What if Obamacare is Implemented and There are no Doctors Left?

On July 10, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

What if 83% of American Doctors gave up their practice, rather than suffer through the Politboro-driven coming catastrophe known as Obamacare?

Can you imagine?

The Doctors surveyed by the Doctor Patient Medical Association can…and they’ve threatened to do just that.

ABOUT THE SURVEY

The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16, 227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.

SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Doctors from 45 states responded, in addition to 130 who did not provide their geographical information.

Most are in solo or small group practice (81%) and office-based (89%) versus hospital-based (11%).

Most of the doctors are mid-career (77%) and have been in practice between 11 and 30 years.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:

Almost unanimous that medicine is on the wrong track, and overwhelmingly blame the government;

Government-imposed solutions (PPACA, electronic health information) destined to fail;

Highest numbers ever opting out of Medicare or refuse Medicaid;

Vacuum in leadership in medical profession, feel abandoned by AMA & organized medicine;

Corporate medicine (including hospital and insurance companies) is intentionally trying to destroy private practice;

Doctors are pessimistic – failing financially & assume things will worsen;

See doctors and patients as the solution – not government;

Believe direct payment by patients will restore accountability & patient control;

Restored autonomy, elimination of government involvement, increased patient responsibility and free market reforms are solutions.

KEY FINDINGS

90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK

83% say they are thinking about QUITTING

61% say the system challenges their ETHICS

85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN

65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems

72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care

49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients

74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely

52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE

57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them

1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion

2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially

95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE

80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things

70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

The Republic of Texas stated its intentions concerning Obamacare, yesterday…in no uncertain terms:

Governor Rick Perry said on Monday Texas will not implement an expansion of the Medicaid program or create a health insurance exchange, placing the state with the highest percentage of people without insurance outside key parts of President Barack Obama’s signature law.

The announcement makes Texas the most populous state that has rejected the provisions. Some 6.2 million people are without health insurance in Texas, or 24.6 percent of the state population, the highest percentage in the nation. California has more people without insurance but a lower percentage.

Perry joined fellow Republican governors of Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Louisiana in rejecting the two provisions of the law, according to americanhealthline.com. They hope that November elections will result in Republicans winning the White House and enough seats in Congress to repeal the law.

“I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government,” Perry said in a statement.

He sent a letter on Monday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking her to relay the message to Obama that Perry opposes the provisions “because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.”

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a ‘state’ exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better ‘patient protection’ or in more ‘affordable care,'” said Perry, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race in January. “They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Sebelius spokesman Keith Maley said the department “will continue to work with states to ensure they have the flexibility and resources they need to implement” the law known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans are sending a message of their own:

House Republicans this week are launching what some believe is a quixotic push to repeal the health care overhaul, in the latest display of campaign-messaging theater.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., announced that the House of Representatives would vote to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act after the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision to uphold the law.

The opening act begins with a House Rules Committee hearing late Monday afternoon. Members of the panel will set the parameters for the repeal bill’s floor consideration.

Floor debate commences Tuesday in Act II. Expect a long series of speeches from both sides praising or condemning the legislation.

The actual vote on the repeal bill will come Wednesday. The tally will likely fall along party lines much in the same way as the legislation passed in 2010. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the health care overhaul while 34 moderate House Democrats voted no.

This may prove to be a difficult vote for centrist Democrats facing tough reelection battles. Watch for members of the Blue Dog Coalition like Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Larry Kissell, D-N.C., to potentially defect from their party on this issue as they gear up for the fall campaign.

Of course, at this point, with the Senate and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue under the control of the Democrats, this is strictly a symbolic gesture by the Republicans.

…But, at least they will get it on the record before the electoral nuclear explosion (i.e., The World’s Largest Tea Party) scheduled for November 6, 2012.

Americans to Be Disarmed by the U.N.?

On July 7, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics14 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama may be about to make the United States of America subservient to the United Nations.

The following is taken directly from un.org:

Many areas of world trade are covered by regulations that bind countries into agreed conduct. At present, there is no global set of rules governing the trade in conventional weapons. An eclectic set of national and regional control measures and a few global instruments on arms transfers exist, but the absence of a global framework regulating the international trade in all conventional arms has obscured transparency, comparability and accountability.

Governments remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They take decisions on arms transfers across international borders. That is why governments are expected to show responsibility in their decisions regarding arms transfers. This means that before approving international transfers (e.g., exports) of weapons, governments should assess the risk that such transfers would exacerbate conflict or be used to commit grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Concerned by the misuse of weaponry around the world, civil society organizations have successfully mobilized governments and parliamentarians to call for the global regulation of the conventional arms trade. Countries have discussed the matter within the UN since 2006 and are set to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012.

