Wednesday, September 30, 2009

IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE: John Edwards & His "Sycophantic" "Butt Boy"

America, take solace. For those who lament the fact that President Barack Obama is turning the country inside out, here's one consolation: It could have been worse.

Instead of dealing with BHO and his gang of purple union thugs, America could have had a redneck, his dying wife, his mistress and his love child occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue....along with the same gang of purple union thugs, PLUS an aide with Fatal Attraction-like qualities.

You see, in addition to cheating on his cancer-stricken wife while she was out campaigning for him in between chemo treatments, and despite having a 'love child' with the hired help, the man who was almost Vice President of the United States in 2004 and who had his sights set on becoming President, former Senator John Edwards, has something else haunting him.

That something else turns out to be Edwards' former aide-turned-spurned-lapdog, Andrew Young.

According to a blistering account of Young's seeming infatuation and Edwards' seeming hypocritical narcissism, Politico lays out a more detailed accounting of the sordid tale of sexual cover-ups and menage a trois betrayals than anyone else thus far has.

John Edwards & His 'Butt Boy'

From the very start of the piece, Politico writers set the stage for a weird saga of a lapdog doing anything for its master--including putting his own life and reputation into the meat grinder of public ridicule, pity and humiliation.

When John Edwards returned to North Carolina in the course of his long quest for the presidency, Andrew Young always met him at the airport in Edwards’s big black Chevy Tahoe. Young drove, and Edwards rode shotgun, silently raising his left hand whenever he wanted a Diet Coke, which Young would wordlessly supply.
Ouch. But it gets harsher from there...
Young sometimes described himself as Edwards’s “special assistant” and dreamed of serving in an Edwards White House. Other aides, with a combination of disgust — and, perhaps, a bit of envy — referred to him as Edwards’s “personal servant,” or worse, Edwards’s “butt boy.”
Politico goes on to explain the Edwards affair with new mommy Rielle Hunter, Elizabeth Edwards' suspicion and jealousy, all set against a backdrop of Andrew Young's self-sacrifice for his version of "John Kennedy."

Here are some excerpts:

“He believed that Edwards was the next Kennedy,” said a person who was close to Young. “It’s not enough to say that he idolized the guy — there’s something deeper and weirder than that.”

First he was the fall guy, and now he’s the sellout, peddling his story in a
tell-all book. But the real story of Young is about the passions of politics and the classic political triangle of the candidate, his wife and the sometimes sycophantic aide.

If you thought Barry & Co. was bad, one can only imagine what it would have been like if the former North Carolina senator had made it all the way to the White House.

Go here to read the entire Politico piece.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009


With nut jobs like this, it is little wonder that Obama represents the Messiah to some and the Anti-Christ to others...

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 28, 2009


Another Brick in the Wall
Pink Floyd

Among President Barack Obama's most ardent fans is America's youth. That is, until now.

As videos circulate around the internet and on cable news showing children singing propaganda-(ad)ministered praises to President Barack Obama, the Teacher-in-Chief is making a new proposal that is sure to cause his poll numbers to plummet, especially among America's youngsters.

The President wants kids to stay in school later and longer, according to the Associated Press.

Students beware: The summer vacation you just enjoyed could be sharply curtailed if President Barack Obama gets his way.

Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe.

"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Fifth-grader Nakany Camara is of two minds. She likes the four-week summer program at her school, Brookhaven Elementary School in Rockville, Md. Nakany enjoys seeing her friends there and thinks summer school helped boost her grades from two Cs to the honor roll.

But she doesn't want a longer school day. "I would walk straight out the door," she said.
Of course, the Teacher-in-Chief and his minions may just have an ulterior motive:
Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community. Duncan, who was Chicago's schools chief, grew up studying alongside poor kids on the city's South Side as part of the tutoring program his mother still runs. [Emphasis added.]

We're sure this proposal from our Teacher-in-Chief is going to really sit well with all his suburban soccer-mom fans as they field the whining complaints from their state-controlled kids.

NOTE: Dienekes' Place will be focus group-testing the President's proposal tonight...Of course, not until after school is out and the homework is done.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share


We've all heard the term "astro-turf" coined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to apply to grassroots opposition to the nationalization of Americans' health care.

