Obama to Propose Limits on Insurance Rates
WASHINGTON -- President Obama is making a fresh attempt to rescue his health care overhaul by proposing a measure that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriate consumers.
Coming just days before a White House health care summit with congressional leaders of both parties, Obama's new legislative proposal, which will be unveiled later Monday, likely represents the president's last chance to salvage his signature issue.
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity because details have not yet been officially released, said the insurance rate proposal would give the federal Health and Human Services Department -- in conjunction with state authorities -- the power to deny substantial premium increases, limit them, or demand rebates for consumers. [Click to read more]
The average insurance company makes a measely 4% profit. That's about the worst return of any type of company! This proposal of Obama's will drive insurance companies out of business and directly into government hands, just the way Il Duce* Obama wants.
*For those of you in Rio Linda, Il Duce was the nickname of Mussolini, the leader of the Fascist Party of Italy, an ally of Nazi Germany. Fascism is a socialist form of government where all businesses are controlled by the government. They also seek to silence the opposition by setting controls on the media, demonizing all other views, and totally ignoring input from any other political parties. Sound familiar?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
$1.1 Trillion in New Taxes? Come on, Mr. President!
Obama Budget Seeks $1.1 Trillion in Tax Hikes
WASHINGTON -- While President Barack Obama is proposing to cut some taxes for companies that hire workers, his budget would raise a host of other taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.
The budget proposal released Monday would extend Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax credit -- $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly -- through 2011. But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama would extend Bush-era tax cuts for families and individuals making less. [Click to read story]
Imposing more taxes on "wealthy" couples will mean:
(1) Less investment in businesses. Therefore, more unemployment.
(2) Not hiring as many housekeepers, drivers, lawns people. Therefore, more unemployment.
(3) Not spending as much for goods. Therefore, more unemployment.
On the other hand, with all these new taxes, the government can afford to put more people on unemployment and welfare.
Sounds like a great idea all the way around!
WASHINGTON -- While President Barack Obama is proposing to cut some taxes for companies that hire workers, his budget would raise a host of other taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.
The budget proposal released Monday would extend Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax credit -- $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly -- through 2011. But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama would extend Bush-era tax cuts for families and individuals making less. [Click to read story]
Imposing more taxes on "wealthy" couples will mean:
(1) Less investment in businesses. Therefore, more unemployment.
(2) Not hiring as many housekeepers, drivers, lawns people. Therefore, more unemployment.
(3) Not spending as much for goods. Therefore, more unemployment.
On the other hand, with all these new taxes, the government can afford to put more people on unemployment and welfare.
Sounds like a great idea all the way around!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Obamanation & More on Climategate
OBAMA SPANKS THE SUPREME COURT
Obama once again showed his disdain for the Constitution by spanking the Supreme Court in his first State of the Union. The Court had overturned several unconstitutional laws that have been around for quite a while, as well as parts of the McCain-Feingold act.
This was not the forum to disagree about campaign finance reform. A press conference or weekly radio address would have been much more appropriate. Besides, how much of Obama's money came from foreign interests? We may never know, since much of it was contributed in cash by people with false names and addresses. Also, a significant portion came through the internet and is not verifiable. Obama has opened himself up to a lot of criticism for this hypocrisy.
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. [Click to read more from the "Times of London"]
Yup. UEA was clearly breaking the law, and the scientists were being unethical--that is, they were lying about data and hiding it to cover their tracks. Why? Probably to steal more taxpayer money for bogus research. Well, now they've been found out. They all need to be sacked and prevented from doing research ever again! They have damaged the reputation of the scientific method.
Obama once again showed his disdain for the Constitution by spanking the Supreme Court in his first State of the Union. The Court had overturned several unconstitutional laws that have been around for quite a while, as well as parts of the McCain-Feingold act.
This was not the forum to disagree about campaign finance reform. A press conference or weekly radio address would have been much more appropriate. Besides, how much of Obama's money came from foreign interests? We may never know, since much of it was contributed in cash by people with false names and addresses. Also, a significant portion came through the internet and is not verifiable. Obama has opened himself up to a lot of criticism for this hypocrisy.
