See if this works better

Obamacare was an ill-conceived half-thought, created by liberal minds with zero comprehension of the private sector and health care. Proof of this is found in the 111 waivers this inept White House has had to provide to private industry because Obamacare would do more damage than good:

Look, this is not rocket science or brain surgery. But if you need a rocket scientist or brain surgeon you want them to have more than a passing ability to spell the words. This White House is IGNORANT of the private sector. And I mean totally ignorant:

The Democrats running things the past two years proved they have no clue about the business of business. In their world, the real world of the private economy is an abstraction, a political figment.

Exhibit A: Along the road to ObamaCare, the party’s planners inserted into the bill the now- famous 1099 provision, requiring businesses to do an IRS report for any transaction over $600 annually. No member of Congress, White House staffer or party flunky thought to say, “Oh, wow, this 1099 requirement will crush people running their own businesses. Are we sure we want to do this?” Yes, and that 1099 fiasco is a metaphor now for the modern Democratic Party.

What in the world is the government going to do with a record of every service and purchase over $600, except hire tens of thousands of people to scan, record and archive this mess. In a $10 trillion a year economy this idiotic rule could produce almost 17 billion records. Government waste taken to a whole new and ridiculous level. The Einsteins in the White House have come up with an answer to their ignorance – they plan to hire a token business person as some fig leaf to cover up their incompetence. Incompetence that cannot be missed in their policies:

It began in early 2009 with the cap-and-trade climate bill. The country was going to have to chow down its provisions no matter how many jobs got lost in Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan and other coal-using states. The bill portended so much damage to businesses in these states that some of the Senate’s most liberal members had to beg off supporting it.

At his news conference last week, Mr. Obama still wouldn’t rule out the EPA’s impending “carbon finding” to regulate emissions, another Freddy Krueger nightmare for the average business.

The private sector is all about business, small and large. Main Street America is the private sector. Which means this White House is clueless about the heart and soul of America. If you don’t have a clue about the private sector, you are literally clueless about America.

We have to cut back government. There are tens of thousands of bureaucrats with way to much time on their hands and demigod-complexes. All they do is sit around trying to figure out the next great way to control everyone else’s lives. Worse yet, too many times the message these people concoct to rationalize their efforts is a slickly crafted package full of half truths and lies, more theology than science (man made global warming is just the latest incarnation of this).

For example, can you believe we are wasting millions of dollars for a bunch of ideologues to figure out the grossest pictures to put on cigarette packages? (Fair Warning – graphic images and major half truths). I especially object to this one:

Second hand smoke in the open air has NEVER been proven to cause fatal lung disease. In fact, it is far more likely lung damage comes more from public transportation (buses), new rugs in homes, new paint or stain on homes and furniture, gasoline and diesel fuel vapors at the pumps, cleaners used in homes without proper ventilation, constant over use of perfumes and disinfectants, etc. There are so many gases and particles produced all around us on a daily basis that there is no way to point to one and say ‘that caused the lung disease and the others did not’.

And there is a genetic component as well – a weakness in some lungs with handling particles and gases. Not to mention the potential that childhood shots might have caused asthma and other weaknesses.

Bottom line – we don’t know what is the root cause, or combination of root causes. All we know is people who smoke are slightly more likely to get lung cancer, but some smokers never do. When you realize some long term smokers NEVER get lung cancer, then you KNOW smoking is not a direct cause. Unlike applying acid, which always burns skin and cells, smoke does not always produce fatal damage.

This is false propaganda. And the rationalization used to accept these lies is some altruistic fantasy about saving people from themselves. It is pathetic, and a waste of our hard earned tax money.

We need to cut the government back down to a MINIMAL size. We need to learn to live without it – again.

H/T Allahpundit

Trying this again

In a previous post regarding a not-so-well-redacted court filing by Team Blagojevich I speculated that “Senate Candidate B” was the current top adviser to the President, Valerie Jarrett. I can now confirm this is in fact the case, thanks to the White House Counsel’s report regarding the entire Obama senate seat kerfuffle:

At your [President Obama’s] direction, I arranged for transition staff to provide accounts of any contacts that you or they may have had with Governor Blagojevich or his office in which the subject of your successor came up.

