Archive for June, 2012

Image Image

The repetitive harmonious theme from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 was “hope” and “change”. Two hundred days into the new administration, change had occurred, but there had been little, if any hope at all. It started with a stimulus bill that did very little to revive a frail and sinking economy and a bailout of automobile industry’s that came at the expense of taxpayer’s money. Then came the massive push by the White House and a Democrat-controlled Congress to overhaul the nation’s health care system, at the expense of an angry outcry of many Americans that was heard across our vast country. The simple fact is that people are not thrilled with the government interfering with their lives, especially with their health care.

This coming Thursday, the Supreme Court is set to make a ruling on whether ObamaCare, especially the individual mandate that is at the heart and center of it, is unconstitutional. Let’s take a look back previously at the thoughts of the Americans concerning this before the bill was passed.

In July of 2009, a Time magazine poll found that 55 percent of Americans rated their health care system as “only fair” or “poor.” Six-in-ten had a negative view of private health insurance companies’ job performance. But 86 percent of Americans still said, when asked, that they were satisfied with their own health care plan. One month earlier, an ABC News/Washington Post health care poll found that six-in-ten respondents backed reform and even the creation of a government-funded entity that would offer health insurance to the uninsured.

But the same poll also found that about eight-in-ten Americans are, again, satisfied with the quality of their care and their insurance. Fifty-five percent of Americans even expressed satisfaction with the personal costs related to health care (including 61 percent of the insured). Kaiser Family Foundation polls in 2008 and 2006 echoed the same perspective. Because Americans do not want government dictating the decisions they make, they were highly determined to make their petition known to President Obama and Congress.

This was evident through recent town hall meetings and other venues that contributed to the dialogue of the health care overhaul. There were some individuals like then Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) who called people that stood in opposition of the President’s policies “not representative of America” and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who claimed that “well dressed protestors are out to harm our President.” Government’s ignorance and incompetence has left them disconnected with the American people. They have failed to realize that the only supporting voices for this socialistic overhaul are the liberal comrades that abide in Congress and the White House.

Let’s take a look at a few of the delusional ways this health care reform is being portrayed.

1.) President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. “You know, the interesting thing is we’ve actually been very clear on what we want. I’ve said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it…” (PBS’s “The Newshour With Jim Lehrer,” 7/20/09)

FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. “Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan.” (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, “Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009,” 7/17/09)

2.) President Obama Pledges Americans Can Keep Their Doctor. “If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor…We’re not going to mess with it.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At White House Press Conference, The White House, 6/23/09)

FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. Lawmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals … Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. ‘Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,’ said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. ‘We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.’” (Phil Galewitz, “‘Model’ Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform,” Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09)

3.) President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. “What I’ve said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don’t want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 7/21/09)

FACT: Democrats’ Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. “The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold …” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, “Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group,” Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09)

 The outrage had continued when the White House emailed its supporters telling them to report anyone who is advertising “fishy” tales about health care reform. That was obviously code language to report anyone who disagrees with their stance. . The health care reform passed the Senate by a vote of 60-39 and the house by a vote of 219-212. Many states and individuals have filed lawsuits against this monstrosity challenging the constitutionality of it and claiming that it infringes on individual liberties and freedoms. . With an almost bankrupt economy, high unemployment rates, lack of job growth, and soaring deficits, this administration has added to this mountain of government intrusion and carelessness with this bill.

 Will you believe the delusional deceptions of Obamacare or will you hold the government accountable? The Supreme Court has heard the voices of the American people. As of today, over half the United States opposes this. President Obama may hail this as a domestic accomplishment but the majority of Americans view this as a jobs-killer and a threat to freedom.

This thursday, we will see if freedom prevails or if government bureaucracy will be the victor. 



As President Obama embarks upon his quest for re-election, one must evaluate exactly how “presidential” he has been in his first term. I am going to attempt to compare him to just a few of our nation’s past inhabitants of the Oval Office.