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. [Click to read more from the "Times of London"]
Yup. UEA was clearly breaking the law, and the scientists were being unethical--that is, they were lying about data and hiding it to cover their tracks. Why? Probably to steal more taxpayer money for bogus research. Well, now they've been found out. They all need to be sacked and prevented from doing research ever again! They have damaged the reputation of the scientific method.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Obama’s Report Card for 2009
Stimulus Plan: C
Left the process wholly to Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi. They assembled a plan that didn’t address the immediate needs, but put together a long-term spending plan that deferred over 60% of the money spent until two years down the road. And it wasn’t STIMULUS but a conglomeration of liberal agenda spending that hadn’t been passed for the last 16 years (under Bush AND Clinton).
Olympics Bid for Chicago: F
Presidents don’t make this kind of trip except when it’s a done deal. Either he thought he could sway the outcome or his staff made a horrible miscalculation.
Far East Trip: D
Went out with open arms to try and garner support for Afghanistan. Clumsily bowed to the Emperor of Japan--unprecedented. Got scolded by China for being fiscally irresponsible.
Afghanistan: D
Took way too long to respond to the situation. Didn’t provide the generals on the ground what they thought they needed to win. We need to either WIN or GET OUT! An in between stance is just like what we did in Vietnam! It’s juyst going to get our troops killed.
Copenhagen Conference: D
Expected a big, binding agreement, but got NOTHING. The conference was a joke, especially after the “science” (or should I say “junk science”) was discredited by the e-mail scandal.
War on Terror: D
The attitude at the top filtered down to the intelligence community. That attitude? There is no war on terror. This allowed people to get killed at Fort Hood and an attempted aircraft bombing over Detroit. Both should have been caught. But if our President says there is no war, then why should we be vigilant?
Health Care Reform: D
He continually showed his ignorance by claiming things about the bills in Congress and the Senate that weren’t true! He was not involved in the process, but once again (just like the Economic Stimulus), did not make his requirements clearly known.
Bipartisanship: F
In spite of claims of reaching out to the other side, kept the loyal opposition out of the legislative process, creating the most polarized Congress since the Republicans won the presidency and congress in 1860.
Overall, President Obama and his staff showed gross naiveté in how they handled Congress, public opinion, and the rest of the world. Clearly, he received a baptism by fire he wasn’t ready for. The sad thing is, he doesn’t realize how badly he did, nor does he understand why his approval ratings are the lowest of any president for his first year. People had grand hopes. He has disappointed America.
Left the process wholly to Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi. They assembled a plan that didn’t address the immediate needs, but put together a long-term spending plan that deferred over 60% of the money spent until two years down the road. And it wasn’t STIMULUS but a conglomeration of liberal agenda spending that hadn’t been passed for the last 16 years (under Bush AND Clinton).
Olympics Bid for Chicago: F
Presidents don’t make this kind of trip except when it’s a done deal. Either he thought he could sway the outcome or his staff made a horrible miscalculation.
Far East Trip: D
Went out with open arms to try and garner support for Afghanistan. Clumsily bowed to the Emperor of Japan--unprecedented. Got scolded by China for being fiscally irresponsible.
Afghanistan: D
Took way too long to respond to the situation. Didn’t provide the generals on the ground what they thought they needed to win. We need to either WIN or GET OUT! An in between stance is just like what we did in Vietnam! It’s juyst going to get our troops killed.
Copenhagen Conference: D
Expected a big, binding agreement, but got NOTHING. The conference was a joke, especially after the “science” (or should I say “junk science”) was discredited by the e-mail scandal.
War on Terror: D
The attitude at the top filtered down to the intelligence community. That attitude? There is no war on terror. This allowed people to get killed at Fort Hood and an attempted aircraft bombing over Detroit. Both should have been caught. But if our President says there is no war, then why should we be vigilant?
Health Care Reform: D
He continually showed his ignorance by claiming things about the bills in Congress and the Senate that weren’t true! He was not involved in the process, but once again (just like the Economic Stimulus), did not make his requirements clearly known.
Bipartisanship: F
In spite of claims of reaching out to the other side, kept the loyal opposition out of the legislative process, creating the most polarized Congress since the Republicans won the presidency and congress in 1860.