And, we've heard President Obama state that illegal aliens would not be covered under Obamacare (which we exposed as another "You Lie" moment a couple of weeks ago).

"Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access."

"The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements."
This is different from the president's plan to exclude illegals (while they're illegal), then grant amnesty under "immigration reform" to make formerly-excluded illegal aliens into fully- included legal citizens.

And, joining in the chorus for illegals to have access to the nationalized health care coverage is one of the first astro-turfing organization out there, La Raza:
"The National Council of La Raza launched its own 'flood their voice mail' campaign last week to put pressure on Mr. Baucus to expand coverage in his proposal to include all legal immigrants and to drop verification language in the legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining coverage."
Of course, with nationalization (and, ultimately, unionization) of the entire health care industry and the inclusion of 11 million or so illegal aliens under a Democrat-imposed bill, the Democrats are aiming to be the party in power for generations to come.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 25, 2009


This little gem seemed to slip through the main stream media's hands...and apparently civil libertarians have missed it as well.

President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges.

The move, which was controversial when the idea was
first floated in The Washington Post in May, has sparked serious concern among civil liberties advocates. Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus -- a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" -- which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention.


So much for "change" we you can believe in...

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share


If you doubt the government's intent to control your body and your health care, consider this:

If you refuse to accept government-imposed health insurance, you will be fined $1900. If you refuse to pay, you can be charged with a misdemeanor, fined up to $25,000 and jailed up to a year.

Here is the post from Politico:

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's
questioning at the markup.

Remember, according to the President, you are your brother's keeper...and he is yours!

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Tuesday, September 22, 2009


It has become a cacaphony from the Left: Opposition to President Barack Obama's policies is rooted in racism.
It has gone from the subtle to the super-hyperbolic, like when Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), speculated that Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of "You lie!" during the President's speech a few weeks ago could signal the return of “folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside.” [Yeah, it's gotten that pathetic.]

Even today, as reported by Politico, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) continue pushing the race issue.
[A]n underlying sense of nervousness and concern about the shifting political landscape in the eight months since Obama was sworn in. The sudden explosion of tea party groups, with right-wing protesters carrying signs depicting Obama as an African witch doctor or in a Nazi uniform, has infuriated some black lawmakers, who say such behavior wouldn’t be tolerated for a white president. [Emphasis added.]
The problem for the CBC and the rest of the Liberal Left, is that their memory is too brief.

A quick google image search of the words "Bush" and "Hitler" yield over two million hits.

The images posted here are just a few, but they show that the Liberal Left is lying when they claim the 'virulence' in opposing Obama's policies are based in racism.

In fact, if nothing else, the images demonstrate that the Right is using the same tactics that the Left has used for years.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share


A glass half-empty to one man may be half-full to another.

West Virginia's Senator Robert Byrd (D), who is the third in the presidential line of succession (after House Speaker and ultra-frightening Nancy Pelosi), was rushed to the hospital this morning after falling, according to Politico.

As a former Exalted Cyclops (no kidding!) of the Ku Klux Klan, the 93-year old Byrd is the longest-serving senator in U.S. history but has been missing in the Senate much of this year due to health issues.

According to Politico:
Byrd, a pillar of the Senate who has first elected in 1958, has become increasingly frail in recent years. After running the powerful Appropriations Committee, he relinquished his gavel in January but continues to chair a powerful homeland security spending subcommittee. He was hospitalized in May for what his aides described as a “minor infection,” but was admitted for nearly two months after his ailment turned into a much-worse staph infection.

Since then, he’s been recovering at his McLean home, and his presence in the Senate
has been exceedingly rare. On Sept. 10, Byrd delivered a speech on the Senate floor in honor of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died last month after a 47-year Senate career.

“As I look at his desk, draped with black cloth and covered with flowers, I still have difficulty believing he is gone,” Byrd said in an emotional tribute, delivered in a quivering voice as he sat from his chair. “My ebullient Irish-to-the-core friend has departed this life forever. How bleakly somber. How utterly final. How totally unlike Ted Kennedy in life.”
While we are no predictors in matters of life and death, it does seem that Byrd may not be quick in returning to the Senate chambers, thereby continuing to temporarily deprive Democrats of another vote in shoving their statist agenda down the throats of ordinary Americans.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share


The United States of America was born out of dissention and revolution. A repressed people revolting against a king and his British minions.

