Will the Democrats be Punished for ObamaCare?

The President lied about ObamaCare and the usual suspects are lying to try and cover for him.

Oct 23 Katherine Sebelius says; President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1

Oct 29- Katherine Sebelius says "... we had tested the website and we were comfortable with its performance,” she said. “Now, like I said, we knew all along there would be as with any new website, some individual glitches we would have to work out. But, the volume issue and the creation of account issues was not anticipated...).*

Nov 13 Nancy Pelosi claims nearly 5 times as many people signed up for Obamacare than HHS numbers show.

Nov 14 Debbie Wasserman Shultz says;“You’re darn right that our candidates are going to run on the advantage that Obamacare will be going into the 2014 election."

Nov 14 Obama: "I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. I’m accused of a lot of things. I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work."**

Nov 17 Nancy Pelosi: What we are talking about is affordable, quality, accessible health care for all Americans. It`s about choice. If you like what you have and you want to keep it, you have the choice to do that. 

While the mainstream press is finally doing it's job by reporting the outright lie that, "You can keep your plan if you like it" (and of course President Obama turns to his stock excuse, "I didn't know" and/or "wasn't told"), the truth is there is nary an aspect of ObamaCare that was not lied about. Not only will your individual plan be canceled , but the replacement plan will increase in price 50-100%. Further since the different levels of ObamaCare plans are the same, the differences are with the  deductibles, which are now high as $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, the highest levels allowed under the law; so those that can only afford the cheapest plans will pay the most for their healthcare; and the subsidies (some one else's money) will do little to help as they only cover the premiums, not the deductible. One wonders if the Democrats will finally be punished by the electorate for being complicit with the big lie that is ObamaCare.

*... the Obama administration refused to delay the implementation of the exchanges, despite the well-known problems, because they were afraid of the political blowback. “Former government officials say the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law.” Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are 

**"They had been claiming that the Obamacare rollout was his top priority and that he was receiving regular updates, which was inaccurate. And he gave remarks on October 1 about how great it was and that people should go sign up," the aide said. "Assuming that he didn't know that the website didn't work, why did they let him make that speech when they knew it had crashed in testing? Did really no one recommend a delay to the President? It just seems odd." Sebelius: Obamacare Website Problems Blindsided the President

Explaining Some of the Lies of ObamaCare

 My last blog discussed the new "Blame the Republicans" tact that Liberals and Democrats are trying to use to cover their collective asses regarding the utter failure of the rollout of the ObamaCare )ie the Affordable Care Act or ACA). There is also another tactic that they are using to try and mislead the public regarding the wholesale cancellations of Individual healthcare policies (a tactic that was also used with the supposed religious exemption that VP Joe Biden claimed existed for mandatory abortion coverage of healthcare plans. The way the deception works is you write an exemption or grandfather clause for existing policies into ObamaCare, but you make the exemption or grandfather clause so restricted that no religious institution or policy can qualify. In the case of the religious exemption this is how the exemption is defined.

 Members of certain religious sects. Also sometimes called the "religious conscience" exemption, these religious sects must be recognized by the Social Security Administration as being "conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits," the IRS explains. As described in Section 1402 of the tax code, these sects must have been in existence since at least December 31, 1950.

 In other words, as long as you are a religious sect (aka the Amish) that has a history of not excepting or using heath insurance, then you are exempt. And this is religious exemption Joe Biden said would exempt Christian institutions and colleges offering healthcare insurance, from the ObamaCare abortion mandate; as usual for a liberal, an obvious and blatant lie trying to deceive the American public.

Candidate/President Obama repeated ad nauseam, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period; no one will take it away, no matter what." Here are some of the problem with the grand fathering promise. Obama Administration Knew Millions Could Not Keep Their Health Insurance

"The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered". (And the Further, President Obama knew this 3 years ago but continued to taught his plan promising the Grand Fathering knowing there was no possibility it would happen. (in other words the grandfather clause only allows plans that were in effect March 23, 2010 as long as they are not subsequently changed, but ObamaCare also requires the insurance companies to change those very policies if they are not mirror images of ObamaCare policies. This however an exception to this was added by Presidnet Obama,so any healthcare plan that is the result of collective bargaining is exempt. Interestingly, this was not enough for the unions that recently (Sept 2013) demanded the White House grant blanket tax payers subsidies for union workers saying the  unions whom argue the ACA will raise their healthcare costs while providing them no benefit. Even though the President has shown his propensity to make changes to ObamaCare on a whim, he reported this was simply not possible, probably because it would make his agenda to transparent for any damage control.
 
"Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.” That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.” 

So we find out that not only did President Obama know that millions of policies would be cancelled, it was actually written into the law! I guess we have to keep going back to Nancy Pelosi and her statement, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. And the American people just keep finding more to dislike, and the Democrats will keep trying to find a way to blame it on somebody else; and that's just what liberals do.

Nancy Pelosi and Her, Let Them Eat Cake Moment

If ever there was a "Let them eat cake" moment it was Nancy Pelosi's statement, "There is nothing left to cut in the budget." First, there is no budget. The Democrats and President Obama have colluded with each other, so over the last 4 years there has been no budget; just continually raising the debt limit to fund the "continuing resolutions" and "baseline budgeting", guaranteeing the need for ever more tax money. Since the Democrats have refused to submit a budget for a vote,  the only way to cut spending is to remove funding from the continuing resolution, which Democrats say is Republican hostage taking from a routine vote to raise the debt ceiling. The fact is the continuing resolution is anything but routine and is supposed to be enacted only in the case of a budget crisis; this has allowed the Democrats to shirk their most basic responsibility to fund government with a budget.  Nancy Pelosi will never have need of anything, but she and President Obama have forced a plan upon our country  with lies so inclusive, that not one aspect of Obamcare is as presented or promised.  The end result is a 30 hour work week and an expanding lower income voting block now dependent on government. This is the what Obama said he needed to target to implement his progressive agenda. The people want bread and butter jobs but Nancy Pelosi offers trillion dollar deficits that subsidizes poverty, unemployment and underemployment and calls it cake.

Fast and Furious; Not a Bush Operation

Operation Fast and Furious may be the downfall of Obama. In 2006 the Bush administration used an Operation called Wide Receiver to try and track US guns to those in the Mexican Cartel s that were looking to buy them; this was done in coordination with the Mexican Government. Here the guns were closely followed to their destination in Mexico to arrest the buyers while carefully tracking and seizing the guns as evidence; the procedure is called a controlled delivery and is a very common law enforcement tactic. Although arrests were made and no guns were lost, the Bush administration determined the plan was not productive enough and stopped it toward the end of 2007, or a year before he left office.

In 2009 the Obama administration initiated a program Fast and Furious (funded by the Obama stimulus) with seemingly the same goal as Wide Receiver, however there were significant differences in how it was run. First the guns were not tracked but allowed to “walk”, meaning about 2000 guns were allowed to disappear and fall into the hands of murdering Cartels with no one tracking the guns or identifying suspects or making arrests. There was also no coordination with the Mexican government who rightly complained of what seemed like a sudden flood of illegal weapons into Mexico from the US. The big lie that is being spread by the pro-Obama machine is just like Fast and Furious, Bush  (Operation Wide Receiver) let guns walk also; this never happened. Congress is now investigating this debacle and  has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and the President has now invoked Executive Privilege to keep DOJ documents on Fast and Furious from the Congressional investigation. www.nationalreview.com and www.americanthinker.com

The question now is what the President is trying to hide. Whatever it is it may produce another Constitutional crisis mush the same as Watergate. In my opinion I believe the there are three issues about Fast and Furious, any of which if made known could result in the downfall of Holder and President Obama. The first is the number of arms has been greatly understated. In May of 2009 President Calderon remarked to AP, We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico. Let me express to you that we've seized in this two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from United States, and I'm talking from missiles launchers to machine guns and grenades. In this short statement, it appears that there is much more that meets the eye in Fast and Furious. First President Calderon described the weapons as “machine guns” (he has previously described the weapons as military grade). The fact is machine guns or military grade small arms are not generally available in American guns shops. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, requiring a laborious background check and history. Even if someone qualifies for an automatic weapon in the US, the price is usually cost prohibited for anyone other than a hard core collector. As an example a civilian semi-automatic AK-47 can cost $800 to $1000; the same military grade AK-47 will cost near $5000. However if you buys a military grade AK-47 from a international arms dealers they are about $100-$200@. Because of this there is simply no way 25,000 military grade weapons could even be collected in the US never mind smuggled into Mexico. The only supply that large would have to come from the US Military itself or bought from an international gun dealer and made to look like they came from the US. One can imagine a Contragate style operation where US intelligence agents sold military grade weapons to Mexican Cartels in exchange for intelligence on Iran (it is believed that Iran has plotted with Mexican Drug cartels to carry out political assassinations).