…

These accounts were communicated to the Office of the United States Attorney in interviews that were conducted last week. At the request of the Office, we delayed the release of this report until such time as the interviews could be completed. The interviews took place over a period of three days: Thursday, December 18, 2008 (the President-Elect); December 19, 2008 (Valerie Jarrett); and December 20, 2008 (Rahm Emanuel).

In my previous post I noted that “Senate Candidate B” had been interviewed by the FBI and DoJ on December 19, 2008. A second citation in the redacted portion of the court filing listed Valerie Jarrett as being the person interviewed on that date, and that is why I concluded all references to “Senate Candidate B’s” testimony on that date were in fact the testimony of Valerie Jarrett.

Clearly I was correct. In fact, the WH counsel’s report confirms all my conclusions about who was being referenced in the filing. I got Jarrett, Balanoff and Stern right. I produced a clear version of the filing, with the previously redacted text now in bold blue text, and my assessment of who was being referred to in red text.

Which means Valerie Jarrett is in deep water for inconsistent statements regarding the sequence of events between the President-elect and Governor Blagojevich (and their respective ‘teams’). In the White House Counsel’s report, issued December 23rd and after Jarrett’s testimony to the FBI, Greg Craig produced this account from Valerie Jarrett:
Continue Reading »

Things that make you go hmmmm:

President Obama was urged by the few White House insiders from whom he still takes advice to leave the country on his ten-day Asian trip, his longest trip abroad since becoming president, in order to not inflict any more damage to the Democratic Party in the wake of one of the worst electoral defeats for the party of an incumbent president in recent history. According to sources close to the White House, who put themselves in great danger by even talking to members of the media, the plans to have Obama leave for a visit to India, Pakistan, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan are an attempt to get Obama out of the country while top Democrats can sort through the political disaster created for the party by Obama’s increasingly detached-from-reality presidency.

Seems there is a major fight escalating behind the closed doors of the Democrat Party.

Update: Another story that makes you go hmmmmm:

Congressional Democrats consider him [President Obama] distant and blame him for their historic defeat on Tuesday. Democratic state party leaders scoff at what they see as an inattentive and hapless political operation. Democratic lobbyists feel maligned by his holier-than-though take on their profession. His own cabinet – with only a few exceptions – has been marginalized.

In this previous post I discovered FBI testimony by Valerie Jarrett and SEIU’s Tom Balanoff that confirmed then candidate and president-elect Obama’s efforts to seat Valerie Jarrett in Obama’s soon to be vacated Senate Seat. Thanks to some coincidence in timing (the latest installment from the White House Insider saga) and reader comments, I ran across what might be some more of the ice berg that is hitting the administration.

It seems there is another Obama-Jarrett issue about ready to burst – and it revolves around some very shady dealings regarding the now failed Shorebank and TARP money:
Continue Reading »

Update: Joel Pollak is probably the reason the White House is preparing to protect Obama from a series of scandals. Having reviewed his work I can see quite a few solid congressional investigations coming. This is probably the source of the panic the White House Insider suggests will be coming with the GOP House. With connections to Jarrett, Rezko, Corutthers and his CD opponent Schakowsky this guy’s material is amazing.

Update: As I posted this, the WH Insider provides a post election view inside the White House – end update

One of the more interesting rumors to run through the internet prior to the election was a supposed ‘White House insider’s’ account of a coming revolt within the Democrat Party after the midterms. As the story goes, Obama’s incompetence – resulting in the 2010 election debacle – has the more seasoned DC Democrats preparing to save the party by sacrificing their young President (experience does count to some degree in this job). There is no way to determine if this is an actual account or simply well crafted fiction. I have no way to confirm or debunk this narrative, and it is not my job to do so. It does seem credible, however, whether it is fact or fiction.

A synopsis of the tale can be found here, with links to the current three installments, with another promised to be coming soon. I want to highlight two passages because they caused me to go hunting for some evidence of one of the claims, and I actually found something surprising. Surprising enough for me to post about this unsubstantiated pre-conspiracy theory.