The right of citizens to dissent is codified in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution where it states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In fact, it is the First Amendment that allegedly guarantees the citizens of the United States to dissent to whatever the government is doing. For as long as the Republic has stood, the right to dissent under the First Amendment has been (for the most part) honored.

Unfortunately, that tradition of dissention has been under attack by the very government that is sworn to uphold that right. Nowhere is that more evident than that which the Obama Administration and his Democratic Party is attempting to do with the debate over the nationalization of health care.

According to the Associated Press yesterday, the Obama Administration is "investigating a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under health care legislation in Congress."

In a warning letter to Humana, HHS said the government is concerned that the mailer "is misleading and confusing" partly because the company's lobbying campaign could be mistaken for an official communication about Medicare benefits.

HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana, which is based in Louisville, Ky. [Emphasis added.]

Irrespective of whether the insurance company (Humana) is accurate in its mailers to seniors (which, based on reports of Congress' initial draft legislation, it probably is), the precedent that the Administration is setting by attacking a deep-pocketed insurance company sends a dangerous shot across the bow of every American who dares exercising their First Amendment right of dissent against this government.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 18, 2009


Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst of "You Lie!" during Barack Obama's health care pitch to Congress and America has become the rallying cry of both the Left and the Right!

On the Right, it's become a point to be made with t-shirts and placards at last weekend's March on Washington, where an estimated 1.7 million took to the streets in our nation's capitol protesting big government.

On the Left, Joe Wilson's outburst has become a rallying cry of 'racism,' as the Democrats and their allies try to deflect and obfuscate the truth. This has culminated this week with former President Jimmy Carter accusing those opposed to Barack Obama's policies of being racist.

The problem for the Left, however, is no matter how hard they might try, the fact is, Joe Wilson was right...sort of. And, the fact that Joe Wilson is even remotely right is something they would rather hide.

When Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie" during the President's speech, it was in response to the President's assertion that the health care package he is pitching would not cover illegal aliens.

While Joe has been ridiculed as racist and rebuked by Congress, the fact is President Obama does plan to have his health care plan cover those people who are here in the United States illegally. And that is not something that is invented by the Right, it is something the President has said himself on Wednesday:

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.

"That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

So, there you have it. President Obama's plan does exclude illegal aliens BUT, he wants illegal aliens to be legalized so they do get the benefits of nationalized health care.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Man of Peace Just Helped Attack...Somalia...?

What happened to Barack Obama, the Man of Hope, the Man of Peace, the man who was supposed to get the U.S. out of Iraq, do a better job in Afghanistan and, overall, be the Man of Peace and Change? What happened?

Not only is America still in Iraq, Afghanistan's a mess with more U.S. casualties since we entered that country after the 9/11 attacks but, now, the U.S. has attacked Somalia. Why?

According to the Associated Press:

Foreign troops in helicopters strafed a car Monday in a Somali town controlled by Islamist insurgents, killing two men and capturing two others who were wounded, witnesses said. U.S. military officials said U.S. forces were involved in the raid.

The commando-style action took place in a village near Barawe amid growing fears that al-Qaida is gaining a foothold in this lawless nation.

Two U.S. military officials said forces from the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command were involved. The officials gave no details about the raid or its target, and they spoke on condition of anonymity because the operation was secret.
According to

What the officials wouldn’t comment on was exactly why the United States, which launched a failed “peacekeeping” operation in the nation in 1993 and backed an Ethiopian invasion in 2007, had decided to launch yet another foreign adventure, though media outlets speculated that it was probably something to do with al-Qaeda.

The United States has recently been supplying the self-described Somali
“government” with
“tons of arms,” according to the State Department. Yet reports on the ground suggest that forces loyal to this faction, which only controls a handful of city blocks in the capital city of Mogadishu, have generally just sold the US-supplied weapons on the open market.

Hat-tip to Freedom's Phoenix

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 13, 2009


He may be right, or he may be very, very wrong...

2010 mid-term elections will tell.

