Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Salt Police! Drop That Shaker Buddy!

Friday, March 12th, 2010

The dextrosphere has been sneering and sputtering at New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (Commie-Dem Brooklyn), who wants to pass a law forbidding restaurants to add salt to their food. Of course, Ortiz is an ignorant arrogant jack boot who wants to run everyone’s life down to the tiniest detail, and therefore deserves every word of ridicule he gets. (Although for some reason, the ignorant putzes in Brooklyn keep returning him to office. They deserve whatever they get. We don’t.)

The Munchkin Wrangler, however, is the first to point out exactly why Ortiz is so dangerous, and what he means for the national scene:

Here’s a question for my progressive liberal friends:

Is this the kind of future you want? One where omnipotent busybodies keep passing laws forcing people to eat well, get enough sleep, don’t do dangerous sports, don’t use hurtful language?

And if you think this nonsense isn’t going to increase tenfold once we have some sort of public health care system, think again. Taxpayer-funded or –subsidized healthcare is a universal adapter for stupid nanny state legislation. Listen to Assemblyman Felix Ortiz:

“It’s time for us to take a giant step,” Ortiz said yesterday. “We need to talk about two ingredients of salt: health care costs and deaths.”

Once the public pays for your doctor’s visits, people like Assemblyman Ortiz are going to see it as their natural and primary responsibility to make sure you’re living well, because the argument will be “We’re all paying for it, after all”. (Politicians will be under constant pressure to keep the tab down, so they’ll issue a never-ending stream of legislative proposals related to having you use those public health services as little as possible.) It’s exactly the lever needed to force everyone to do what has been decreed to be best for them. After all, there’s no aspect of life that isn’t related to physical well-being. Do you really want to give up your autonomy for “free” health care?

Read the whole thing, of course; Wrangler deserves the traffic. But that’s the nut of the thing, the poison pit in the rotting peach of mandated health care.

Ditch Water Aperitif

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Martha Coakley’s campaign to keep Republican Scott Brown out of “Ted Kennedy’s seat” in the Senate just keeps cranking out the punch lines. I can’t recall ever seeing so many unforced, self=inflicted errors in my life time.

Of course, handing Brown the straight line quoted above, so that he could respond with the now-classic “It’s not Kennedy’s seat, it’s the people’s seat” was probably the best ever. Coakley’s campaign then made it even sweeter by attempting to use the “people’s line” in her own campaign. Oops.

But now — oh sweetness of sweetness, oh sugar, oh honeypie, Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, delivers himself into Brown’s hands, and, we hope, the people’s seat to Brown:

Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?”

As always, Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment. However, I strongly suspect that if she’s anywhere, she’s laughing her halo off.

And dare I say, Dan Quayle is probably choking on his potatoe right now from sheer, unbridled hilarity.

From Fox News, via a string starting with Ann Althouse.

The Dems are cutting their own throats with sheer stupid arrogance. Unbelievable, but lovely.

I’m looking forward to Tuesday’s election results.

Hey, Kids! Uncle Obama Wants You!

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

He wants you to volunteer for socialism.

See Big Hollywood’s on going series about the networks, yes, including the heretics over at Fox, signing up for a White House plan to coordinate their programming to encourage “volunteerism” — on Obama approved issues, of course, like Planned Parenthood.

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set — Jim Nolte

We’ll start with Stage Right. Next week, tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans, will be urged through the (ab)use of public airwaves to log on to the EIF iParticipate site and volunteer. Stage Right will give you a preview of what the unsuspecting and well-intentioned, including your children, will find.

If you’re thinking it’s all about “Meals on Wheels,” think again.

From there, Patrick Courrielche will describe how this EIF initiative fits into a broader White House plan, including the push to politicize the NEA, to redefine “art” as “service” and engage an all too compliant news, entertainment, and artistic community to start a volunteer army through these online portals.

First the NEA, now the EIF…

Starting to notice a pattern?

Part II: Obama Controls Your Televison Set — Search and Ye Shall Find…Left-Wing Advocacy — Stage Right

“This is an opportunity for all to learn the truth about what happened on that unfortunate day and the truth behind who is responsible. I Charlie Sheen have taken it upon myself to interview the president and this is what I have asked. I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.”

