial comments various Fox hosts have made against the administration.

These have included comments by immensely popular host Glenn Beck, whose 5 p.m. show has become a “cultural phenomenon,” with 3 million viewers, according to Shine.

Beck was credited with forcing the resignation of former green jobs czar Van Jones, whom he described as a “communist-anarchist radical.”

Weeks earlier, Beck came under attack from the Color of Change, a group Jones helped found, after he called the president “racist” during a Fox and Friends segment, which prompted several advertisers to pull their spots from his program.

Rittenberg, however, says the boycott has had no impact on Fox’s revenue because the advertising has been shifted to other parts of the day.

The administration also bristles about certain hosts' advocacy of the Tea Party movement.

Fox recently bolstered its Fox Business unit by hiring libertarian journalist John Stossel away from ABC, and it reportedly is trying to woo administration critic Lou Dobbs away from CNN. Dobbs met with Ailes last month over dinner, the Times reported.

“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that is the way legitimate news agencies behave,” Dunn said.

Last month, the president appeared on all of the major networks’ Sunday talk shows except for Fox News Sunday, which the White House called an “ideological outlet.” This prompted Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace to call the administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” Similar statements have been made by media from both parties.

Dunn dismissed Wallace’s comments as juvenile and said the administration would talk with Fox but said the White House would not "legitimize them as a news organization.”

The network defends its presentation of the news as objective during its news hours of 9 a.m.-4 p.m. and 6-8 p.m., including the anchor Sheppard Smith's evening newscasts. Dunn even acknowledged that Fox reporter Major Garrett, its chief White House correspondent, is fair.

Fox must be doing something right. The New York Times has assigned a full-time reporter to just watch Fox for stories, because they have been the lead on many stories that the NY Times and other news outlets, including Charlie Gibson, missed completely... Van Jones.

Fox news is now the most popular news outlet on both cable and so called mainstream media. They now have more viewers at 3a.m. than CNN has at prime time. In an independent poll of all the major outlets Fox also showed that their viewership is the most balanced of all the networks and cable channel, including conservatives, independents and yes… even liberals who voted for Obama, say that they got the best range of information from Fox, whose motto for their news programs is ‘fair and balanced’.

By: John Rossomando - © 2009 Associated Press

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power - Cross-posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Who's Behind the White House War on Fox??

Obama Takes on Fox News… Loses

President Takes Swipe at Fox News

Mainstream Media Ignores Conservatives; WH & Dems Shun Conservative Input While Conservative Media Soars

Glenn Beck Wins Wednesday's Cable News Ratings Battle

Big Beck: Goes over 3 million viewers, beats O’Reilly in demo: Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Power Grab

Obama’s War on Talk Radio

Michelle Malkin: Michelle Obama is afraid of ... South Carolina; next Riff??

Glenn Beck's Common Sense

A Slobbering Love Affair

End of Free Speech - Endoffreespeech.com

Culture Warrior

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Ben Stein… I Was Expelled From the New York Times

My sister nailed it many years ago when she said, "Your basic human is not such a hot item."

Keep that filed in your head as I tell my little tale…

About five or six years ago, roughly, I was solicited to write a column every two weeks for the Sunday New York Times Business Section. I was really thrilled. I have written for the Washington Post (when I was a teenager), for the Wall Street Journal edit page under the legendary Bob Bartley, for Barron's, under the really great Alan Abelson and Jim Meagher, for my beloved American Spectator, under the great Bob and Wlady, and now having a regular column at theTimes was going to be great stuff.

The column went well. I got lots of excellent fan mail and fine feedback from my editors, who, however, kept changing.

The first real super problem I had was when the movie I narrated and co-wrote, Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed, was in progress. A "science writer" for the Times blasted the movie on the front page and noted that I, whom she repeatedly called "...a freelance writer..." (not a columnist ) for the Times, was somehow involved. That was followed by a really fantastically angry blast against the movie by a reviewer who really hated it a lot. (I note that the Times also disliked Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hmm.)

Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me. But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously.

Some of them started a campaign against me in various forums, including letters to the Times.

At roughly the same time, I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the "investment bank" Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.

Still, my editor at the Times stood by me loyally and was steadfast, even inspiring.

Now, in the time I had been doing my column, roughly five or six years, I had done many commercials for goods and services. No one at the Times ever said a word negatively about these. In fact, when I did a series of commercials with Shaquille O'Neal, the legendary basketball star, one of my superiors at the Times asked me for souvenirs. No one ever told me in any way, by word, look, or gesture, not to do commercials.

Meanwhile, the haters connected with atheism and neo-Darwinism continued to attack me.

Then, two things happened to change and end my career at the Times. Well, maybe three. The Times told me they were forced by budgetary pressures to only run me every four weeks. This was a blow and I started to think about where else I might write. (I had been solicited by many major publications while at the Times but my editors had asked me not to write for them and I did as asked.)

But the two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.

They did let me run a piece querying what I thought was a certain lack of focus in Mr. Obama's world but that was it, and then came another issue.

I had done a commercial for an Internet aggregating company called FreeScore. This commercial offered people a week of free access to their credit scores and then required them to pay for further such access.