Bookmark and Share


Let there be no dissention, no discourse (civil or uncivil), and no debate. Peace marches and union rallies are attended by patriots, but when Americans fill the streets of Washington to protest the direction of the current government, those marchers are xenophobes and racists.

As an American, if you disagree with President Barack Obama's policies, question his take over of the health care industry, the auto bailouts, and putting the next two generations of Americans into debt, you must be a racist! ...At least, that's what the New York Times' Maureen Dowd opines:

The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!


I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

Well, apparently, up to two million racists and xenophobes marched on Washington yesterday, as the President fled to Minnesota to push his plan for nationalization of health care; a plan that, according to Ms. Dowd, means you must be a racist if you oppose it.

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 12, 2009


Nothing offical from the DC authorities on how many Americans marched on the nation's capitol to protest the government, but one overseas paper is reporting up to two million...

Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Read more here.


This is a cool video from today's Tea Party in Washington.

Bookmark and Share


Tens of thousands of Americans from all over the nation marched on Washington, DC today to protest the federal government and, in particular, the action's of the Obama administration.

According to one Associated Press report:

Thousands of people marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
President Takes Flight

Following the President's Wednesday night speech where he attempted to sell his plan for a federal takeover of the nation's health care industry, Obama's aides scheduled him to be out of the nation's capitol on Saturday. According to the New York Times:

As Mr. Obama traveled to Minnesota on Saturday to rally support for his health care plan, he flew over the crowd in Marine One. The helicopter could be seen flying overhead as the demonstrators made their way toward Capitol Hill from downtown Washington.

From All Over Amerca They Came

According to reports, the protestors came from all over the nation.

They came by bus, car and airplane, arriving here from Texas and Tennessee, New Mexico and New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The messages on their signs told of an intense distrust of the government, which began well before Mr. Obama took office and extends far beyond the effort to overhaul health care. One sign declared: “We are under attack by our own government.” And several signs said,
“Our Constitution has termites!”

The protest, organized by anti-tax groups, opened peacefully, with few visible signs of counter-protesters.

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of Revolutionary War protesters in colonial gear wound through the crowd, led by a bell-ringer in a tri-corner hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers from listeners.
Protestors From All Walks of Life

According to the Washington Post, protestors were comprised of "conservatives." However, that appears to be inaccurate, as the New York Times noted:

"Throughout the morning, more and more demonstrators arrived, identifying themselves as Republicans, libertarians and independents."

Additionally, although several Republican leaders were in attendance on Saturday, they are also "wary of the anger directed at incumbents of all stripes."

Monumental: Americans Stretched A Mile Long

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter for updates.

Bookmark and Share


Some days, you just need something to laugh at.

Here's one for you:

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 10, 2009


You've got to admit, the President of the United States does deliver one hell of a good speech and Wednesday night's repackaging of the same package was no exception. He is a really, really smooth talker!

To us, the President's speech had its highs (like when Joe Wilson called the President a liar and Nancy Pelosi almost went into cardiac arrest...Now, as we say in Sparta, that was freakin' HILARIOUS!) and it had its lows (like when the President invoked the memory of Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden wiped a tear or two from his plastic-surgeon stretched eyes). [Were we not Spartans, we would have been bawling our eyes out too!]

It's too bad, however, that the President could not find it within himself to be more truthful with the citizens of the land we call America. For, if he were being honest, then the citizenry could make a more informed decision on whether or not they want socialized medicine (with or without death panels).

You see, his plan will, in fact, lead to socialized medicine. Of that you can be sure. Unfortunately, so many of our fellow Americans don't grasp this simple fact.

So, to make this really, really simple, Dienekes' Place is giving a really, really simple example (one of many) that you can share with those deniers of facts.

Socialized Medicine For Dummies, Democrats and assorted Union Thugs:

Here is how the Democrats' health care plan will lead to socialized medicine within three to five years, if not sooner:
Note: There will be a test, so please pay attention.
The Obama-Pelosi plan states that employers who do not cover their employees' health coverage will pay an eight percent (8%) tax (or penalty or whatever else they want to call it) so their employees can be covered under "the public option."

So, lets take "Bob" as an example:

Bob has a wife and two kids (called "dependents").