I can actually believe there are serious qualms with Obama’s leadership inside the Democrat leadership – if this disturbing incident actually occurred as described (interviewer’s comments are in bold text):

That is a very strong statement – anything recent that causes you to now say you will not support Obama in 2012? (Long pause – question is repeated) – There is much I have been told, some I know, some more that will probably develop in the coming weeks and months. But you want specifics, right? I understand that…I’ll give you an example of why President Obama is not right for America. He sure as hell has not been right for the party. Not long ago, the president took a meeting. He’s late, which apparently is becoming more and more common with him. The meeting was almost cancelled. In strolls the president, joking with an aide. He plops down on a sofa, leans over and claps another guy on the back asking how he’s been. Apologizes for being late, says he was “held up”. He laughs some more. The meeting begins. After just ten minutes, during which time the president appears to almost totally withdraw into himself, an aide walks in and whispers something to the president, who then nods and quickly stands up, shakes a few hands and tells another aide to update him later on the rest of the meeting. As the president is walking out he is laughing at something yet again. He asked no questions of those at the meeting – not one. He left after just ten minutes, coming in laughing and leaving laughing. His behavior during that brief time he was there was described as “borderline manic”.

…

Care to know what that particular meeting was about on that day?

Certainly – Afghanistan. That meeting was an update on Afghanistan, and the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, could give a -expletive-.

This really is disturbing behavior, but not beyond the realm of possibility. So while there is no confirmation of all the described angst in the Democrat ranks, I would be more surprised if there were not any angst – given the drubbing the Dems took Tuesday and its implications for the GOP and Dems long term. If the Dems have lost significant ground in the states, they will not maintain a national presence for long.

Which brings me to the passages which sent me on an intriguing internet search:
Continue Reading »

Update: The WaPo has one of the first salvos from the Democrats against the White House:

But a broad sample of Democratic officeholders and strategists said in interviews that the disconnect goes far deeper than that.

“There doesn’t seem to be anybody in the White House who’s got any idea what it’s like to lie awake at night worried about money and worried about things slipping away,” said retiring Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D). “They’re all intellectually smart. They’ve got their numbers. But they don’t feel any of it, and I think people sense that.”

Bredesen had voiced such reservations long before the election, but more Democrats are saying the same thing after Tuesday’s defeats – although few are willing to cross the White House by doing so publicly.

The Democrats will not take Obama out by moaning about him to the press. That won’t be nearly enough to neutralize the administration. – end update

Life is full of delicious irony – especially in politics. Think of Alan Grayson and Christine O’Donnell for example: two people with grand illusions of superiority and endless victim-hood. So lofty in their own minds, such dismal examples of humanity in real life.

Irony is best served with a hefty dose of denial.

I think the prize for biggest denial this election cycle goes to Obama and the snobby DC liberals who refuse to understand the message sent by the voters. Jay Cost said it best yesterday:

None of this is much of a surprise, except to those who refused to believe the rebuke was coming. Pollsters Scott Rasmussen, Pat Caddell, and Doug Schoen have been warning Democrats for some time that the midterms would be calamitous for them. Liberals ignored them during the campaign, and many will continue to do so, preferring to see the results as a consequence of the irrational wrath of voters who wrongly punished the Democrats for the failures of the Bush administration. The “Democratic” label has become an ironic appellation, as this “bitter/cling” explanation for voter opposition has taken hold on the left.

President Obama continues to deny the election results were a repudiation of his liberal, big government policies. He continues to tell himself it was simply that the American people did not understand how great he was, and he will have to do a better job explaining how great he is to us poor rubes:

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Knock yourself out examining Mr. President. it will do you know good because, once again, you are missing the point and not listening. I feared Obama would wise up like Clinton did and start wrapping himself in some different brand of politician. But I see our young inexperienced President is inflexible and incapable of considering himself fallible. Which is the biggest fallacy of humanity there is. Arrogant ignorance – a dangerous combination.

This will lead to a rift in the Democrat Party as the far left turns bitter and clings to their delusions that liberal policies work and that liberals are faultless and superior to all others. We now have the Bitter/Clinger-in-Chief.

Some on the left are already assessing where the party may have gone wrong, setting the stage to dump Obama after one term:

As I sat in the East Room last week watching a forlorn President Obama account for his shellacking, I listened with concern as he described the presidency as a “growth process” and suggested that the midterm setback was somehow inevitable. “You know, this is something that I think every president needs to go through,” he said.

It brought to mind Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone-call ad from the 2008 campaign, and her withering criticism of Obama: “When there is a crisis . . . there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training.” I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they’re in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer.