This commercial was red meat for the Ben Stein haters left over from the Expelled days. They bombarded the Times with letters. They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) They demanded of the high pooh-bahs at the Times that they fire me because of what they called a conflict of interest.

Of course, there was no conflict of interest. I had never written one word in the Times or anywhere else about getting credit scores on line. Not a word.

But somehow, these people bamboozled some of the high pooh-bahs at the Times into thinking there was a conflict of interest. In an e-mail sent to me by a person I had never met nor even heard of, I was fired. (I read the e-mail while having pizza at the Seattle airport on my way to Sandpoint.) I called the editor and explained the situation. He said the problem was "the appearance" of conflict of interest. I asked how that could be when I never wrote about the subject at all. He said the real problem was that FreeScore was a major financial company and I wrote about finance. But, as I told him, FreeScore was a small Internet aggregator, not a bank or insurer.

Never mind. I was history. "You should have consulted us," was the basic line.

Of course, there was not one word of complaint when I did commercials for immense public companies. By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)

I still do not see the conflict of interest. Credit reports on the Internet never was in my subject area. However, I don't sue newspapers. And the gig was getting to be so small that it really had a minor effect on my economic life. Still, I shall miss waking up on Sunday to see my column unless a neighbor here in Beverly Hills has stolen my paper. (No place, not one place, in Sandpoint sells the Times.)

The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. "There are a lot of people who have knives and forks," he said, "and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something."

I will miss writing my column for the Times but I miss many things. There were some great people there, really standup people. I got to love some of them. But as to the haters and the weak willed, I think my sister and Bob Dylan had it right.

You will still see my little thoughts, maybe in some big places. And I can put this Times gig on my résumé when I apply for Social Security. And, I really mean this, I will pray for those who use me despitefully, even if the neo-Darwinists think that's a waste of time. It's not.

One final thought. Well, maybe two final thoughts: first, it's sad that the Internet has become a backyard gossip freeway for the whole world's sick people to pour out their neuroses. I have seen a tiny fraction of all of the hate mail that's come in the wake of the NY Times announcement (which they promised they would not make in any event). Too many sick people out there on the web for comfort.

Second, among those who are not really such hot items, I fully include myself. Without doubt, I have made as many mistakes as a person not in custody can make. I make no claims to anything even remotely like perfection or even desirability as a role model. It is just that in this case, I didn't do anything wrong. In my life, I have done plenty wrong. I am not the master. I am the servant and a poor one at that.

By Ben Stein on 8.10.09 @ 6:09AM – Source: The American Spectator

Related Resources:

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Obama Team: Yes to Interrogation Memos, No to 'Flyover' Pictures

Amazing… Flyover photos that scared New Yorkers and cost the American taxpayer $328,000+ are classified now, but Interrogation Memos that could harm our troops, hamper future terrorist interrogation, and thereby could endanger all Americans are declassified and released…  As quoted in the New York Times, “The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.”  HMMMM…???  M~

Barack Obama and his team in Washington sure have a strange way of promoting full disclosure, openness, and transparency in government. Give them an opportunity to trash the previous administration and those who worked for our national security, and they are all for it. But, ask them to come forward with pictures and a full explanation of a so-called public relations assignment, and they clam up.

In a pathetic display of both arrogance and indifference to America's safety and peace of mind, we see in two events everything we need to know about Obama. Just look at how differently he and his team handled the release of CIA interrogation memos and how they are handling the non-release of photos taken during their flyover photo op in New York City.

As many of you know, Obama decided last month to release previously classified memos which detail the interrogation techniques used in questioning terrorists. (Yes, I still use the word "terrorist" at GOPUSA.) The release of these memos was stunning in that it serves absolutely no useful purpose other than to make America less safe and to allow Obama to continue his message that America is bad.

I discussed the memos at length in my post Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?, and I came to one conclusion: It was strongly believed that certain high-ranking terrorists knew of another large-scale terror plot against the United States. Traditional interrogation methods were unsuccessful against these three terrorists, so they (and only they) were subjected to waterboarding. The result was that they produced information on a plot to fly at least one airliner into a building in Los Angeles. This plot, known as the Second Wave, would have certainly resulted in the loss of hundreds or thousands of American lives.

However, Obama apparently feels differently. He could have stated his case and his opinions without releasing the memos, but instead of just making a point, he'd rather see American security jeopardized and the careers and private lives of those involved suffer.

As noted in an AP story running on GOPUSA, although the attorneys responsible for approving the interrogation techniques used to obtain the information on the Second Wave will not face criminal charges, they will likely face professional sanctions.

Officials conducting the internal Justice Department inquiry into the lawyers who wrote those memos have recommended referring two of the three lawyers ... to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.

The person noted that the investigative report was still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized.

Now, let's contrast these actions with the Obama team's handling of the idiotic and suspicious "flyover" that was approved in which the 747 used as Air Force One and a few F-16s flew ridiculously close to buildings in Manhattan... causing a panic. Under the pretense of a "photo op," the aircraft flew close enough to send a chilling reminder to people of the events of September 11, 2001.