Bob makes $20 an hour driving a forklift at XYZ Company. [$20 X 2,080 hours = $41,600 per year]

XYZ Company provides Bob and his family with health benefits.

These health benefits cost about $800 per month, of which Bob pays 25% (or $200) and XYZ company pays 75% or ($600) per month. $600 per month X 12 months = $7200 per year.

$7200 divided by $41,600 = 17%

[This means that XYZ Company's portion of Bob's health benefits is 17% of Bob's pay.] [See footnote 1 below.]

Now, since the government is going to offer a plan that will supply Bob's health benefits at eight percent of his pay (or "payroll costs"), XYZ Company needs to answer the following questions:

  1. Does XYZ Company continue paying 17% of Bob's total labor costs toward health care? Or...

  2. Does XYZ Company drop its family coverage and just let Bob have single coverage, which means dumping Bobs's family onto the "public plan" but still cost XYZ Company about $450 per month, or 13% of Bob's pay? OR...

  3. Does XYZ Company stop offering health benefits entirely and dump all its employees onto the public option for a mere 8% of its payroll costs?

This is a really important question: Which number below costs the least?

  1. 17%
  2. 13%
  3. 8%?
If you answered #3 on each of the above tests, you got it 100% right! Congratulations!!!

[Note: If you missed either one or both of the above questions, there is no helping you, and you deserve to have your health care (and oxygen) rationed!]
Now, there are over four million private-sector employers in the United States employing around 130 million or so people. The total population in America is around 300 million.

Approximately, 58% (or 174 million) of all Americans get their insurance through employer-based plans, while many others get their benefits through other government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, VA, or public sector jobs.

If a mere 50% (or 87 million) of those Americans getting their coverage through private sector employers get dumped onto the 'public option' in the first year, instead of 47 million uninsured Americans being coverage, the number will jump to 134 million Americans in the government's plan almost immediately.

By year two, expect that number to increase again, as more companies realize the cost savings by dumping private insurance and opting for the government plan.

By the way, the private insurance companies, with all the new mandates, will not be lowering their costs to meet or beat the government. They will not be able to.

This means that, for every company that dumps its workers onto the government's plan, the closer the private insurance industry gets to going out of business.

Pretty soon (again, we project within three to five years), there will be a full takeover of health care in the United States, resulting in full-blown socialized medicine.

And that is Socialized Medicine for Dummies.

Cost increases paid through higher taxes, as well as rationing will follow shortly thereafter.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, and it sure as hell shouldn't take a politician to point it out (that is, if politicians were honest).

Any questions?

Footnote: The above figures are conservative estimates for illustration purposes only. According one recent article: "Annual premiums climbed to $4,438 for single workers and $11,556 for workers with families, the report showed."

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share


At some point during last night's speech on health care, a Republican Congressmen yelled out "You lie!" It was fascinating to watch House Speaker Pelosi and Biden's reaction to this outburst.

Erick at Red State has some interesting comments this morning:

Barack Obama has signed on in toto to the Democrats’ healthcare plan, including a public option. He said that the plan won’t fund abortions. But it will. In fact, the Democrats specifically cut out of the legislation clear language to prevent funding of abortions. Moreso, the Hyde Amendment, which Barack Obama hides behind, would not apply to this legislation because the Hyde Amendment only applies to Department of Health and Human Services appropriations and, get this, the Democrats have decided that healthcare expenditures will not be in the HHS budget. Therefore, abortions will be paid for.

More importantly, Barack Obama said the plan will not cover illegal aliens. This is a lie. Joe Wilson was right. The legislation clearly says it will not fund illegal aliens BUT the legislation also prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare. He is trying to have it both ways.

The entire speech from Barack Obama was loaded with half-truths and flat out lies. For example, he said he would not force the government option on anyone. But, the legislation provides an incentive for private employers to shove their employees onto the government plan.

Likewise, the President says individuals will be able to keep their insurance even when the switch jobs. That is not true. According to the Democrats’ legislation, if an employee switches jobs, they must get on a government approved plan and then can never get off it.

The President also tried to claim that this $900 billion plan will not add to the deficit. He will pay for it without tax increases he said. He said, instead, he’ll save money by reforming present healthcare. Why not do that now?

