Let’s move on from the Barack Obama birth certificate controversy. Much more important things to worry about.
Snopes.com debunks the rumors that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and thus ineligible to be President of the United States here.
According to Snopes, the Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Obama campaign is not a forgery. FactCheck.org writers agree — they have seen the original document and provide pictures and other documentation to accompany their report. In addition to that, both Snopes and FactCheck.org mention that there is a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser on the day of Obama’s birth (Aug.13th, 1961). That’s some excellent planning on somebody’s part to begin this conspiracy way back in 1961! Also, there’s an account of one of Barack’s former teachers who had a conversation with the obstetrician who delivered our 45th President. Of course Hawaiian officials have confirmed that our President was born in Hawaii.
I’m convinced. This may not be enough for some of my fellow Republicans, but I’ve done the best I can to lay these facts out there and let everyone come to their own conclusions. But please, stop pushing this. Ya’ll make all of us look like fools.
Several things crossed my mind while I was listening to President Obamas press conference. Here we go.
1) More people could afford health care if they had jobs. Thats where the Presidents focus should be right now, rather than on national / universal (whatever the term we are using this week is) health care or on sweeping new climate change legislation. Obama is right when he says that the American people dont care about the political games from both parties, and that they just want solutions to their economic problems. I hope hes wrong in assuming that Americans really want to become wards of the state by allowing the government to pay for more and more of the care and maintenance of their lives.
2) The President isnt above picking petty fights with his political adversaries. That should be left to his pit bulls Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Its hard to believe theres much change in the partisan climate thats always existed in DC when every week we hear about the evil Republicans who dare to oppose Obamas agenda. The WH never fails to create various bogeymen for the American people to fear – the Rush Limbaugh controversy for example.
3) You cant expand coverage AND reduce costs. Thats never happened in any country that has government-funded health care, and it wont happen here either. Someone will have to make tough choices about what kinds of treatment will be paid for, and which treatments will not be covered by your plan. Right now, if you have private insurance, the private insurance company makes those decisions. If you have an employer-based plan, you generally know right up-front what is covered in the various plans and what is not. As others have pointed out, private insurers / hospitals / medical personnel can be shamed into doing the right thing when there is negligence on their part by the threat of bad PR. What kind of similar negative incentive exists for a government bureaucrat? I would suggest that there isnt one.
4) The members of Congress and the President must commit to ditching their own private health care plan they receive through the federal government. If they expect us to buy into the idea of the public option, they must be willing to switch to the same plan for themselves and for their families.
5) There must be more accountability for government spending. This is true no matter which party holds the reins of political power. Doesnt it make sense to find out where all the Bush / Obama bailout money went before we start spending all this money on national health care and climate change legislation? Maybe Im suggesting something way too radical here.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor should be evaluated based on her work experience and judicial record, not on her compelling personal story. At the very least, Republicans should ask a few hard questions before allowing this confirmation to proceed through the Senate.
On the CIA/Cheney:
If the CIA doesn’t have plans (secret or otherwise) to take down terrorists, I ask, “Why the heck not?” That’s part of their job, isn’t it? And yes, I would support secret terrorist hunting and not informing Congress of those plans if the Obama admin had such a program. This should be a point of agreement for both Republicans and Democrats.
On competition in health care:
I don’t oppose competition. I oppose a competition in which the deck is stacked in favor of the government’s entry. I also dispute the notion that the post office is a brilliant example of how government competition could improve the service or quality of health care. UPS and FedEx pushed the USPS to improve its services, not the other way around. And BTW, the USPS is still inferior to both.
This was on the Investor’s Business Daily editorial page:
Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.
The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.
It’s what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a “man-caused disaster,” a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect “terrorist attack.” But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.
Its centerpiece is a “cap and trade” provision that has been rightfully derided as “cap and tax.” It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.
Fair to assume that cap-and-trade doesn’t have the support of these guys. Even though the intro suffers a bit from some dramatic overstatement, they are right to oppose Waxman-Markey, because this legislation would inflict serious damage on our economy at a time when we can’t take any more financial chaos. A tax on energy affects everyone, and as IBD points out, this includes that fictitious 95% of Americans who weren’t supposed to see any increased taxes under the Obama administration. A tax of this kind directly and indirectly raises the price of everything we buy. It affects farmers and truckers and car companies and soccer moms, and all the rest of our fellow working stiffs. Eventually all this “hope and change” will end up costing the taxpayers a fortune, and there won’t be much payoff for our involuntary donations.