Overall, President Obama and his staff showed gross naiveté in how they handled Congress, public opinion, and the rest of the world. Clearly, he received a baptism by fire he wasn’t ready for. The sad thing is, he doesn’t realize how badly he did, nor does he understand why his approval ratings are the lowest of any president for his first year. People had grand hopes. He has disappointed America.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas American People -- More Debt Than Your Descendants Can Pay For!
From CNN -- Next step: Turn two health care bills into one
(CNN) -- The Senate on Thursday passed its version of the health care bill, inching the country closer to the biggest expansion of medical coverage since Medicare was enacted more than four decades ago.
Senate Democrats declared victory after the 60-39 party line vote, but one of the most complicated tasks is still ahead.
A conference committee must reconcile the differences -- notably a public option, how to pay for the plan that emerges, and coverage for abortion -- and merge them into one.
The House and Senate will then have to pass the revised plan before it can be sent to President Obama's desk. Each chamber needs a simple majority vote for final passage. [Click to read]
We're in for it now! How will we ever pay for this. I guess we can only hope and pray that during reconciliation the best parts of both bills are kept and the worst parts are thrown out. Doesn't usually seem to work that way. Pray hard for wisdom for the people on the reconciliation committees. We do need true health reform, but not like what's currently in either bill.
(CNN) -- The Senate on Thursday passed its version of the health care bill, inching the country closer to the biggest expansion of medical coverage since Medicare was enacted more than four decades ago.
Senate Democrats declared victory after the 60-39 party line vote, but one of the most complicated tasks is still ahead.
A conference committee must reconcile the differences -- notably a public option, how to pay for the plan that emerges, and coverage for abortion -- and merge them into one.
The House and Senate will then have to pass the revised plan before it can be sent to President Obama's desk. Each chamber needs a simple majority vote for final passage. [Click to read]
We're in for it now! How will we ever pay for this. I guess we can only hope and pray that during reconciliation the best parts of both bills are kept and the worst parts are thrown out. Doesn't usually seem to work that way. Pray hard for wisdom for the people on the reconciliation committees. We do need true health reform, but not like what's currently in either bill.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Health Care Reform That Isn't
Who is the government trying to kid? This is not "Health Care Reform". In the first place, it's not about health care, it's about insurance, one of the lowest-profit businesses on the planet. Do you realize they only make around 4%? In the second place, it's not about reform, it's about taking control of one of the largest business segments in the nation.
This is outright fascism. What is fascim? According to wikipedia, facism is:
a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state, with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. Fascism fashioned itself as the "complete opposite of Marxian socialism" by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state socialism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour.
Enough said. Under the Obama, Pelosi, Reid triumvirate, the American People and our freedoms are in trouble.
This is outright fascism. What is fascim? According to wikipedia, facism is:
a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state, with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. Fascism fashioned itself as the "complete opposite of Marxian socialism" by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state socialism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour.
Enough said. Under the Obama, Pelosi, Reid triumvirate, the American People and our freedoms are in trouble.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Job Creations "Summit" Today: Who's NOT Invited?
Guess who's not invited to our esteemed president's job creation summit today?
That's right, the Chamber of Commerce, which represents most small businesses. How many jobs do small businesses provide? 70% of them. Let me repeat that: SEVENTY PERCENT OF U.S. JOBS ARE CREATED BY SMALL BUSINESSES! And they have NO PLACE AT OBAMA'S TABLE!
So just who is invited? Let me see: unions, green groups, business leaders and economists supportive of White House policies, etc. What is this? It's not a JOBS SUMMIT. It's a SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY GRUBBING SUMMIT.
It's also a job protection summit: for Obama.
What will come out of this? My predictions are:
(1) They will say that the government needs to provide healthcare so the businesses won't have to.
(2) The government needs to spend more on green jobs.
(3) Small businesses (not represented at all) need to not be so greedy and hire more people at higher salaries.
Really helpful summit!
That's right, the Chamber of Commerce, which represents most small businesses. How many jobs do small businesses provide? 70% of them. Let me repeat that: SEVENTY PERCENT OF U.S. JOBS ARE CREATED BY SMALL BUSINESSES! And they have NO PLACE AT OBAMA'S TABLE!
So just who is invited? Let me see: unions, green groups, business leaders and economists supportive of White House policies, etc. What is this? It's not a JOBS SUMMIT. It's a SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY GRUBBING SUMMIT.