The Washington Times reports that

The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”

Arms Trade Treaty backers argue that because the treaty will only regulate international trade, it poses no threat to individual gun rights. That propaganda aside, defenders of the Second Amendment are right to be suspicious. The recent Obamacare debate over the Constitution’s Commerce Clause highlighted that goods and services need not actually cross state lines to be considered “interstate.” Successive Supreme Court rulings have extended the term to any commerce that even indirectly affects interstate markets – which in practice means all commerce. A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that any weapon made with foreign components – or that might some day be exported, or that affects the overall arms market – could be said to be part of “international” trade.

Per mrctv.com, a former adviser to President Clinton has weighed in:

Dick Morris, political author and commentator, warns of a threat to the Second Amendment Right to bear arms.

Morris cautions that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “On July 27… are going to sign a treaty in New York City which will obligate the United States to participate in a global regime of gun control.”

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a proposal by the United Nations to address the lack of global standards for the international arms trade. Morris concedes that “the theoretical objective of the ATT is to regulate the arms trade,” but bills this claim as “ridiculous because most of the arms trade is done by the governments and this [treaty] does nothing to regulate government arms trafficking.”

Morris claims “the real purpose of this [treaty] is that it will set up an international agency that will be in charge of controlling the flow of arms throughout the world…It really will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies within their own countries to facilitate regulation of flows across borders.”

Furthermore, Morris asserts that “if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, it assumes parody with the second amendment…because the supremacy clause of the constitution says treaties are the law of the land.”

Morris concludes that “for those of us who value the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, this is absolutely pivotal.”

The United States gave their official statement at the third day of the Arms Trade Treaty Conference yesterday, per heritage.org:

…And then there was the U.S. statement, made by Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman. As in July 2011, the U.S. spoke on behalf of the Permanent Five (P5) Members of the Security Council. The statement was banal but obviously important.

The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT.

Finally, the ATT should not enter into force until a reasonable number—Countryman suggested 65—states had ratified it, and he “expects” this number to include the main arms trading states.

Little if any of this is shocking—most surprising was the U.S. support for U.N. propaganda, i.e. activities to “promote the value” of the ATT—but a few points are worth making.

First, Countryman did not mention including small arms, light weapons, or ammunition in the ATT. Second, he made no reference at all to domestic constitutional protections or the need for the ATT to respect hunters and sport shooters and the right of personal self-defense. Finally, he emphasized the need for the national definition of the goods and services covered by the ATT.

In short, the U.S. statement was pure lowest common denominator, which is not surprising: In the context of the ATT, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China in fact agree on very little. The U.S. strategy, thus, continues to be fairly simple: to run interference for the autocracies and to try to secure an ATT that the U.S., Russia, and China can sign on to (which will be an ATT that is very general) in the hope that this will satisfy the broader demand for a treaty.

And that leads to the real conflict in the U.S. position: An ATT that is based on sovereignty cannot at the same time be one that is based on “common international standards” if those standards are in practice defined by the ever-evolving sentiments of the “international community” and tightened regularly by the review conferences that will be found necessary by the unsatisfied majority at this conference.

The problem is…we have a President of the United States of America who believes more in the rights of the “international community” than he does in the sovereignty of his own country.

Rep. Lt. Col. Allen West: Shooting from the Hip

On July 3, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) spoke Sunday at a campaign event in his district, where he said the following about President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmm):

He does not want you to have the self-esteem of getting up and earning, and having that title of American. He’d rather you be his slave.

Lt. Col. West tells it like it is. Check out his Facebook Post from yesterday:

U.S. Manufacturing Shrinks for First Time in 2 Years: U.S. manufacturing shrank in June for the first time in nearly two years, another troubling sign for the economy, which is still faltering under the failed policies of President Obama. The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing managers, reported that its index of manufacturing activity fell to 49.7. That’s down from 53.5 in May and the lowest reading since July 2009. While the President often touts the recent growth of manufacturing jobs, the economy has actually shed 599,000 manufacturing jobs since the month President Obama took office and this news shows the sector could be in more trouble.

Federal Deficit Totals $844.5 Billion Through 8 Months of FY 2012: According to the Department of Treasury, the U.S. has racked up $844.5 billion in deficits through the first eight months (October 2011 – May 2012) of fiscal year 2012, keeping the nation well on track to hit a $1 trillion deficit for the fourth consecutive year. Prior to President Obama taking office, the highest U.S. deficit ever was $458 billion.