That’s right… It’s a TRUTHER campaign message starring Charlie Sheen! Found via a government website!

And that’s not even his favorite bit.

Part III: Obama Controls Your Television Set — Serve.gov or Serf.dom? — Patrick Courrielche

National service and volunteerism is a top priority of both the President and the First Lady. A broad effort has been launched to promote this priority. …[A] new effort by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, entitled iParticipate… is encouraging broadcast media to infuse national service stories into their show plots. The First Lady has even created a video expressing the importance of national service.

All of these efforts are driving would-be volunteers to Serve.gov. The question is, for what purpose?

[Not at all incidentally, note the "serve.gov" The dot-gov address labels this as an official government program you pay for with your taxes.]

Raise your hand, everybody who thinks you’ll be asked to volunteer for the Second Amendment Foundation. Or to join the military, or form a local militia. Become a Republican poll watcher. Patrol our border with Mexico. Join a group counselling women not to have abortions, and offering alternatives. Start a blog exposing fraudulent global warming claims and programs. Become a nun or priest. Organize Tea Parties and confrontations with your state and federal Congress critters.

Or just create art, music, and drama advocating self-sufficiency, free markets, and small government.


Ooh, I almost missed this:

Ashton Kutcher got his famous Twitter feed displayed on the Times Square jumbo screen. It said: “2Day, I activate my citizenship by participating. I Participate! Do u? www.iparticipate.org.”

You lamer. I “activated my citizenship” by buying a gun to defend myself against the jack-booted thugs you’re shilling for. Fair warning.

(”Ashton Kutcher? Who the hell is Ashton Kutcher? A pretty boy actor? And why, exactly, should I give a good damn what he thinks about politics? And why is his political vomit worth a place on the Times Square ticker?”)

Thought For The Day

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

I was talking with a friend about the coarseness of modern political discourse, triggered, of course, by Rep Wilson’s cry of “You Lie!” directed at Obama.

And he says, more or less, “I don’t like people who criticize without offering a better solution.”

Well, yeah. True enough.

But, two points:

A ) The Last Eight Years, including Rep. Stark calling Pres. Bush a liar. Oh, and Sarah Palin. Do not even make one little peep about the coarsening of political discourse if you nodded and smiled everytime someone tried to kick Palin in the balls.

More to the point though:
B) If you are throwing shit at a fan, and it’s spraying all over the crowd, and the crowd curses and yells for you to stop, the crowd doesn’t have to come up with a better way to get sprayed with shit.

Remembering The Lion, NPR Style

Friday, August 28th, 2009

This is from memory, while I was driving. Nothing in quotes, therefore, but I think I’m getting the gist.

National Public Radio, talking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy, says that already, a battle is shaping up between two factions: Those who will remember him as a champion of the oppressed, of minorities, of the underprivileged, of the poor; and those who favor his skills as a negotiator, as a compromiser, as a reacher across the aisles.

Nothing, not a word, about remembering the murderer of Mary Jo. Drunkard and a groper. Pal of communist thugs. Destroyer of the Constitution. Enemy of defense. Enemy of self-defense. Nothing about being one of the most hated politicians in America, outside Massachusetts, outside liberal circles, outside the fans of totalitarian statism.

And some say the media is biased. Wow. How short sighted.


Update: Ah, here’s the transcript of the debate between flaming liberal E.J. Dionne and glowing liberal David Brooks:

ROBERT SIEGEL, host:Joining us now, our two political observers: E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times. Welcome back to both of you.

Mr. E. J. DIONNE (Columnist, The Washington Post): Thank you so much.

Mr. DAVID BROOKS (Journalist, The New York Times): Good to be here.

SIEGEL: And we do have some other political developments to talk about. But first, you were both here earlier this week when Senator Kennedy died. You’ve both written about him this week: last thoughts about Ted Kennedy – first E.J.,.