It's also a job protection summit: for Obama.
What will come out of this? My predictions are:
(1) They will say that the government needs to provide healthcare so the businesses won't have to.
(2) The government needs to spend more on green jobs.
(3) Small businesses (not represented at all) need to not be so greedy and hire more people at higher salaries.
Really helpful summit!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Pay Czar Acting Independently of President
Pay Czar Feinberg, Not Obama, Behind Decision to Slash Executive Pay
White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president's approval before making his decision.
Under the plan, at the financial products division of AIG, the giant insurance company which has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, one person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. [Click to read more]
Bush's Czars were advisors only. They did not have the power to act independently of confirmed cabinet members or the president. Obama has given his czars totally unprecedented power!
Besides the fact that what the Pay Czar is doing is absolutely illegal, $200,000 maximum salary for companies that size is absolutely ridiculous! Engineers, Nurse Anesthetists, and some salespersons make close to that much, without having the responsibility of having charge of corporate decision making. How will they attract even competent talent? I certainly wouldn't work in a job in that position without proper compensation.
White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president's approval before making his decision.
Under the plan, at the financial products division of AIG, the giant insurance company which has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, one person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. [Click to read more]
Bush's Czars were advisors only. They did not have the power to act independently of confirmed cabinet members or the president. Obama has given his czars totally unprecedented power!
Besides the fact that what the Pay Czar is doing is absolutely illegal, $200,000 maximum salary for companies that size is absolutely ridiculous! Engineers, Nurse Anesthetists, and some salespersons make close to that much, without having the responsibility of having charge of corporate decision making. How will they attract even competent talent? I certainly wouldn't work in a job in that position without proper compensation.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Controlling the Media
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is seen in a video from January talking about how the Obama campaign exercised absolute "control" over media coverage. [Click to watch]
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year. [Click to read]
Is this simply a brilliant campaign strategy, or part of an overall attempt to suppress free speech? Now they're trying to set the stage to control talk radio, minimize the impact of FOX News, and belittling the other networks who are reporting about FOX. Where will it end?
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is seen in a video from January talking about how the Obama campaign exercised absolute "control" over media coverage. [Click to watch]
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year. [Click to read]
Is this simply a brilliant campaign strategy, or part of an overall attempt to suppress free speech? Now they're trying to set the stage to control talk radio, minimize the impact of FOX News, and belittling the other networks who are reporting about FOX. Where will it end?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Public Option, Tort Reform
From CNN: Harkin: Final health care bill will have public option
Sen. Tom Harkin promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democrat who chairs one of the Senate committees tasked with developing health care legislation, promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas and will include a so-called "public option." [Click to read]
Is he sure? I heard that there are at least five Democrats that are holding out? Are they going to strong-arm them into voting for it?
Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.
The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.
A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week. [Click to read]
Why not do it? And for doctors who are repeatedly found guilty of malpractice, remove their license? It works for Professional Engineers!
Sen. Tom Harkin promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democrat who chairs one of the Senate committees tasked with developing health care legislation, promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas and will include a so-called "public option." [Click to read]
Is he sure? I heard that there are at least five Democrats that are holding out? Are they going to strong-arm them into voting for it?
Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.
The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.
A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week. [Click to read]
Why not do it? And for doctors who are repeatedly found guilty of malpractice, remove their license? It works for Professional Engineers!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Health Insurance Reform & White House vs. Fox News
From FOXNews: White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News
Anita Dunn, White House communications director, calls Fox News a "wing of the Republican Party," after the White House began using its government blog to criticize "Fox lies."
Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.
Call the wambulance! This is one argument no administration can win. Politicians shouldn't criticize news organizations, period. If they want to disagree with a story, then that's perfectly fine. Otherwise, it smacks of censoring!
From FOXNews: 17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat
Nothing brings a smile to an adult's face quicker than the sight of a happy, chubby baby.
But the sight of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.
What? This is ridiculous! Insurance companies (or the legalized Mafia, as my dad called them) need to be reigned in! We need an insurance tune-up to take care of "stuff" like this. However, let's not go too far and replace the whole car!