Even so, the Congressional Budget Office says the total savings from stamping out waste, fraud, and abuse would barely be a dent in the overall costs of the legislation.

The President was short on details, high on rhetoric, and much too partisan on this issue. He wants to work across the aisle, but on his terms with a pre-existing failed Democrat plan.

The question is now: Will Obama's nationalization of health care be his Waterloo (not before it passes, but after)?

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 9, 2009


Nancy Pelosi is holding tightly to President Barack Obama's health care "package." The question is, will tonight's mucho grande speech help pull his chestnuts out of the roasting fire.

According to Politico:
Tired of watching helplessly as House bills are carved up to win support from conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans in the Senate, the speaker has a message for President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Take the public option out of health care reform, and you may not have a bill at all.
In other words, Pelosi's pushing for nothing less than 'the public option' and she and her fellow liberals will destroy all reform efforts unless they get their way.

To make matters worse, Obama's poll numbers are in the tank.
Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

As Obama prepares for his big speech tonight, the question we'll find out tomorrow is: After 29 events and 122 speeches on health care can he gain any credibility back? In a word: Nope.

Although he's come from behind before (just ask Hillary Clinton), the nation is quickly becoming wary of he and Pelosi's push to radicalize America. And, while Barack Obama gives one heck of a good speech, no one in America (except for the freaks who keep voting her in) trusts Nancy Pelosi.

Worse still, the Democrats are losing one of their most trusted constiuencies, the senior citizens. [Guess who gets rationed first when rationing begins?]

The perpetual and oh-so-useful campaign demon of George W. Bush is gone, demonizing insurance companies will only go so far and, at present, the economy is still in tatters. In sum, Obama's "hope" and "change" has been, for many already skeptical Americans, transformed to: "Oh. This is not what we were hoping for and you can keep that kind of change."

This is not to say, however, that Pelosi can't tighten her hold on Obama's 'package' and force her agenda.

However, if Obama allows that to happen, despite his natural desire to do so, he will be seen as weak and non-presidential. Therefore, he's either all in (damn the poll numbers) for the 'public option' or he needs to show his ability to get Pelosi's claws out of his mojo and do health care reform without it.

In either case, on health care, he's in a no-win situation and we don't see him pulling it out and being able to regain his credibility.

Call it what you will, nationalizing health care is socializing health care and you're either for it or your against it.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 8, 2009


After having their constituents raise holy hell with them over these past several weeks, one would think that Democrats would slow down and rethink plunging American headfirst into nationalizing health care. Afterall, the President did say that it needed to be done right, didn't he? However, that apparently is not going to happen.

According to ABC News, the President is pushing for urgency to get a bill through Congress and Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid stated they can get a package passed--even if they don't know what that package is.
While White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today refrained from telling reporters whether President Obama in his speech Wednesday night will set a deadline for passing health care reform, sources tell ABC News that in his private meeting with Democratic congressional leaders this afternoon the key word was

The president told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that it is important for them to pass health care reform bills soon, the sources said. Both leaders told the president that despite the difficult rough and tumble of the legislative process in the last few weeks, they are optimistic that both the House and Senate can pass health care reform legislation.

What will be in the bill remains an open question, though after the meeting, Reid told reporters that “we're going to do our very best to have a public option or something like a public option before we finish this
[Emphasis added.]

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share


"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." Nikita Khrushchev

Is it too late to save America? Has America already been toppled and we are now in a free-fall?

Putting the argument over nationalizing health care aside for a moment and looking at the "bigger picture," there have been some signs over this past year that would steer the casual observer to question and even doubt our nation's future. However, until yesterday, the question of whether or not it is too late to save America would not have crossed the mind.

Yesterday, several articles crossed our path that does make us wonder if America (as we knew it) has already been toppled and all that is left for rational Americans to do is to sift through the debris.

Don't Cry for 'U.S.' Argentina...

First, from the Telegraph:

Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

[Charles Rowley] "It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron."

The U.N. to Dump the Greenback?

Also from the Telegraph:

The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War.

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

"Replacing the dollar with an artificial currency would solve some of the problems related to the potential of countries running large deficits and would help stability," said Detlef Kotte, one of the report's authors. "But you will also need a system of managed exchange rates. Countries should keep real exchange rates [adjusted for inflation] stable. Central banks would have to intervene and if not they would have to be told to do so by a multilateral institution such as the International Monetary Fund."