If you want to know if Waxman-Markey would have any significant impact on climate change relative to its cost, read more here.
Please don’t let this issue fade into the background with all the other distractions on the news right now. This is important to the country’s future and we need to let our legislators know that we oppose this bill.
Roger Simon’s article at Politico : “Obama plays Goldilocks on Iran“.
Ha. In all seriousness, though, I can’t say that I’m happy about the way President Obama has handled this Iran election mess. Those who object to President Obama’s handling of this situation aren’t asking for a military intervention here. What we expect from our President is for the leader of the free world to support those seeking more liberty for themselves and for their families. After all, isn’t that in America’s DNA? Isn’t that why we broke away from England? Shouldn’t we as Americans, and President Obama as our representative, do all we can to support those Iranians in their struggle? There’s no question in my mind that we should. The mullahs and religious leaders in Iran will blame the West no matter what happens, and they will continue on their nuclear course regardless of any American diplomacy, so there’s no advantage to staying quiet about a stolen election.
President Obama is a part of history at this very moment. He will eventually have to make tough choices, and will have to say things that will be unpopular, even with his core of faithful lefties in Hollywood and in the media. If he’s not ready to follow that course, he might want to reconsider running for re-election.
One of the Democratic advisers told CNN there is fear within the party that the president’s signature issue is “on the rocks” because of dramatically high cost estimates for separate bills being drafted by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts and Max Baucus, D-Montana.
The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate for the Kennedy bill — that it will cost $1 trillion and yet leave millions of Americans without health insurance — has given Republicans strong political ammunition to charge reform may be too expensive at a time of massive federal deficits.
Um…yeah…it’s gonna cost LOTS of money plus reduce choice for the average buyer — obviously we must rush this brilliant idea through Congress. If even some of the Democrats are balking at these costs, you know there’s serious money being discussed here. 😉
Here’s a few things we might want to know about this new and fabulous grand government scheme, more commonly known as a national health care plan. Reason Online breaks it down here.
First, that the proposed national health care plan won’t cover everyone.
Second, that the subsidized lower plan premiums on a government-run / public plan would provide an almost irresistible incentive for employers to switch their employees’ coverage from private plans. This doesn’t exactly promote or support the promise of increased choices for people, and it can be fairly assumed that any private insurance companies left competing with the feds for customers will have a difficult time making it profitable to stay in business. The solution is not, and is NEVER, more government control or federal tax dollars to support a system that doesn’t operate as efficiently and effectively as it should.
*I’m not at all saying that there aren’t fixes and solutions that we can implement to make the current system work better for patients and those in the medical field. I just think that President Obama has the wrong fix to what ails our health care system.*
The most important point is that it will become harder and harder to keep private health care plans. The linked Reason Online article actually predicts that the ability to opt out of public health care will eventually disappear, because the private insurers will be out of business. I’m not going to go that far here, but I do think it’s something we should be very concerned about, because once there is only one choice of health care plan and it’s the government plan, we all lose.
We need to consider carefully the next steps in any possible reform of health care in this country. This isn’t something Congress should rush through and pass without reading it first and thoroughly discussing all options and alternatives. Yes, the Democrats gained power and have the ability to pass whatever junk bill they support, but I believe that this requires more care and attention that any other piece of legislation they will ram through Congress this year. Make no mistake about this — once the American people start to figure out what’s happening to them (and there are a few encouraging signs that this is the case), the support for many of President Obama’s grand schemes could end up backfiring on the Democrats.
Former VP Cheney provides an impassioned defense of Bush administration foreign policy.
President Obama continues to insist that Gitmo must be closed, even as the Senate attempts to block funding for his grand scheme.
Senator DeMint writes an NRO op-ed critical of government-provided health care.
And my great gov Sanford continues to fight the state legislature after they overrode his veto of most of the stimulus money. I’m cheering him on, but I’m not sure how this will all play out in the end. He does tend to get a little scorched-earth about the things he passionately believes in, and some supporters might be turned off by his approach. But he’s right in what he’s doing and the people of this state who aren’t brain-dead sheep (or dependent Democrats – same diff) will support our governor.