From CNN: Insurers, White House square off over reform bill
An insurance industry trade group says premiums for a typical American family would rise by thousands of dollars under a Senate overhaul plan. But the White House blasted the report as inaccurate. "This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said. The bill is set for a vote today in the Senate Finance Committee.
Are they right, or are they being self-serving? Or perhaps both are true!
Anita Dunn, White House communications director, calls Fox News a "wing of the Republican Party," after the White House began using its government blog to criticize "Fox lies."
Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.
Call the wambulance! This is one argument no administration can win. Politicians shouldn't criticize news organizations, period. If they want to disagree with a story, then that's perfectly fine. Otherwise, it smacks of censoring!
From FOXNews: 17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat
Nothing brings a smile to an adult's face quicker than the sight of a happy, chubby baby.
But the sight of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.
What? This is ridiculous! Insurance companies (or the legalized Mafia, as my dad called them) need to be reigned in! We need an insurance tune-up to take care of "stuff" like this. However, let's not go too far and replace the whole car!
From CNN: Insurers, White House square off over reform bill
An insurance industry trade group says premiums for a typical American family would rise by thousands of dollars under a Senate overhaul plan. But the White House blasted the report as inaccurate. "This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said. The bill is set for a vote today in the Senate Finance Committee.
Are they right, or are they being self-serving? Or perhaps both are true!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Gay Divorce, Afghanistan and the Olympics in Chicago
From the AP: Texas Judge Clears Way for Gay Divorce
DALLAS — A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005.
"The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [Click to read the entire article]
The judge said she's basing the decision on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Are we stuck with this? Or is there a way out? There is.
The Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton) says we don't have to accept gay marriage if our state doesn't want to. AND the Constitution says, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This gives them the right to do so.
The State judge is therefore trying to overrule a federal law. She is clearly out of her jurisdiction. Only federeal courts can rule on this matter.
My Opinion--Afghanistan and the Olympics in Chicago
The president said in his campaign speeches that Afghanistan was where we should concentrate to fight terrorism and he promised to build up our troops there. Yet now he says that it will take up to six weeks to review the request for additional troops. This week, he flew to Europe with Oprah to campaign before the Olympic Committee for Chicago. This could at least have knocked off a few days on the Afghanistan review!
Where are your priorities, Mr. President? We have a record number of people DYING in Afghanistan, yet you're worried about SPORTS? Come on!
DALLAS — A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005.
"The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [Click to read the entire article]
The judge said she's basing the decision on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Are we stuck with this? Or is there a way out? There is.
The Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton) says we don't have to accept gay marriage if our state doesn't want to. AND the Constitution says, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This gives them the right to do so.
The State judge is therefore trying to overrule a federal law. She is clearly out of her jurisdiction. Only federeal courts can rule on this matter.
My Opinion--Afghanistan and the Olympics in Chicago
The president said in his campaign speeches that Afghanistan was where we should concentrate to fight terrorism and he promised to build up our troops there. Yet now he says that it will take up to six weeks to review the request for additional troops. This week, he flew to Europe with Oprah to campaign before the Olympic Committee for Chicago. This could at least have knocked off a few days on the Afghanistan review!
Where are your priorities, Mr. President? We have a record number of people DYING in Afghanistan, yet you're worried about SPORTS? Come on!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
In the News--Last Day of September
From CNN: Exptriating Illegal Alien Patients
"There is no reason why the U.S. taxpayers should have to pick up the tab- when the person is a citizen of another country- it ought to be the responsibility of that government," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform or FAIR. [Click here to read story]
We get the same treatment in other countries--try going to a hospital or emergency room in the Carribean or Europe without a credit card! They will not let you in! I've seen it.
However, is it fair? Something we'll have to debate.
From CNN: Haters of America Are Still Out There
President Obama was applauded by Castro, Chavez, and Gadhafi (no friends of ours) when he said he wanted a "new era of engagement in the world." Are either of those three dictators going to be better world citizens or kinder, gentler leaders as a result of Obama's outreach? Put me in the doubtful column. [Click here to read story]
Is our president hurting or helping our image world-wide? I think he's hurting, especially when even the French are calling us weak!
From FOXNews: Senate Committee Rejects Stronger Anti-Abortion Language in Health Care Bill
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose amendment lost 13 to 10, argued before the panel that tightening is needed to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.