Mr. DIONNE: You know, politics being polarized as it is, people are already arguing about the true meaning of Ted Kennedy’s legacy. On the one side, you have people saying he was an outspoken crusading liberal, a friend of the dispossessed. The other says, he was a warm bipartisan figure who could work with anybody. And of course, he was both of those. He was an empathetic and warm human being who could work with anybody. But he could make deals precisely because he knew what he wanted and where he wanted to move the country. And I think the lesson that Ted Kennedy teaches is that politicians with strong principles are better at compromise than people who don’t know what they really want or what they believe.

SIEGEL: David, you agree with that?

Mr. BROOKS: I do agree with that and he was formed by the constitution. That’s what the constitution wants. We have this, I think since even, since his brother John F. Kennedy, we’ve had the stream of the dominating politician, the charismatic leader who will sweep all before him, and I have to say, I think George Bush and Barack Obama are sort of captured by that image of what a leader is. But if you’re in the Senate in particular you can’t do that. You have to bring people together. It takes a different set of skills, a different set of intelligences.

And it’s a much more team-oriented sport, politics at that level. And I think Kennedy was raised with one style of leadership but emerged to find that he was very talented at the much more team-oriented style of leadership.

Wow, that’s some battle. Fierce. Uncompromising. Takes no prisoners.

Cute little girls in pink PJs have a pillow fight in a pink room.

Cute little girls in pink PJs have a pillow fight in a pink room.


I believe the Down-Tickling-Her-Button-Nose award goes to E.J., though.

Section 1233: Advanced Death Planning Consultation

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

Well, OK, that’s a bit of exaggeration. Section 1233 of House Bill 3200 (a.k.a. the Obamacare bill, a.k.k. Socialized Medicine) is actually titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”

This is the section which Republicans claim is going to require doctors to tell the terminally ill and elderly to just die, already; and which Democrats say is just a funding provision to allow patients to talk with their doctors about “end of life” care.

(”End of life”? Isn’t that what was formerly known as “Death” or “dying”?)

I tried to read it, and I suggest you do to: it starts on page 425 of the bill, which you can download here, and runs on to page 434, almost ten pages.

Two of those pages, about fifty lines, specify the exact content of the consultation as provided by a doctor to his elderly, sick, and very likely confused and deeply frightened patients:

                                               425
11  ... Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13                    ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
14              vance care planning, including key questions and
15              considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
16              ple to talk to.
17                     ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
18              vance directives, including living wills and durable
19              powers of attorney, and their uses.
20                     ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
21              role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
22                     ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
23              of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
24              sumers and their families with advance care plan-
25              ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-
                                               426
  1            vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
  2            service organizations (including those funded
  3            through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
  4                   ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
  5            continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
  6            able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
  7            fits for such services and supports that are available
  8            under this title.
  9                   ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
 10              orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
 11              orders, which shall include—
 12                            ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
 13                     such an order is beneficial to the individual and
 14                     the individual’s family and the reasons why
 15                     such an order should be updated periodically as
 16                     the health of the individual changes;
 17                            ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-
 18                     vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci-
 19                     sions regarding the completion of such an
 20                     order; and
 21                            ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
 22                     an individual may use to determine the require-
 23                     ments of the State in which such individual re-
 24                     sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi-
 25                     vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
                                               427
   1                     able to communicate those wishes, including re-
   2                     quirements regarding the designation of a sur-
   3                     rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
   4                     care proxy).

The bill then runs on for another couple of pages trying to specify exactly when such consultations are eligible for reimbursement by the Feds.

(And again, folks, the whole plan is like this, at least the pieces I’ve seen. The best parts are the ones amending some already established law, which is referenced but not printed. Thus, you don’t really know what’s going on until you look up the act in question. This kind of hyperdetailed crap, written by lawyers not doctors, will utterly control the most sensitive and personal areas of your life if it is passed. Ahem.)

Now comes Sarah Palin to explain the confusion arising from this section:

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

Emphasis mine. Read the whole thing for [references].

So, no, the bill does not order physicians to make their patients agree to die. It simply offers to pay them to bury their patients in bullshit, including a disguised offer to allow themselves to be neglected to death, because remember: from here on out, your health care will administered with all the compassion of the IRS or the DMV. And eventually, there will be no alternative.
Via The Other McCain, who makes must-read comments.

A More Wretched Hive

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

At The National Review, Stephen Spruiell and Kevin Williamson lay out what we face with the Cap and Trade bill. It isn’t pretty.

The stimulus bill was the legislative equivalent of the famous cantina scene from Star Wars, an eye-popping collection of the freakish and exotic, gathered for dubious purposes. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, known as ACES (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), is more like the third panel in Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights — a hellscape that disturbs the sleep of anybody who contemplates it carefully.

Two main things to understand about Waxman-Markey: First, it will not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, at least not at any point in the near future. The inclusion of carbon offsets, which can be manufactured out of thin air and political imagination, will eliminate most of the demands that the legislation puts on industry, though in doing so it will manage to drive up the prices consumers pay for every product that requires energy for its manufacture — which is to say, for everything. Second, it represents a worse abuse of the public trust and purse than the stimulus and the bailouts put together. Waxman-Markey creates a permanent new regime in which environmental romanticism and corporate welfare are mixed together to form political poison. From comic bureaucratic power grabs (check out the section of the bill on candelabras) to the creation of new welfare programs for Democratic constituencies to, above all, massive giveaways for every financial, industrial, and political lobby imaginable, this bill would permanently deform American politics and economic life.

The House of Representatives, famously, did not read this bill before passing it, which is testament to either Nancy Pelosi’s managerial incompetency or her political wile, or possibly both. If you take the time to read the legislation, you’ll discover four major themes: special-interest giveaways, regulatory mandates unrelated to climate change, fanciful technological programs worthy of The Jetsons, and assorted left-wing wish fulfillment. We cannot cover every swirl and brushstroke of this masterpiece of misgovernance, but here’s a breakdown of its 50 most outrageous features.

Be more responsible than the thugs you voted into office. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Gene Green! I voted for you! And you voted for this! Never again! You are dead to me now!) Read at least the first ten items in the list. (But be advised, this isn’t a top-down “fifty most tyrannical” list. It’s organized by the type of damage each item generates, not how awful that damage is.)

Here’s a foul taste:

10. Rural electrical cooperatives are demanding that the offsets be awarded in proportion to historic emissions, and they probably will prevail. This means that high-polluting generators, such as the coal-fired plants typical of electric co-ops’ members, will be rewarded because they pollute more, while cleaner producers, such as those using nuclear and hydroelectric power, will be penalized.

“Perverse” doesn’t begin to cover this. This is psychotic.

There is nothing beyond the government’s reach in this. Nothing. (Don’t believe me? See items 21-26, regulating light bulbs — light bulbs! — home appliances, home construction, and snowmobiles.)

This is naked fascism, the compulsory blending of government and business, in all its hideous progressive horror.

Han doesn’t shoot first (because the ATF confiscated his blaster when he registered it), Greedo does, and Greedo doesn’t miss. Jaba the Hut prospers. Darth Vader rules. The Republic falls.

There is no Force but Liberty, and when that dies, we will not be saved by spunky kids and gruff smugglers, and most especially not by mysterious old farts in robes living in the desert.

On Welfare

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

funny pictures of cats with captions
see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Organizing For America (OFAY)

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

A couple of days ago, I posted on Organizing For America, Obama’s effort to re-mobilize his campaign supporters to obtain signatures on a pledge to support him, personally, and to support his plan to take control of energy, health care, and children.

I’m not the only one; Curmudgeonly and Skeptical also posted an edited version of the training video. I left two comments there; what follows merges them together.


My plan is to take the clipboard, ostensibly to sign, but instead I’ll X-out the Obama Pledge, and write in,
I pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Then I’ll sign it, and hand it back.

If questioned, I plan to calmly, politely, explain about the difference between “rule of law” and “rule of men”, but frankly, I don’t expect to be questioned. Anybody preferring the Constitution to Obama is clearly “argumentative”, and at this stage of the game, orders are to disengage from such folk.

Some folks, including myself at first, are worried that the OFA will keep track of people who object, or who simply don’t sign. I worried that while spoiled or defaced pledge forms will be discarded, at least at first, confused looks might be replaced by frowns, and dissenting forms might start being carefully shuffled into a “special” folder instead of discarded

However, after thinking about it some more, I’m not going to sweat giving them my contact info on their stupid little form, with my pledge scrawled in. When the time comes, they will have name, address, and all the evidence they can gin up for anyone who would refuse to sign. All decent people will be on the list, no matter what you signed.

In any event, I don’t think this is a data collection exercise. This is all about psychological reinforcement, a trick to engage the faithful. It’s a way to limber up the machinery, to keep obamite proles active and in touch.

It’s a way to let us unbelievers know that we’re not with it — it doesn’t occur to the obamite organizers that we already know that, are proud of it, and are digging in.

The obamites are, however, hoping for resistance, for anger, for scorn. That turns the worker bees into victims, and reinforces their sense that all those opposed are cranks. Most importantly, it justifies the next round of elevated pressure.

I do not think they will know how to deal with simple, steadfast conviction, laughter, or quiet, calm rejection of their assumptions.

Modify the pledge, and sign. Defy the commies. Let them know they are not unopposed, and that if they cross certain lines, they will have a fight on their hands.


Hmm, I need to put together a look-alike form with the Constitutional pledge printed, and start shadowing OFA-ers in public places….


Ofay, which strikes me as the most reasonable way to pronounce OFA, was originally a derogatory term among blacks for white people.

I cannot believe that, as well educated as Obama is, and as well-steeped in the radical black movement as he must be, given his tutors and trainers, he is not aware of what “OFA” must sound like to anyone who grew up during the 60s and 70s and has been paying attention.

Well, of course, unless he really is an ignorant puppet. I guess that’s possible, too.

Skeptical curmudgeons alleged that ofay was simply pig-latin for foe, which turns out not to be the case.

See this etymology from The Free Dictionary:

The commonly seen etymology of ofay — Pig Latin for foe — is of less interest than the more likely story of this word’s origins. The word, which is first recorded in the first quarter of the 20th century, must have been in use much longer if it is, as some scholars think, borrowed from an African source. Although this source has not been pinned down, the suggested possibilities are in themselves interesting. One would trace it to the Ibibio word afia, “white or light-colored.” Another would have it come from Yoruba ofe, a word that was said in order to protect oneself from danger. The term was then transferred to white people, regarded as a danger to Black people throughout the wretched days of slavery and beyond.

Brown Shirts

Friday, March 20th, 2009

Or, rather, Blue Shirts.

President Obama is gearing up to use the organization created to get him elected to help him carry out his plans. He’s not shy about it, this is not a hidden conspiracy. This is an explicit, public plan.

The Organizing For America campaign and pledge.

Here’s the Pledge:

I support President Obama’s bold approach for renewing America’s economy.
I will ask friends, family, and neighbors to pledge their support for this plan.

“I support President Obama….” That, right there, is the most dangerous thing you can say in politics. You pledge to support a specific, named person.

Here in America, we pledge to support the Constitution and the liberties it embodies.

I will never take this pledge, and I will excoriate and revile anyone I meet who does.

Here’s the plan:

  1. Energy — Transforming America’s economy to run on clean and renewable energy in order to create new American jobs and industries
  2. Health care — Comprehensively reforming health care so that families, businesses, and government are relieved from the crushing costs that impede economic growth and prosperity
  3. Education — Reforming and investing in America’s education system so that citizens are prepared to compete in a global economy

Take control of the engine that drives our economy and our civilization. Take control of the most intimate affairs of people’s lives. Take control of the children.

More here.

And here.

Watch the training video.

Right now, in the early stages, canvassers are being to taught to walk away if challenged. Once it’s established though, I bet anything that in house to house canvasses, non-compliant households will be noted. (In fact, given Google Earth and similar online technologies, that may not even be necessary. Just mark off all the houses that took the pledge. Everybody else is suspect — and in a plan like this, suspicion is all you need. )