Let’s begin with Lyndon Baines Johnson and a quick glance at The Great Society. Its primary purposes were to implement social reforms that sought to eliminate the captivity of poverty and unchain the shackles of racial injustice. In all actuality, it was a clever political mechanism installed to keep minorities voting Democrat in every election. Liberal supporters argued that this benefited the poor and less fortunate by assisting their needs. But the opposite was true: it made sure the poor and minorities were unable to circumvent their problems, elevate their class status and be productive in the workforce, and ensured that they were enslaved to the dependency of government.

Barack Obama epitomizes LBJ in the way of promoting big government and class warfare. The two biggest examples from the current administrate are the stimulus bill and what is affectionately known as “Obamacare.” Instead of allowing the free markets to take their course, Obama decided that government was the solution to creating jobs. He was wrong. Unemployment remains high and Obamacare is a monstrosity that intrudes on individual liberties and freedoms, and violates the Constitution with the individual mandate. Jason Stanford of The Huffington Post shows the parallel between Johnson and Obama, particularly regarding gay marriage. He compares Obama’s support of gay marriage as changing the political landscape just as when LBJ supported the Civil Rights Acts.

However, the truth of the matter is that LBJ was a southern segregationist and he realized that his support for civil rights would be appealing to the minority sector. Obama’s support for gay marriage came at the helm of wavering and dwindling support from the black community. Like LBJ, Obama made a political maneuver that was expedient and beneficial for the short-term, if at all.

The next President of comparison is Jimmy Carter. Michael Francis of The Examiner took a look into the Carter-Obama parallel. He points out that both Presidents were insufficient in dealing with the energy crisis. Carter did not know how to deal with OPEC and Obama has failed to allow for offshore drilling. The rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is another mindboggling example of how Obama not only rejected an opportunity for jobs to be created, but also clinged to the idea of depending on international sources for oil.

Both presidents saw a spike in gas prices due to incoherent energy policies that weakened the private sector. They also witnessed tax hikes on energy companies. It must also be pointed out that both Obama and Carter had financiers that were indebted with corruption: Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was Carter’sthreshold of deceit and dishonesty and Solyndra has become not only Obama’s burden, but a travesty at the sake of the taxpayers.

The final comparison is the infamous Richard Nixon. President Obama recently invoked and inserted executive privilege in the “Fast and Furious” case, notoriously known as the case in which the U.S. Justice Department allowed the smuggling of nearly 2,000 firearms into the country of Mexico. This “gun-walking” program resulted in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December of 2010.

Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to comply with Congress in their request for all of the documents in relation to Fast and Furious. A congressional committee decided to hold the top legal representative of the United States in contempt of Congress. President Obama, who originally claimed to be unaware of the operation, decided to exercise his power in applying executive privilege. This has sparked curiosity and raised questions from several House Oversight Committee members. “He’s either part of it or he’s not,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, Republican lawmaker from South Carolina.

Richard Nixon inserted executive privilege in the Watergate scandal, and he resigned from office 15 days later.  Nixon’s involvement in Watergate revealed lies and deceit.

Will Obama’s involvement reveal the same? Does Obama have something to hide from the American people?

While Operation Fast and Furious can be compared to Watergate as far as being an escalated government scandal, one thing is vital to the discussion: There was not a body count in Watergate, unlike Fast and Furious.

So for those wondering if Obama is “presidential”, sure he is. However, being in the company of the afore mentioned presidents doesn’t exactly put him in the most elite category.


Despite sharing the same political party as the current president, voters still long for the economic days of the Clinton presidency, according to a new poll.

Former President Bill Clinton is notoriously known for his charm, wit and uncanny ability to insert himself back into the national spotlight. He most recently did this when he referred to Governor Mitt Romney’s business record as “sterling” and suggested that Romney was qualified to run for president.

Despite campaigning for President Obama, Clinton may have just given himself a tangible boost in the polls. During a recent fundraiser for the president, Clinton casually reminded those in attendance that he was the one who presided over a surplus and an economic boom in the 1990s.

His reminder seems to have worked.

Today, some relatively good news for the nation’s 42nd President has emerged. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, voters trust Clinton over Obama when it comes to the handling of the US economy. Roughly 55 percent  of voters who were contacted via telephone expressed their opinion that Clinton had a better judgment on the steps that needed to be implemented in order to turn the economy back in the right direction.