If Obama is losing the liberal media, the bottom has fallen out. He will become the youngest lame duck in history. But he holds immense power and the bully pulpit. Given how stubborn he still is about the first two years of his term, I doubt he will back down much. It is highly likely he will become petulant and stubborn. He will also become isolated behind a wall of like minded minions. And he may begin to truly wield that power to finish what he started.

After all, he has the angels of history on his side (at least in his own mind).

Later today or tomorrow I will be releasing a long post assessing one of the more interesting pre-election rumors about a movement within the Democrat power structure to dethrone Obama. Given how the election is playing out in the minds of the liberals, I can understand why some may want to stop the damage to the party before it becomes fatal.

It seems there are a lot of people in denial about what happened on Tuesday. Our young, inexperienced President is still denying the fact his liberal, big government policies were the target of the voter’s wrath.

The story of last week’s midterm battle is clear: It was an election about President Barack Obama, and the American people voted against him. According to the exit polls, voters nationwide disapproved of the president’s performance by a 9-point margin, 45-54 percent, and while their impressions of the Republican party were generally negative, they nevertheless gave the GOP what should turn out to be at least a 7-point margin of victory in the popular vote for the House.

The exit polls indicate that voters were dissatisfied with the way Washington has done business since Barack Obama became president. Dissatisfaction was not limited to the sluggish pace of economic recovery. Voters also disapproved of the health care bill, the stimulus package, and the level of deficit spending; they expressed a sense that government has become too big and too intrusive.

We The People held our noses and gave the GOP a chance to do what they say – for once. I don’t think the GOP could screw up, unless they miss the libertarian thrust rushing through the electorate and get distracted as Obama did. And let’s be clear here – a libertarian conservative is not the same as a fiscal conservative. A fiscal conservative would try and balance Obamacare’s books. A libertarian is for rolling back most of Obamacare, tossing it back to the private sector while keeping the few aspects everyone agrees would make health care compassionate again.

The minimal government goal is the complete opposite of the liberal big government world view. That is why the only ‘compromise’ that will be acceptable is making sure the pace at which we dismantle government is carefully gauged to not impact anyone being supported or employed by those elements that need to go away. There is no middle ground between minimal government and big government.

But denial is not a monopoly of the left. Christine O”Donnell continues to deny that she was rejected Tuesday individually, while Tea Party Candidates in ME, NC, PA, FL, WI and KY all won handily for the cause. She seems to think her conservative stance was attacked by conservatives, who wanted instead to elect a socialist???

O’Donnell explained how GOP insiders maneuvered to undermine he campaign from day one. According to O’Donnell, the beltway political class joined forces with the Delaware GOP to silence the voice of the people. In O’Donnell’s view, it was not her insistence on principle which caused her loss, but the refusal of the political ruling class to fully support her, who could not forgive O’Donnell for soundly defeating their hand-picked, establishment candidate – Mike Castle – in the primary, O’Donnell continued.

Oh pullease. It is this exact same illogical and paranoid clap trap that got her in trouble from day one. As Ace notes, there are minimal standards required to gain one of the top jobs in the country. Standards that go beyond the ability to regurgitate conservative platitudes and fog a mirror:

I think it had more to do with the fact that 1, she wasn’t bright (at all), 2, she had no accomplishments whatsoever (and yes, people do want to know someone’s actually done something to earn the right to be one of 100 in the Senate), 3, she had a series of bizarre statements from her past (“mice with fully functioning human brains”), and 4, she couldn’t articulate a conservative message in a way that sounded appealing or intelligent.

For all of us who were not enamored with her and had higher standards for conservative representatives I want to thank Christine for continuing to be the perfect example of what the movement cannot afford as its image. She proves our wisdom each and every time. She is not a total lost cause mind you. Her campaign also produced one of the most powerful ‘ads’ out there, explaining why it is time for the libertarian correction on our out of control government. But that was her campaign, not just Christine.

To this day, the woman is still tainting and overshadowing those who won and are now the new leaders. Were is Ayotte, Haley, Kirk and Johnson? I now Rubio and Rand will get their air time. But why is O’Donnell still outshining probably 100 better representatives of the cause who won or nearly won?

This is the lesson all sides need to learn regarding inexperienced and self absorbed candidates. They tend to really stain everyone near them, instead of bringing any benefit to the cause. Obama and O’Donnell, too sides of the same coin.