In case you missed the video: 

YouTube - Air Force One Flyin Low Over New York Caused Panic HD

Apparently, the photo-op cost the American taxpayers $328,835. The administration was looking for a good pic of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background. However, as FOXNews.com reports, the general public was not warned in advance, even though it is obvious that this could cause a panic.

Now, the White House is saying it will not release the photos taken during the flyover. When asked about the photos during Tuesday's White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs, first tried to joke about it, saying, "I've watched CNN -- I didn’t notice a lack of archival material from that flight."

When pressed about the photos taken from inside the aircraft, Gibbs responding by adding, "I don't know where those are." The White House spends over $300k on photos, and not only will they not release them to the public, but they don't know where the photos are? What is going on here?

In the New York Post story referenced by FOXNews.com, an Obama aide told the paper, "We have no plans to release them." The report added: "The photos have not technically been 'classified,' a White House aide said, but they are being kept from public view."

So, this is the way the Obama administration works: Release secret interrogation memos but withhold wasteful taxpayer-funded promotional pictures. Can someone please explain that one to me?

Source:  The Loft – Posted by Bobby Eberle – May 6, 2009

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power –  by Ask Marion

Thursday, April 23, 2009

OBAMA'S LEAP TO SOCIALISM


President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country's banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers "get something back" for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration's proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party's conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. "Preferred" means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That's called socialism.

Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common -- except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.

Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial "stress test." Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don't believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.

The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.

By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 21, 2009

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power on April 23, 2009

Related Resources:

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Only About 10% of Weapons Used By Mexican Drug Cartels Come From America Says Former Drug Czar William Bennett

William Bennett, former drug czar, verifies that the notion being floated by liberal media and the Obama administration, but disputed by most reliable sources, on the weapons used by Mexican Drug Cartels coming primarily from the United States ‘is false’!!!

Secretary of State Clinton and others have tried to push the notion that 90% of the weapons flowing into Mexico come from the United States.  That has already been repudiated.  In reality 90% of the weapons captured from the Cartels,that they could identify, were from the United States. That is because the United Stats is diligent at marking the weapons produced in the U.S. for identification which is now being used against us by our own government.

In reality only between 10% and 15% of all weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States; William Bennett said 10% in his interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Situation Room.  And if anyone should know, it would be William Bennett!

Dr. William Bennett serves as a political contributor and Republican strategist on CNN’s The Situation Room.

In addition to serving as a CNN contributor, Bennett is the host of a nationally broadcast radio show called Morning in America. In the 1980s, Bennett was the secretary of education and the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under President Ronald Reagan. Following that, he served as President George H.W. Bush's "drug czar." He currently serves as chairman of Americans for Victory over Terrorism, a project dedicated to sustaining and strengthening public opinion as the war on terrorism moves forward.

Also an author, Bennett has written and edited 16 books, including The Book of Virtues and The Children's Book of Virtues. The success of The Book of Virtues led to the creation of a PBS series, seen in the United States, Great Britain and 65 other countries.

In April 2005, Bennett was described in the New York Times as the "leading spokesman of the Traditional Values wing of the Republican Party."

Bennett studied philosophy earning his bachelor’s degree at Williams College and his doctorate at the University of Texas. He earned his law degree from Harvard University. He is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Meltdown - Personal Note From Ron Paul

"There is no better book to read on the present crisis."

Many Americans are looking to the new administration to solve our economic problems. Unfortunately, that is probably a vain hope. Although we were promised "change," we are only getting a continuation of the same superficial economic fixes that have damaged so many economies in the past, and that will only delay the return of prosperity.

These fixes are based on the false belief that the free-market economy has failed. But it is not the market that has failed. It is intervention into the market that has failed. The Federal Reserve and its manipulation of money and interest rates have failed. None of this can be blamed on the free market.

That's why Meltdown, a New York Times bestseller, is so important. This book actually gets things right. It correctly identifies our problems, their causes, and what we should do about them. It treats the architects of this debacle not with the undeserved reverence they receive in Washington and on television, but with the critical eye that is so conspicuously missing from our supposedly independent thinkers in academia and the media.

In a short span, Tom introduces the layman to a range of subjects that have been excluded from our national discussion for much too long. Among many other things, Tom explains Austrian business cycle theory, which he correctly identifies as the single most important piece of economic knowledge for Americans to have right now. In so doing, Tom provides Americans with the most persuasive and rational account of how we got here. Only if we correctly assess the causes of the debacle can we hope to propose a path to recovery that might actually work and not simply prolong the agony.

Our years of living beyond our means, of buying everything on credit and on money printed out of thin air, are over. Sure, our government will carry on with its nonsensical policy of curing indebtedness with more indebtedness, inflation with more inflation, but the game is up. It's not going to work. The resources aren't there. The more we intervene and the more we prop up economic zombies, the worse off we'll be. But the sooner we understand what has happened, assess our economic situation honestly, and rebuild our economy on a sound foundation, the sooner our fortunes will be restored.

Ideas still matter, and sound economic education has rarely been as urgently necessary as it is today. There is no better book to read on the present crisis than this one, and that is why I am delighted to endorse it.

Sincerely,  Rep. Ron Paul