I’m relatively sure a sly smile would come across Bubba’s face if he was to see this poll. After all, he probably doesn’t think too fondly about the current occupant of the Oval Office. I’m quite positive there is some bitter resentment lingering over the 2008 Democratic primary season where Bill overwhelmingly thought Obama was inexperienced and premature in his political career to consider a campaign for the presidency. Alas, who can forget the infamous conversation between Clinton and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D- MA) over Obama’s presence in the Senate in which Clinton  referenced Obama serving them coffee?

Clinton probably thinks his popularity will stay high for quite some time because he believes he is the last good Democrat left with bragging rights. As the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Clinton feels he has cemented his place in history as a game changer.

Clinton looks and feels comfortable on the national scene – he brings about a vibrant presence that is sure to upend whoever may be near him.

I believe Clinton senses a universal disdain for Obama, and seeks to capitalize on it. In my opinion, the poll conducted is acutely accurate. Even individuals who were not fans of the Clinton years are longing for a time machine to take them back to his presidency to escape the economic woes caused by the current administration.

How long will Clinton’s popularity last?  It’s hard to tell, but as long as president Obama’s decisions are looked upon sourly and if there is a hesitant reaction to the GOP’s agenda, Clinton will look like an economical guru.


During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that his administration would bring transparency back into the forefront of the federal government. This promise seemed to have come up short relatively early.

It was in 2009, the first full year of Barack Obama’s term, that the White House decided to have closed-door meetings and sessions in regards to health care legislation.

The Republican leadership within the House Energy and Commerce Committee released several emails that showed that the pharmaceutical industry and the heath care lobbying sector were in constant contact with The White House.

            Here is an email sample of the May 2009 dialogue that occurred between lobbyists and The White House:

 From: Rick Smith:

 Thursday, May 14. 2009 11:53 PM Bryant Hall: Mimi Simooeaux Kneuer

To: Subject: re: Urgent- Read this-holy cow… Pear and IHP articles

Yup. which is the key point and where I’m going to try stay focused. And between this fiasco and the Republican leadership letter, not clear this group maintains current plan of operation. That said, WH will be in full damage control mode, whicl1 I assume will mean go on the assault, so like I said, buckle up.

–            Original Message~ — From: Bryant Hall TQ: Rick Smith: Mimi Simoneau,” Knauer Sent: Thu May 14 23:46:32 2009 Subject: Re: Urgent-Read this-holy cow…. Pear and IHP articles

Perfect time to cut our deal w the White House as this is swirling.

            Jennifer Haberkorn, a reporter for POLITICO, which is no bastion for conservatism and more left-leaning, takes a lead on these negotiations. “In one email exchange obtained by the committee, a pharmaceutical executive said that then-White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had suggested he would publicly call out PhRMA if it didn’t sign to the deal. Another exchange says the White House threatened to use the president’s radio address to call for rebates for prescription drugs in all of Medicare Part D, a proposition the drug industry strongly opposed.

Neil Munro from The Daily Caller explains the thoughts of GOP legislators from The Hill. ”The important question to answer is what did the White House get in return for the deal”, said the May 16 memo. Apparently the White House refused to engage or cooperate with any investigation procedures requested from House investigators.

As expected, the White House fought back against the allegations and dismissed them as bogus and a created distraction and delusion. Alicia Mundy from the Wall Street Journal quotes White House spokesman Eric Schultz as labeling the email release “a nakedly political, taxpayer-funded crusade to hurt the president’s re-election campaign.” Schultz goes on to make the case that the administration will save the American taxpayers $80 billion worth on the costs of drugs.

The health care legislation, famously dubbed as “ObamaCare”, has been widely unpopular and faced with much resistance. Several polls indicate that many Americans favor a repeal of some parts, if not all, of the controversial legislation. One of the most unpopular elements of the legislation is the individual mandate, which is deemed by many to be unconstitutional and an infringement of individuals rights and liberties.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on ObamaCare relatively soon. Their decision not only will affect the outcome of the legislation, but will also put the administration in a complex situation in how it will justify the legislation as a domestic achievement of President Obama.