Is this the end of America as conspiracy theorists have predicted for decades?

Then, there's this:

The Federal Reserve's policy of printing money has China worried as it warns of a big decline in the dollar. This could prompt China to reshape it's foreign reserve policy.

Former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China's green energy drive Cheng Siwei said Beijing was not happy with the Federal Reserve's direction of "credit easing", reports the Telegraph.

In an interview with the Telegraph he said, "If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies."
And, finally this:

Obama to seal US-UN relationship

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.

For those who advocate for U.S. sovereignty, individual rights, and free enterprise, all of these (separately) appear troubling, as did the bailouts of the banks, the auto industry and, now, the push to nationalize health care. However, when putting all of these together, the questions then become: Is it too late for America? Has the United States already been toppled by its own government?

Tonight, America will watch its president appear before a joint session of Congress in attempt to repackage his agenda to put the government in control of health care.

Perhaps tomorrow we will know the answer to the above questions because, if public sentiment shift toward nationalization of health care, the collectivists will be emboldened again to move forward on their march toward socialism.

What are your thoughts?

Follow Dienekes' Place on Twitter

Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 7, 2009


A week after controversy erupted around President Barack Obama's planned speech to America's students on Tuesday, the White House has released the transcript of his speech.

While much of the speech is directed toward kids with problems, kids in poverty, and kids of single parents, in this regard, Obama's speech can be considered inspiring in an "ask not what your country can do for you..." kind of way.

The bulk of Obama's message is of 'personal responsibility' and 'lifting yourself up' if you're disadvantaged in some way.

For many of America's kids who don't come from broken homes or live in impoverished neighborhoods, the majority of Obama's speech will be viewed as one of those 'preachy' types of speeches. In fact, for kids who have traditional homes, though they may be fewer and fewer, much of the President's speech will likely not connect with them.

In this regard, the President's speech is just like having the stranger with a pocketful of candy come talk at your kids' school. And, for those parents who are concerned about Obama's indoctrination, the lesson to teach the kids is: Don't take candy from a stranger or a politician.

To read the President's speech, go here

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 6, 2009


Little is known about Obama's Czars and Commissars. However, below is one of the most complete lists we've seen. Although this list was posted on Politico, the links embedded with each name are from a variety of different sources:
  1. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke

  2. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley

  3. Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery

  4. Border Czar: Alan Bersin

  5. California Water Czar: David J. Hayes

  6. Car Czar: Ron Bloom (Appointed to position of Manufacturing Czar on 9.7.09)

  7. Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross

  8. Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal

  9. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske

  10. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker

  11. Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Brower

  12. Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois

  13. Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis

  14. Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones (resigned 9.5.09) (more)

  15. Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried

  16. Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle

  17. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra

  18. International Climate Czar: Todd Stern

  19. Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair

  20. Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell

  21. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg

  22. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein

  23. Science Czar: John Holdren

  24. Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney

  25. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration

  26. TARP Czar: Herb Allison

  27. Terrorism Czar: John Brennan

  28. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra

  29. Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.

  30. Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter

  31. WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore
Bookmark and Share

Van Jones, Self-proclaimed Communist & A**hole, Resigns

Van Jones, President Obama's self-proclaimed Communist and a**hole, has resigned.

According to Breitbart:

Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a
government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

The resignation comes as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.

Jones issued an apology on Thursday for his past statements. When asked the next day whether Obama still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert
said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration."

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones' name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had allowed the attacks to occur.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Frankly, Mr. Jones, it appears the viciousness is nothing more than your own words coming back to haunt you.

[Note to self: Never take a government job.]

Follow us on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 5, 2009

DE-CONSTRUCTING NANCY PELOSI & HER DEMONS: Why America Doesn't Need a "Public Option" to Lower Prices

The frustrating part of watching the health care debate is this: If lowering the cost of health care were politicians' real motivation, the answer is right in front of them: Since Government has caused the high-cost of health care, get the government out of health care.