"I want assurances that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortions," said Hatch. "Let's put specific language from my amendment into the bill." The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders."
Members of the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment Wednesday to strengthen anti-abortion provisions on the panel's sixth day of hashing out a health care reform bill.
Democratic Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said his health care bill before the Senate committee already reflects federal law, which bars funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
"This is a health care bill. This is not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law," he said. [Click here to read story]
Should life proponents push hard for this? Or is it already covered in another law? I think it's already covered. We don't need extra laws when we already have them. It makes for the potential of contradictory laws complicating things in court. What do you think?
From ABCNews: Heart-breaking, Wrong, and Not Quite Accurate
[Two health-care horror stories were shared by President Obama] at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigation hearing in June. It turns out that while it's impossible to defend the behavior of the insurance companies in either instance, the stories, as the president told them, were not accurate. [Click here to read story]
Our leaders need to get their facts straight--it happens all the time!!
From The Register: Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.
From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked. [Click here to read the story]
Seems that people are lying! Why? Just follow the money. How much have Al Gore and his cronies made on Global Warming? What a scam!
"There is no reason why the U.S. taxpayers should have to pick up the tab- when the person is a citizen of another country- it ought to be the responsibility of that government," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform or FAIR. [Click here to read story]
We get the same treatment in other countries--try going to a hospital or emergency room in the Carribean or Europe without a credit card! They will not let you in! I've seen it.
However, is it fair? Something we'll have to debate.
From CNN: Haters of America Are Still Out There
President Obama was applauded by Castro, Chavez, and Gadhafi (no friends of ours) when he said he wanted a "new era of engagement in the world." Are either of those three dictators going to be better world citizens or kinder, gentler leaders as a result of Obama's outreach? Put me in the doubtful column. [Click here to read story]
Is our president hurting or helping our image world-wide? I think he's hurting, especially when even the French are calling us weak!
From FOXNews: Senate Committee Rejects Stronger Anti-Abortion Language in Health Care Bill
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose amendment lost 13 to 10, argued before the panel that tightening is needed to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.
"I want assurances that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortions," said Hatch. "Let's put specific language from my amendment into the bill." The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders."
Members of the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment Wednesday to strengthen anti-abortion provisions on the panel's sixth day of hashing out a health care reform bill.
Democratic Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said his health care bill before the Senate committee already reflects federal law, which bars funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
"This is a health care bill. This is not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law," he said. [Click here to read story]
Should life proponents push hard for this? Or is it already covered in another law? I think it's already covered. We don't need extra laws when we already have them. It makes for the potential of contradictory laws complicating things in court. What do you think?
From ABCNews: Heart-breaking, Wrong, and Not Quite Accurate
[Two health-care horror stories were shared by President Obama] at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigation hearing in June. It turns out that while it's impossible to defend the behavior of the insurance companies in either instance, the stories, as the president told them, were not accurate. [Click here to read story]
Our leaders need to get their facts straight--it happens all the time!!
From The Register: Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.
From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked. [Click here to read the story]
Seems that people are lying! Why? Just follow the money. How much have Al Gore and his cronies made on Global Warming? What a scam!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Lies, Lies, and More Lies
No, not from the Obama Administration or the Democrats this time! From conservatives!
My brother has sent me two internet rumors lately that are so patently false, they're laughable! One is about Obama not taking his wife to Dubai, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. The other one attributes quotes to Obama that were actually made by a liberal talkshow host criticizing Obama.
The open marketplace of ideas will be destroyed if people keep lying. STOP IT! If you have a beef with someone's stand, attack the issue with truth--do not smear the person.
(Of course, if you REALLY have the goods on the person, speak the truth there, too.)
You cannot win with lies. It only discredits you.
My brother has sent me two internet rumors lately that are so patently false, they're laughable! One is about Obama not taking his wife to Dubai, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. The other one attributes quotes to Obama that were actually made by a liberal talkshow host criticizing Obama.
The open marketplace of ideas will be destroyed if people keep lying. STOP IT! If you have a beef with someone's stand, attack the issue with truth--do not smear the person.
(Of course, if you REALLY have the goods on the person, speak the truth there, too.)
You cannot win with lies. It only discredits you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)