The big lie by the Democrats, by the likes of Eric Holder, Jay Carney and Nancy Pelosi is blame Bush for Fast and Furious; that Fast and Furious was a Bush legacy operation. It's a lie, they know it's a lie, but as usual President Obama will take no ownership or responsibility for anything and the democrats just play along. Socialism is based on the the concept on the infallibility of government; that actions and information of and from government should never be questioned and should be accepted as necessary as truthful. This is what we are getting from the President and his ruling subordinates, their attempt to re-write history even as it's being made.

Worst Congress Ever?

I would take much to much time to go back and rehash everything that made the 111th the Worst Congress ever, but the result was a 25% approval rating (which reached a low of 17%) and the enactment of what is possibly the worst legislation in modern history; Healthcare reform. I will explain this in a little more detail later, but I present to you one of the best political cartoons I can remember and certainly the most succinct about Nancy Pelosi.


If you had to identify a single cause of Nancy Pelosi's failure, it would no doubt be her partisanship. When handed a House so lopsided with Democrats that there was no mathematical need to be bi-partisan, she simply excluded the Republicans on all matters, which eventually horrified the electorate resulting in a 60 member Republican turnover based almost totality on stopping the Democrats and undoing what they had done, without really any other plan of their own. When the above cartoon was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, it resulted in two complaint letters. The second I resonded to on the Sentinel opinion blog that resulted in the usual Liberal personal attacks and the accusation that those that voted the Democrats out and the republicans in were the moral equivalent of the Germans voting in the Nazi party; I'm not kidding. Here is the letter, my response and the hysterical responses to my opinions.

Pelosi's not Saddam

Based on the Jan. 5 issue of the Sentinel, I have to wonder how low you are willing to stoop with the political cartoons you publish. Lisa Benson's depiction of Nanci Pelosi as Saddam Hussein was offensive in the extreme. Can the Sentinel at least set some kind of standard wherein some reasonable political statement is being made in the cartoons and opinion articles it presents? I feel insulted that I actually subscribe to a publication that has no standards when it comes to the crucially important task of communicating intelligent political discourse in America. Please Sentinel, do not contribute to what is wrong with our country as it suffers through unconstructive divisiveness.

Mark Varner, Boulder Creek

My Reply: While I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi actually killed anyone (but she did approve torture which she later lied about), a comparison to Saddam Hussien is not "offensive in the extreme". Ms Pelosi lied every time she opened her mouth. She simply ignored the suffering caused by high unemployment, to this day blaming George Bush, but never taking any steps to relieve it. Instead she ignored the will of the people and rammed through what has been deemed by both Democrats and Republicans as the worst legislation ever enacted in modern times. The result was worst congressional rating in history and the a literal revolution to remove as many Democrat representatives as possible (the most in history) to stop the Pelosi juggernaut. The only thing missing was the American people lining up to beat her effigy with their shoes.

#1 Response: I view Mrs Pelosi as a hero, all the more so if she upsets a caveman like yourself. You republicans love to attack personality because if you talked about the issues you care about (lets have more war, screw the poor and the elderly!) you would net get as much traction.

My reply to #1: Perhaps you can point out were I personally attacked Nancy Pelosi. I did not say she was evil. I made no disparaging remarks about her age, the way she dresses, her intelligence or her leadership abilities. On the other hand you are the one that called me a cavemen, which is usually used to judge one lacking in intelligence. I simply stated I believed Nancy Pelosi to be a liar and I explained my reasoning. I also said I believed she was deaf to the wants of the American people evidenced by the health care bill she enacted. Finally I am a Constitutional Liberal, meaning a believer in the unalienable rights of man (only in the US does liberal mean left leaning). While I think it was morally justified for the US military to step in and stop genocide in some corners of the world, I believe that this is were being the worlds policeman should end; the Kuwaiti war was justifiable due to American interests in oil, but Afghanistan and Iraq were a waste of precious American blood. Finally we'll just have to disagree on how government, such as the 60's welfare act doomed many, especially blacks to generations of poverty and how Nancy Pelosi's healthcare reform will soon result in the untimely death of the elderly (if you think I am exaggerating take a look at the British NICE, an institute that bases the cost of treatment on whether you will live long enough to justify the cost). When will the left learn that socialism like the ring or Mordor is evil and can never be used for good.

#2 Response: Wow! If we are going to use past historical figures and situations to interpret this last election season two months ago, it would be to compare to 1933 Germany. The political energization of a politically naive class during a period of high unemployment and a really down economy, wherein this class is duped into supporting a legislative agenda that will only worsen that class' situation (they want change, but choose the absolute wrong kind).
A literal revolution?? How about a corporate (and billionaire's) revolution to demonize any law or lawmaker in support of consumer protection, environmental protection, and worker protection?
The worst legislation ever enacted in modern times? Worse than Jim Crow laws in the US forty years ago? Worse than the legislation in Germany sending people to death camps based on their religion seventy years ago? Might want to reconsider your terminology!

My Reply to #2: If you want an historic pre WWll analogy, you may want to look at the US, where communists and fascists, tried as they might, could not make any in roads with the American people. They used much of the same class warfare rhetoric you are using now, but despite the depression and massive unemployment, the American people preferred to hold onto liberty as described by our founders, not liberty based on the doing away with the burden of choice. The result was Europe destroyed by socialism and America having the highest standard of living in the world. You may complain about the corporate welfare, but keep in mind, it is always the result of big government; there has never been a monopoly or cartel that did not involve government corruption. You also need to brush up on you history. Hitler never achieved more than 37% of the vote. In the last election before he was sworn in as Chancellor, (November 6, 1932) the Nazi party actually lost 34 seats, holding only 32% of the Reichstag. The decision to make Hitler Chancellor was a political decision by a weak leader, not the "energization of a politically naive class".

BTW, the NAZI final solution came long after Hitler dissolved the German parliament; it was not legislation but the horror of a lunatic fringe. Regardless I obviously was referencing legislation enacted in the United States. As bad as segregation was, it pails in comparison to the eugenics that is the basis of socialized medicine; President Obama said it best; it's too expensive to give grandma a pacemaker, better to give he a pain pill instead. Add to that the fascists agreements made with Big Pharm (no longer allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices), Big Health Ins, which will determine the future control of every drug you take, what you eat, what treatments you are allowed to have and how long you have to wait until you get it (all at the determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, currently Kathleen Sebelius); forcing you to buy the Insurance from a private insurer at whatever rate they determine (Big Health actually wrote the healthcare bill and there are no previsions to control premiums). Yes, the health reform bill is the worst legislation ever enacted in the United States. It pained me to no end every time I heard Nancy Pelosi state that "every American would be guaranteed affordable and quality healthcare," when I knew she cares nothing for the individual citizen, but simply viewed herself as the elite trying to collectivize the citizenry through healthcare.

Certainly these responses were expected, but I still have to shake my head when I am personally attacked by the left for supposedly personally attacking someone on the left. Further any attack from the left would not be complete without being compared to a Nazi. Of course the second responder as seems to be the case with most Liberals, had a poor understanding of history, something that is no doubt a result of their revisionists views.

The End of Truth in Politics; Nancy Pelosi and Relativism

Morale relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. In other words it is cafeteria morality, where one picks and chooses moral values as they see fit, ignoring the real purpose of religious doctrine, that values and truth are best left to god, not man. If one had to look at the personification of progressive morale relativism, one need not look any farther than Nancy Pelosi. Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) denounced a "dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and ... desires." One might be able to excuse another persons misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine, but Nancy Pelosi is an “ardent, practicing Catholic”. Below is a interview with Nancy Pelosi by Tom Brokaw about abortion.

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…
REP. PELOSI: I understand that.
MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.
REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.

The reality of course is since 70AD, the Catholic Church has said that life begins with conception and abortion for any reason is murder or at the very least, the taking of a human life. The only “controversy" is the progressive relativism of Nancy Pelosi. So in this case, Pelosi appears to place her progressive political beliefs over the deepest beliefs of her church, as the Pope said for her “own ego”.

Next we go to her pronouncement that the Cap and Trade Bill passed in the House was about, “Jobs, jobs. jobs”. The test case for green jobs has been in Spain, where each green job resulted in two regular jobs being lost. So at a time of 10% unemployment, Nancy Pelosi’s progressive agenda was to increase unemployment by 50% for every green job; this being an ends and means tactic based on a relativism scale of economic planning vs human misery. Speaking of unemployment, Nancy Pelosi would tell us that money given to the unemployed creates jobs.



Or that the Healthcare reform Bill is a job bill.



While Nancy Pelosi may seem comical at times, one should not let their guard down, because these propagandized descriptions, that government will cause the sun to in the morning and it will be a job creator, has a purpose of making the truth relative, which produces a climate of cynicism that intellectual inquiry is even possible. Of course, the Healthcare reform bill will have to become law before we even know what’s in it.



Since that time we have learned that every promise made by the President and Nancy Pelosi are off the table; healthcare will not lower the deficit, you will not be able to keep your insurance if you want to, you will not pay less than you are paying now, you will not be able to keep your doctor, there will be panels run by Nancy Sebelius, who will make decisions on patient care.

Then there is the “Word”



Here is a transcript.
They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.

And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.

Apparently it’s been a long time since Nancy Pelosi has been in Catechism, as her understanding of scripture at the beginning of the book of John deluded at best. In the book of John, the “Word” means “Jesus”; the two are interchangeable in the book of John. In Hebrew Scripture, “the Word” was “the source of God’s message to his people” or “god” himself. Nancy Pelosi seems to think that “the Word” can mean anything and everything. She goes on the say that public policy has to reflect Christian values and no one called her on it, because her message was so convoluted is was viewed as laughable.

Progressives do not believe that liberal* (*meaning Constitutional) politicians act in good faith; they are truly astonished that the citizenry would chose a liberal* government and believe it can only be accomplished through fear mongering, misrepresentation and evil intent. Progressives;Still Lost in the 20's. Two examples of this are Nancy Pelosi’s Astroturf statement, where her deep cynicism makes her unable to believe that any grassroots political movement is possible. The reason, most likely is all the so-called grassroots demonstrations she been involved with, were the result of political financing and planning. Every liberal progressive rally in the last 20 years seems to have included bus transportation by SEIU or Acorn.



Nancy Pelosi later makes similar statements about New Yorkers opposed to a mosque near ground zero of 911. This may be Nancy Pelosi most arrogant public moment. While 911 was an attack against the entire citizenry of the United States, and ground zero is hallowed ground to all Americans, the lasting emotional damage was with the people that experienced the horror first hand. This makes the ground zero mosque an emotional and local issue.



Again you see Nancy Pelosi’s inability to comprehend that the collective consists of spontaneous individuals. I’m sure Nancy Pelosi believes that the French Revolution was the result of some bankers paying the citizenship to show up for a demonstration and planned March to the kings chateau (Versailles). Even more remarkable is Pelosi’s inability to truly separate the political from the emotional. While the mosque issue had been picking up some political steam, it was not until President Obama made two statements about the mosque. The first was the obvious statement that building the mosque was legal under the second amendment, then he re-stated his opinion in an obvious attempt to muddle his message.



It has become obvious that Nancy Pelosi believes that she is the planner of a Socialistic government that took over when President Obama was elected. As with all socialistic states, the truth “becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it”. (The Road to Serfdom) Using her "the Word" analogy, Nancy Pelosi has accumulated so much personal power, she believes she can create reality by the power of her spoken word; that truth and reality are relative to the a world view she is creating in her own image. And when she finally falls from power, it can only be the result of an evil cabal, as the collective has not the insight to see beyond the Word that she sees as herself.

NAACP Hoping for the Worse

I did not dedicate a blog to the Nancy Pelosi/ Emanuel Cleaver incident where Cleaver claimed to have been spit upon and called the “N word” no less than 15 times. The reason was it didn't happen. Oh the Democarts wanted it to happen and tried their best to make it happen, but much to their dismay nothing did happened, just one Tea Party guy yelling, “Kill the bill”. Another reason I did not dedicate a blog was because the entire incident was caught on video, so every one should have been able to see that it didn't happen. Below is the video with a voice over explaining what can obviously be seen.



And still if this is not enough a journalist name Andrew Breitbat offered $100,000 to anyone that captured the incident on video and shows there was intentional spitting and the use of the N-word. This was done on April 2, 2010 and there are still no takers. Of the thousands of camcorders, Blackberry's, Iphones and other recording devices, including those held by assistants to the black caucus themselves and no one captured anything other than what was originally shown on You Tube. Glenn Beck captured the political posturing inherit in this incident, when he showed a photo of Nancy Pelosi walking arm and arm with Emanuel Cleaver and other members of the black caucus trying to capture a civil rights posture, compared to a photo of Martin Luther King Jr marching in Memphis Tenn. One picture shows an arrogant politician leading her entourage, the other a group of brave men, frightened, but ready to give their lives for what they believed.



What is highly disappointing is the NAACP recent vote to censor the Tea Party as a racist organisation. One would have hoped that the NAACP would raise above the Democrat race baiting and politicizing of racism, apparently for the sole purpose of discrediting an opponent of President Obama's. The criteria for the NAACP censor was this now discredited incident and another discredited incident of Tea Party demonstration where a sign said, "Lynch Our President". Like the spitting/N-word incident, in a world where everybody has a camera, no one has been able to produce any evidence that this occurred either. What is really bizarre is a lack of any evidence of racism in the Tea Party at all. One would think that of the millions of Tea Party members there would be a couple of nuts out there; this has got to be frustrating to the White House.

edited August 4, 2010. The New York Times printed a correction on their reporting of this incident,"The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members." Soooo, are they saying the incident didn't happen, or that it did happen, but was perpetrated by some person they could not link to the Tea Party. I'm guessing it's the later, as the NYT wouldn't dare insinuate that Rep Lewis was lying, creating a racist incident that could be blamed on the Tea Party Movement, that actually never happened; this is the definition of the ends justifying the means. Either way is was a Gilda Radner moment that no one will ever read.

But of course the Tea Party is not really the crux of the story; it is the continued and over the top race baiting by the Democrats. Add to that the victimization of the Black culture, perpetrated by the progressives that has become so ingrained they have built a religion around it called Black Liberation Theology. The basis of the religion is blacks would be a superior race, except their birthright was stolen from them by whites. They believe in something called collective salvation, where whites can only be redeemed if they give all their worldly possessions to blacks to compensate blacks for what they stole. They also believe that Jesus preached socialism and the redistribution of wealth. BLT is the morale equivalent of Hezbollah and Hamas. Both have told the Palestinians not to make peace with Israel and instead, wait until Israel is annihilated, then everything that Israel was, will be theirs. And they continue to wait in misery.

The Fascism of Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi continues to show herself as one of the most condescending and hypocritical members of Congress to date. The current Speaker of the House and the first woman to hold this position has continued to show time after time, her belief that the American taxpayer is incapable of independent thought. Any disagreement by a group of Americans against the policies of Nancy Pelosi has been met with allegations that the unwashed masses don't know what's good for them and as Bill Maher once said about Single Payer Health Care; “You can't get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they're stupid. Just drag them to this." When confronted with mounting resistance to ObamaCare, she referred to the protests at the Town Hall Meetings as Astroturf, meaning;

"those not interested in health insurance reform are disrupting public meetings and not allowing concerned constituents to ask questions and express their views. Many of these opponents who are shutting down civil discussion are organized by out-of-district, extremist political groups, and industry-supported lobbying firms." However in the same breath she says, “Successful, informative constituent meetings are being headlined by Democrats across the country.”

One is left with two possibilities; either she simply can not believe that anyone can see significant flaws in the workings of the Democrats in Congress, or she believes that any disagreements by her constituency is beneath her; the later would seem more likely. This of course is nothing new. Whenever Speaker Pelosi's rhetoric runs contrary to fact or reality, she simply states the absurd and presents it as fact. Such was her seemingly incompatible views on abortion rights and her professed Catholicism. Speaker Pelosi, in an interview with Tom Brokaw was asked “when” her faith believes life begins; her response was “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.” When Brokaw brought to her attention that it is common knowledge that the Catholic church believes life starts at conception, she compounded her hypocrisy in the area, by saying, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” The responses from Catholics reached Pope Benedict himself, who stated after a hearing with Ms Pelosi, that all Catholics—especially legislators, jurists and political leaders—should work to create "a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development." Pope Benedict has written at length that the greatest threat to Catholicism in the United States is “Relativism”, meaning Catholics who choose only that part of their faith that is convenient or fits their world view; apparently he was thinking of Speaker Pelosi at the time.

In her acceptance speech as speaker, Ms Pelosi stated, "In order to achieve a new America, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history. This new Congress doesn't have two years or 100 days to renew itself”. It is interesting to note after almost two years, and numerous ethics violation, not one member of the house has been disciplined. The glaring example is Rep Charles Rangel. Rep Rangel is Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee; the committee that writes the tax code. The New York Post reported that he had bought a Caribbean Villa with an interest free loan given to him by one of his political donors. He then failed to report the loan and income from renting the Villa ($75,000), not only on his congressional disclosure forms, but also on his state or federal income taxes. Interestingly enough, Rep Rangel called for his own investigation on this and other violations, but Speaker Pelosi has refused to have him step down from his post, nor has Rep Rangel been disciplined in any way.

Speaker Pelosi was also become a critic of the coercive interrogation techniques used on terrorists. Speaker Pelosi gives a Clintonize ( I did not have sexual relations with that woman) explanation on what when she wasn't briefed:

When my assistant told me that the committee had been briefed -- now, I'm not on that committee any more. I'm now out of it. We have a new -- that ranking member wrote the appropriate letter to protest that, but the committees can look into and see the timing of who knew what and when and what the nature of the briefing was. I have not been briefed as to what they were briefed on in February. I was just briefed that they were informed that some of the enhanced situations were used”.

So for political reasons, Speaker Pelosi is throwing the CIA members who protected us after 911 under the bus. Did they go too far? Probably. Should we have invaded Iraq? Probably not. Was Speaker (then Rep) Pelosi, as a high ranking member of the House Intelligent Committee September 2002), briefed in coercive interrogation techniques? Of course. Is Speaker Pelosi misleading Americans and then recklessly charging the CIA with deliberate misconduct to cover her tracks (as factcheck.org asks)? What do you think?

Speaker Pelosi was represented the Cap and Trade Bill as a jobs bill. Cap and Trade is a tax based on the belief the human produced carbon dioxide causes Global Warming (aka the Green House Effect). While there is no doubt of the existence of Green House Effect, the last decade has thrown a monkey wrench in the computer models that were meant to predict an expedited increase in the Green House Effect caused by rising C02 levels, refereed to as Global Warming. Twenty years ago, earth temperatures were indeed warming and there was increased pressure on Climatologist to prove the connection between C02 levels Global Warming. Unfortunately for the scientist, temperatures have actually decreased on the last 10 years, causing the political pundits to change the name, Global Warming to Climate Change. The current computer models have been able to show that any and all climate conditions are the negative results of rising C02 levels; this is the definition of dogma, not science.

Well what about the jobs? Ed Histrodt; from TheNewAmerican.com;

You may have seen Nancy Pelosi jumping up and down like a junior high-school cheerleader and shouting “Jobs, jobs, jobs!” when she promoted Cap and Trade on the House floor. Wasn’t the bill about saving the planet, not a jobs bill?

It’s more likely that “green jobs” refers to new jobs in the massive bureaucracies necessary to issue emission allocations and police the energy used by all American businesses, and, doubtlessly soon, American households. (The equipment is already in limited use in the U.K. to monitor household electrical usage.) The Energy Police would not only have to monitor use, but also ascertain that the credits being sold were from bona fide “renewable” sources or determine that the originator wasn’t really cheating on that end of the transaction — a daunting task even for a massive bureaucracy".

From an article by Speaker Pelosi, "I believe we have to [pass a cap-and-trade bill] because we see that as a source of revenue," she said, noting that “proposed cap-and-trade bills would raise billions of dollars by forcing major emitters to buy credits to release greenhouse gases”.

President Obama has said that Cap and Trade will necessarily make gasoline prices “skyrocket”. What Cap and Trade does is allow the government to tax anything that produces carbon dioxide, such a breathing. None of the green jobs promised exist or are even on the drawing board. The point of Cap and Trade, is to make our current use of resources so expensive, that it is expected that innovation will supply the option. No matter the endgame, is the government that will tax and control the means of production.

Dr Steve Runnings, is a co-author of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founder of the Climate Change Studies program at the University of Montana. Dr Runnings has stated, “If the US passed a cap and trade and other countries did not, it wouldn’t work. It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either. So this is a global issue, the global climate statistics are global in nature, global carbon emissions are global in nature, and we really have to have an international consensus of what to do. That is going to stretch our international diplomacy to its limit, there’s no doubt about that.” That's right Speaker Pelosi, it's all about, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs”

If there is a final chapter in the emergence of fascism in American it would be the Democratic health care reform debate. The President was attacked every aspect of the current healthcare industry to try and convince the American people that the only solution is a government controlled Single Payer Plan; being presented now as a Public Option or ObamaCare. The President has said that doctors would rather cut off patients feet than treat Diabetes, that private health care 's mission is to take your money and deny services, and charged the big drug companies have successfully lobbied to eliminate drug price bargaining (Pres Obama has since made a deal with big pharmaceutical; they help fund OmabaCare with $80 billion and he will end Medicare (and Obamacare) drug bargaining. The plan on it's face makes no sense; it will still leave 30 million uninsured, with no contingent plan for 20 million illegal aliens; the first five years will be paid for by money saved over the previous 10 years; and 50% of the program will be funded by cutting $500 billion from Medicare, without cutting Medicare coverage (we already know drug prices are going to go up).

Speaker Pelosi has been front and center with her support for a public health plan and believes that if any American Tax payer does not share her support for the public option, they are weak minded and have been led astray by talk radio and FOX News. Speaker Pelois is so condescending that she believes all that is necessary is to change the name of the “Pubic Option” to the “Consumer Option”, than all the resistance to the Public Option would disappear. In the same speech, she said she wanted people to think about it as "their consumer option, because public is being misrepresented as being something that's paid for by taxpayer dollars, which it is not'' and that health reform would “actually improve Medicare coverage for seniors.” Apparently the Speaker has been on the public dole for so long, that she has forgotten that every cent that the government uses is paid for by taxpayers. Of course, a month ½ earlier she said, “Half the bill will be paid for by squeezing excesses out of the [Medicare and Medicaid] system, and there is $500 billion dollars to do that and we’re looking for more.” Only a politician with lifetime private health insurance paid by the government could make such claims. This of course comes after plans of taxing existing private health care plans and a value added tax (a federal income tax).

What is known is that most of the Public Health care promises are smoke and mirrors. From an article by Robert Samuelson; “Public Plan: Delusion in Health Care Debate”:

“The public plan's low costs would be artificial. Its main advantage would be the congressionally mandated requirement that hospitals and doctors be reimbursed at rates at or near Medicare's. These are as much as 30 percent lower than rates paid by private insurers, says the health care consulting firm Lewin Group. With such savings, the public plan could charge much lower premiums and attract lots of customers. But health costs wouldn't subside; hospitals and doctors would offset the public plan's artificially low reimbursements by raising fees to private insurers, as already occurs with Medicare. Premiums would increase because private insurers must cover costs to survive.

As for administrative expenses, any advantage for the public plan is exaggerated, say critics. Part of the gap between private insurers and Medicare is statistical illusion: Because Medicare recipients have higher average health expenses ($10,003 in 2007) than the under-65 population ($3,946), its administrative costs are a smaller share of total spending. The public plan, with younger members, wouldn't enjoy this advantage.”

In other words the Medicare overhead advantage (3%) over private insurers (13%) is obtained by comparing apples to oranges; the public plan will likely have a similar overhead as the private insures of today. Finally:

The promise of the public plan is a mirage. Its political brilliance is to use free-market rhetoric (more "choice" and "competition") to expand government power. But why would a plan tied to Medicare control health spending, when Medicare hasn't? From 1970 to 2007, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose 9.2 percent annually compared to the 10.4 percent of private insurers - and the small difference partly reflects cost shifting. Congress periodically improves Medicare benefits, and there's a limit to how much squeezing reimbursement rates can check costs. Doctors and hospitals already complain that low payments limit services or discourage physicians from taking Medicare patients.

The only way we have to estimate the future cost of health care in the past; and the past shows the so called skyrocketing health care costs rose similarly with Medicare. Samuelson went on to say the reason Medicare can keep it's cost down, is they can mandate low reimbursement rates; without which, “the public plan would founder”. And an advantage not given to private insurers.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of fascism is the size of the lie. Speaker Pelosi and Pres Obama seem to have no respect for the American citizen. In their world view, individual freedom and liberty must make way for collectivism; that the needs of the many now supersede the needs of the individual. When faced with the moral values of her religion, she defers to as a need of the state. When faced with the needs of the free market, she points to nationalizing the means of production as a need of the state. When faced with capitalism and the free market, they point to re-distribution of wealth as a need of the state. This has all been tried before; it is the fascism playbook, word for word, and it has never been successful and always resulted in tyranny. But their unending narcissism makes them believe that this time they'll get it right. They praise the ideas of Marx, and Mao, and now Chavez and Castro. Hopefully the American people will not forget what it is that makes America great. It's not hard, because it is written in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Our founding fathers battled tyranny and created the greatest country that has ever been. Let's not return the country to tyranny, because, the day will come when we'll want liberty again, and history has shown that only through the loss of life and limb can liberty be gained. It would be tragedy of unimaginable sacrifice, the sacrifices of our forefathers, that will be needed again.