Understanding Pelosi's Ploys

Like any good Trotskyite, Nancy Pelosi and her co-conspirators on the Left can only affect "change" by demonizing those who are opposed to their version of reform. Pelosi's op-ed (along with fellow politician Steny Hoyer) calling Americans "un-American" because they are vocally opposed nationalized health care and arrogant politicians is but one example.

Demonization is a tactic that has been used by propagandists the world over, from Josef Goebbels to Saul Alinksy. The Pelosi style of propaganda that has been used repeatedly over the last several years can be summed up with Alinsky's Power Tactics, especially No. 13, which states: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

This tactic worked extremely well for Pelosi & Co. in 2005 and, ultimately, helped she and her fellow Democrats take over Congress in 2006.

Now, in the so-called "health care reform" debates, in addition to ordinary Americans, Pelosi has taken to demonizing insurance companies.

On July 30th, Pelosi used the terms 'villains' and 'immoral' to describe insurance companies.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."
What is causing Pelosi's ire? Is it the high costs of health care? Or, rather, is it that insurance companies don't agree with being nationalized Hugo Chavez style?

The Truth Behind the Left's Lies.

While the pundits, the politicians, as well as the vast majority of Americans agree that health care costs are too high, who is really to blame? The insurance companies? Or is it the ones casting the stones (the politicians)?

To listen to Nancy Pelosi and the Left as they demonize insurance companies, Americans are led to believe that private insurance companies are monopolies. In fact, in a 2008 report, the Urban Institute stated:

Insurance markets have become dominated by a small number of large insurers.
For example, Robinson found that in all but 14 states, three or fewer insurers accounted for 65 percent of the commercial market in 2003.
Of course, claiming that private insurance companies are monopolistic is a problem that, if examined more closely, would solve much of the debate about whether or not America really needs nationalized health care with a "public option" as Pelosi & Co. proposes.

Coercive Monopolies Cannot Exist Without the Coercive Power of Government

According to Wikipedia, a coercive monopoly "is a business concern that prohibits competitors from entering the field, with the natural result being that the firm is able to make pricing and production decisions independent of competitive forces."

Yet, in a free market, a coercive monopoly cannot exist.

As Nathaniel Branden, PhD. wrote in 1962:
One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible.

In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.

A coercive monopoly is not the result of laissez-faire; it can result only from the abrogation of laissez-faire and from the introduction of the opposite principle—the principle of statism.
So, if insurance companies are acting as coercive monopolies, they are doing so with the blessing (or curse) of too much government intervention, not because of a lack of government intervention.

Therefore, in order to lower costs, there must be more competition, not less.

Indeed, if insurance companies are coercive monopolies as the Left suggests, then why doesn't the Justice Department prosecute them under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which was allegedly enacted to prohibit monopolies?

The reason is simple. The reason insurance companies have "monopolies" is because they are state mandated. In other words, the government has created those monopolies that the government in Washington is now demonizing.

The Answer is Less Government, Not More Government.

On August 11th, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey for which he was loudly demonized by the Left, to include a Left-led boycott of Whole Foods [see Alinsky's Rule #13 above].

In his op-ed, Mackey offered a number of sound recommendations to help reduce health care costs which the Left has not responded to [except for their demonization of Mackey and the boycott]. Concerning the monopolistic nature of the insurance companies, Mackey wrote:

  • Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

  • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

  • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
While each of the above are Mackey's recommendations, they also state very well how the government has over-regulated the free market.

  • Individual health insurance is not tax deductible (government caused)
  • Insurance companies cannot compete across state lines in many states (government caused)
  • Insurance companies are mandated on what is covered, thereby reducing choice (government caused)
Of course, since Pelosi & Co. can't wield the government's hammer of anti-trust laws to end insurance companies monopolies (since they are government caused), she must demonize them in order to use the sickle of the government to cut them down through a "public option."

Were government leaders to be serious about true health care reform, they would admit the government is the problem, not the solution with health care costs.

This leads to the question: Is Nancy Pelosi really after lower cost health care, or just a total take over by the government?

Note: The above does not address the other needed reform in health care, which is tort reform. Of course, as Howard Dean acknowledged just a couple of weeks ago, the people who wrote the health care bill do not want to take on the trial lawyers.

Follow us on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share
Enter a long URL to make tiny: