September 2009

Beck Now Attacking Individual Board Members of ACORN

The lines above were used as the title for a uTube posting about one of Glenn Beck’s reports about ACORN.

Whenever someone posts solid, fact-based reporting such as Beck’s and attacks the reporter by labeling them as “High Priests of Hate” it only serves to illustrate how shallow, unthinking and intellectually lazy they are and boils down to school yard name calling. In effect, it shows they have nothing to offer for debate.

While they feel like they have reason for baseless name calling it shows they fail to grasp the big picture, unable to think deeper.

For those who don’t have the intellect to “get it” let me explain, otherwise you can stop here.

Glenn Beck reports on the facts about certain community and labor based organizations and its leadership as it relates to the President. His report serves all of us in by helping us understand how these organizations may have influenced the outcome of the last election through years perhaps decades of preparation through community organization campaigns which serve to shape the thinking required to support a presidential candidate who shares or advances the same thinking fomented by these organizations.

Looking at the bigger picture here, a few questions arise. One might be, “Why is Glenn Beck the only one who appears to be reporting this?”

Here’s a few more… “Can any reporter report on facts without name calling? What are you so afraid of…. truth?”

“Why aren’t the other media outlets like CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NYTimes, Boston Globe, et. al also reporting on this?”

That last question might be the biggest part of Glenn Becks story. It should be a question you might want to be asking.

Be glad we have fact-based reporting such as Glenn Beck’s. At the end of the day, you can use your brain and decide whether it is relevant to your world or not. To resort to baseless name calling only sends the message that you are incapable of debating upon the substance of the report and then take the low road by slamming the messenger. It really makes you look stupid.

One last and perhaps the biggest question of all. “Has the election process been taken away from individual voters by ultra-rich financiers who are able to create a multi-tiered organization designed to shape and influence attitudes necessary to elect a socialist-minded president so that the country moves away from the fundamental principles upon which she was founded?”

If you weren’t able to form that question on your own you can always change the channel and feed off the pablum CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NYTimes, Boston Globe, et. al offer.


“If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out,” President Obama warned in his health care address to Congress earlier this month.

Then let’s do it; let’s start “calling out”.

President Obama’s claim:Health care reform will not require anyone to drop their current coverage

Called out:An independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that as many as 114 million Americans could lose their current coverage and instead end up on a government-run plan under House Democrats’ proposal (H.R. 3200.) Even the most conservative estimates say millions could be shifted to a government-run plan.

President Obama’s claim:He pledges that reform will not add to the deficit, not even a little

Called out: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the House Democrats’ plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years,

President Obama’s claim: President insists that middle-class families won’t see a tax increase – as he did repeatedly during his recent appearance on ABC’s This Week

Called out: On page 167 of H.R. 3200, the title of section 401 reads: “TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” The Associated Press didn’t mince words when it began a fact check piece, “Memo to President Obama: it’s a tax.”

President Obama’s claim: He pledges to protect seniors’ Medicare benefits

Called out: According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, House Democrats’ plan cuts Medicare Advantage programs by more than $172 billion.
As a result, six million seniors will be denied access to an affordable Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, including three million who will lose the plan they currently have, according to an analysis completed by Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee. And that’s just the beginning. The House Democrats’ bill includes a total of more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts, meaning reduced benefits and fewer choices for seniors.

President Obama’s claim:President pledged to Congress that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions”

Called out: Following a meeting at the White House with pro-life activists, the Administration would not commit to inserting a provision that explicitly excludes abortion from health care reform.

President Obama’s claim:President assured law-abiding taxpayers that illegal immigrants should not and will not be covered under the Democrats’ health care plan.

Called out: The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed, however, that there is no mechanism included in the House bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits.

House Republicans offered two amendments in the committee process to correct this: the first would have prevented illegal immigrants from being automatically enrolled into Medicaid and the second would have required better screening for applicants for federally-subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or legal immigrants. Both were rejected by Democrats.

These are just a couple of the many ideas House Republicans have offered to improve Americans’ health care. For instance, why not allow small employers to group together through national associations so they can buy health insurance for their employees like big companies and unions can today? Why not allow the American people to buy health care plans across state lines? Why not get serious about ending junk lawsuits and more importantly the costly defensive medicine that doctors are forced to practice?

The proposals were outlined in a letter to the President back in May. Republican members of congress asked him to meet and discuss them. The response given essentially said ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’

President Obama’s open door policy is strange. For his part, the President has talked about a “whole series of Republican ideas” being included in health care reform. This is just another myth perpetuated by the President, whose rhetoric simply doesn’t match the reality of congressional Democrats’ government-run health care proposals.

The American people deserve to know the unvarnished truth about the potential consequences of this costly government takeover of their health care. The President’s failure to meet this common-sense standard is yet another indication it’s time to hit the reset button and start over in a bipartisan way to achieve health care reforms hard-working Americans can support and afford.

The WSJ has really impressed me by their reporting. Since the paper is expensive maybe that’s why they do it and the other media types don’t.

Take this story. Parts of Glenn Beck’s “Tree of Revolution” theory rests on this background data. It serves to illustrate that the people have lost control of the election process and is in the hands of the super-wealthy.

In 2005, billionaire investor George Soros convened a group of 70 super-rich liberal donors in Phoenix to evaluate why their efforts to defeat President Bush had failed. One conclusion was that they needed to step up their long-term efforts to dominate key battleground states. The donors formed a group called Democracy Alliance to make grants in four areas: media, ideas, leadership and civic engagement. Since then, Democracy Alliance partners have donated over $100 million to key progressive organizations.

Take Colorado, which has voted Republican for president in nine of the last 10 presidential elections. But in 2006, Colorado elected a Democratic governor and legislature for the first time in over 30 years. Denver will be the site for the party’s 2008 presidential convention. Polls show Barack Obama would carry the state today. This hasn’t happened by chance. The Democracy Alliance poured money into Colorado to make it a proving ground for how progressives can take over a state.

The story ends with this paragraph.

But Acorn may play, along with other liberal groups, a leading role in electing Mr. Obama. Such groups deserve a closer look now, before their influence and possibly their clout grow dramatically after the November election.

You can read the whole opinion piece here

Oh yea…. the article is dated July 2008.

On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday the President repeatedly insisted that requiring Americans to buy government-approved health care does not constitute a tax increase, yet that is exactly what it says in the 1,018-page House bill. What’s more, the idea that an individual mandate is a tax on working families has been confirmed in earlier writings by senior Obama Administration officials. All told, H.R. 3200 contains roughly $820 billion in tax increases, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


President Obama: “For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” (ABC’s This Week, 9/20/09)

“STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.” (ABC’s This Week, 9/20/09)


From p. 169 of H.R. 3200, as amended:

“SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. (a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of — (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, or (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”

President Obama: “Nobody considers that a tax increase.” (ABC’s This Week, 9/20/09)


Sherry Glied, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services: “The individual mandate offers new options, but it also introduces risks. The mandate is in many respects analogous to a tax. …[T]he mandate will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.” (New England Journal of Medicine, 4/10/08)

Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council: “Economists have generally devoted little attention to mandated benefits – regarding them as simply disguised tax and expenditure measures.” (American Economic Review, May 1989)

Then-Sen. Barack Obama: “In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty.” (Democratic presidential debate, 2/21/08)

The data show government transfers and rebates have not increased consumption at all.

Is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 working? At the time of the act’s passage last February, this question was hotly debated. Administration economists cited Keynesian models that predicted that the $787 billion stimulus package would increase GDP by enough to create 3.6 million jobs. Our own research showed that more modern macroeconomic models predicted only one-sixth of that GDP impact. Estimates by economist Robert Barro of Harvard predicted the impact would not be significantly different from zero.

Now, six months after the act’s passage, we no longer have to rely solely on the predictions of models. We can look and see what actually happened.

Consider first the part of the package that consists of government transfers and rebates. These include one-time payments of $250 to eligible individuals receiving Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, veterans benefits or railroad retirement benefits–and temporary reductions in income-tax withholding for a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for families with incomes below certain thresholds. These payments, which began in March of this year, were intended to increase consumption that would help jump-start the economy. Now that a good fraction of these actions have taken place, we can assess their impact.

Read the Wall Street Journal article here.

Incoming data will reveal more in coming months, but the data available so far tell us that the government transfers and rebates have not stimulated consumption at all, and that the resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic–not the fiscal stimulus program–deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement from the first to the second quarter. As the economic recovery takes hold, it is important to continue assessing the role played by the stimulus package and other factors. These assessments can be a valuable guide to future policy makers in designing effective policy responses to economic downturns.

Obama Used Faulty Anecdote in Speech to Congress

September 17, 2009

During a speech about his health care bill which he gave to a joint session of Congress last week, President Obama told the story of how an Illinois man getting chemotherapy was dropped from his insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about.

They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

the president said in the nationally televised address.

It was a point designed to illustrate the hazards of relying upon the private sector for your health insurance and how, under Obama’s plan, situations such as the hapless man’s will never happen.

Trouble is, it’s a lie.

The man, Otto S. Raddatz, did not die because the insurance company rescinded his coverage once he became ill, an act known as recission.

You can read the Wall Street Journal article here.

If you do not agree to

  • $180 billion given to insurance company AIG, stating they are simply too big to fail, you might be a racist.
  • giving over 70 billion dollars to General Motors and Chrysler serving only to delay an inevitable bankruptcy, you might be a racist.
  • General Motors filing for bankruptcy while the Feds force Chrysler to accept a merger with Italy’s Fiat, you might be a racist.
  • The heads of labor unions at General Motors remaining in their offices, you might be a racist.
  • over $12.8 Trillion USD as of March 2009 given to various firms and programs, you might be a racist.
  • Marxist lines of thinking such as Representative Maxine Waters (D-Ca), who believes in nationalizing certain sectors of the U.S. economy, you might be a racist.
  • Obama signing a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs, you might be a racist.
  • the creation of a 1.5 trillion dollar health care bill and count yourself among the 82 percent who say the issue will be a major factor in their vote in next year’s elections, you might be a racist.
  • allowing non-U.S. citizens access to our health care programs and count yourself among the 83% of voters nationwide who say that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies, you might be a racist.
  • having a Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality who co-founded a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, in 1994, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia and who believes 9/11 is a government conspiracy, you might be a racist.
  • the policies and conduct of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Tom Daschel, Rahm Emanuel, et. al. who are leading this country to ruin with their mindless, out-of-control and insane spending philosophies, you might be a racist.
  • the content of the HR-3200 and believe the President is spreading disinformation about its content and sub-programs, you might be a racist.

Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.

Next Page »