Nothing wrong with my state…the Republican Party here in SC is alive and kicking. We have thrived under the outstanding outgoing Chairman, Katon Dawson, and our red state status will continue with our new Chairman (chairwoman?) Karen Floyd. However, Senator Graham still has some work to do with the conservatives in this state, who he continues to tweak, even though we decided to vote for him in spite of a couple serious disagreements we had with him.
What makes Michael Steele great on TV and talk radio makes him controversial as the RNC Chairman. There are very few Republicans currently holding political office who could be successful pundits, and there are even fewer Republican politicians that would continue to win elections saying things that the members of their party don’t want to hear or acknowledge. Those who have survived doing this, like Senator DeMint, most likely come from solid red states, where the base completely supports their efforts to fight the Washington mentality. We are more likely to find honest political dialogue from those who never intend to make a profitable career out of politics than from anyone currently engaged in that pursuit.
This is the difference between Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh. Each man has a different objective. For Michael Steele, the goal should be to get back to basics on core principles of our party, and to regain the confidence of the country in the Republican brand — which can only be done by acknowledging where our politicians have failed and increasing the level of accountability to show that we are serious about more than just winning elections. His job is also to present our party in the best light possible, which means he cannot continue to speak off-the-cuff when the media is now closely paying attention to every word he says and looking for an opportunity to further divide the Republican party into factions by using our Chairman’s own words against him.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and a darn good one at that. You don’t get paid what he gets paid without delivering the goods and the advertisers 3 hours a day / 5 days a week. In the process of that entertainment, he shares his own opinion on the present administration and what he believes the next steps should be for conservatives who don’t agree with the direction of this country under President Obama. Love him, hate him, or call him a drug addict — it doesn’t have any effect on the guy at all. It might make lefties feel better about themselves to rip Rush every day, and good for them if that’s the case. It just doesn’t do much to move the leftist/statist agenda forward. At some point, surely even the leftist might question the wisdom of all Barack’s free spending. Or maybe not. Some people are just hard-core enough that they don’t care that these bills will be paid by our children and grandchildren just as long as they get their “free government stuff”.
To Michael Steele, I offer these words of advice from former (?) pro wrestler and current Disney “star” The Rock, “Know your role”. There’s a time to speak out, and a time to shut up. A wise chairman knows what time it is.
Senator Arlen Specter finally makes the decision to leave the Republican Party and officially join his fellow Democrats by running for re-election as a Democrat. I can’t say I’m terribly upset about this news. His motivation for doing this doesn’t really matter to me. It does open up more options for challengers like Pat Toomey…or it could lead to a different Democrat replacing Specter, because there’s no guarantee that he gets the Democrat nomination without the other candidates pulling out of the contest. I do think that his announcement was self-serving, and it failed to acknowledge those Republicans, such as President Bush and VP Cheney, who supported him against Toomey the first time. The national Republican Party hasn’t thrown Specter under the bus. He chose this path for himself. When he votes the way he does, he should expect conservatives to loudly oppose those votes. But the Beltway Republicans have a far different agenda than the rest of us — they would have us go further to the left and abandon social conservatism or any pretense of fiscal accountability / responsibility.
It is not the agenda of the leadership of the Republican Party to weed out the moderate / liberal elements of its membership. If you need evidence of that, witness our presidential nominee, John McCain. He agreed more than he disagreed with Barack Obama on domestic policy, although I suspect he would have embraced keeping more tax cuts than President Obama has. Our party supported Arlen Specter, even though he hasn’t done very much to merit our support. We don’t even consider challenging Snowe and Collins. So our far-right takeover hasn’t occurred yet, and my guess is you won’t see that until we can recruit much stronger candidates to challenge the Republicans already in the Senate and House.
There’s much about this move that I can be happy about. Allowing the Democrats a 60-vote majority means they take full responsibility for anything they screw up. On the other hand, I’m not sure I am willing to accept the consequences of the Democrats passing whatever laws they want to pass, no matter how crazy or misguided those laws may be — and I’m certainly not optimistic that all the damage done would be reversible. Once we all get national health care, there’s no going back. Look at Britain. If you even hint at NHS (national health service) reforms that would assign some responsibility back to the recipients, don’t expect to win any national elections. That’s the danger here. We need to keep a close eye on what’s happening in Washington, and raise awareness of how all this will affect our lives in the long run, because we might only get one chance to keep this country from absorbing some big mistakes made by the politicians.