President’s Healthcare Law = Reduced Access for Medicare Beneficiaries, Higher Costs for Everyone Else: A May 2012 memo from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) Office of the Actuary discussed the projected payment rates for physician services, currently scheduled to be reduced by 31 percent in 2013 under President Obama’s federal takeover of healthcare law. Updating their original projections from 2010, the memo stated that the fiscal effects of the law would result in negative margins (i.e. unprofitability, or losing money) for a significant percentage of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies. In other words, providers will stop serving Medicare patients, or increase costs for everyone else.

Who is this straight shooter? Wellll, in case you didn’t know:

Congressman Allen West (FL-22) proudly and humbly serves the constituents of Florida’s 22nd district, encompassing parts of beautiful Broward and Palm Beach Counties along South Florida’s coastline. Patriotism is in Congressman West’s blood. Born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia, in the same neighborhood where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr once preached, West is the third of four generations of military servicemen in his family. Before retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, West served as a Field Artillery Officer in several combat zones: in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was battalion commander for the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and in Afghanistan, where he trained Afghan officers to take on the responsibility of securing their own country.

In 2004, when it was time to retire from service, West brought his wife and two young daughters to South Florida, where he taught high school for one year. He then returned to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan army.

In November of 2010, Congressman West was honored to be able to continue his oath of service to his country when he was elected to be a Representative in the United States Congress.

“I have traded in my camouflage uniform for a suit,” West said. “But the commitment to protect the people of the United States is still my mission.”

Congressman West received his Bachelors degree from University of Tennessee and Masters degree from Kansas State University, both in political science. He also holds a Master of Military Arts and Sciences from the US Army Command and General Staff Officer College in political theory and military operations.

In his Army career, Col. West has been honored many times, including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals (one with Valor), and a Valorous Unit Award. He received his valor award as a Captain in Desert Shield/Storm, was the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year in 1993, and was a Distinguished Honor Graduate III Corps Assault School. He proudly wears the Army Master parachutist badge, Air Assault badge, Navy/Marine Corps parachutist insignia, Italian parachutist wings, and German proficiency badge (Bronze award).

Congressman West is an avid distance runner, a certified SCUBA diver, motorcyclist, and attends Community Christian Church in Tamarac Florida.

What this biography, written by the GOP, doesn’t tell you, is the stuff legends are made of, and one of the reasons this man is admired by patriotic Americans and a Tea Party Favorite:

He was the officer in charge on Aug. 20 of that year [2003] when soldiers under his command in Taji, Iraq, beat an Iraqi policeman they believed was hiding information about imminent attacks. Not getting the information he wanted, West took over the interrogation and, according to court reports, discharged his 9 mm pistol just above the policeman’s head. According to West, the Iraqi then spilled the beans about a planned ambush.

The policeman, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi, told The New York Times almost a year later that he had blurted out meaningless information to West out of fear and pain. But West has said that after the confession, no further attacks were made against his battalion until the time he was relieved of duty two months later.

[The LA Times wrote this from their decidedly Liberal point-of-view. Lt. Col. West saved his men. Period.]

West was charged with assault and violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military decided not to court-martial him, which would have meant years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted. Instead, he was given an administrative Article 32 hearing and fined $5,000 for misconduct and assault.

An outpouring of support — the conservative blogosphere characterized West as a victim of a flawed system — and a letter signed by 95 members of Congress to the secretary of the Army may have helped West avoid more serious punishment.

A man like this…do you think he’s worried about how Obama and his sycophants are going to react to what he said Sunday?

Nope. Not a bit.

Thursday, 6/28/12: This Could Be the Start of Something Great

On June 26, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

Well, as everybody knows, (even Harvard graduates) this Thursday is shaping up to be Bad Day at Black Rock for President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Not only is the Supreme Court of the United States going to deliver its ruling on the Socialist Healthcare Plan known as Obamacare, but this nation’s House of Representatives are going to hold a vote as to whether to hold United States Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his obfuscation of his role in Operation Fast and Furious, the sanctioned mission by the Obama Administration that wound up causing the deaths of over 200 Mexican nationals and 2 American Law Enforcement Officers.

How did America get to this point?

In the case of Obamacare…

The nation’s highest court heard three days of politically charged hearings in March on the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a landmark but controversial measure passed by congressional Democrats despite pitched Republican opposition.

The challenge focused primarily on the law’s requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine.

How SCOTUS rulings could shape 2012 race Bachmann: Obama not talking health care

Supporters of the plan argued the “individual mandate” is necessary for the system to work, while critics argued it is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual freedom.

All sides preparing for political fallout from health care decision

Four different federal appeals courts heard challenges to parts of the law before the Supreme Court ruling, and came up with three different results.

Courts in Cincinnati and Washington voted to uphold the law, while the appeals court in Atlanta struck down the individual mandate.

A fourth panel, in Richmond, Virginia, put its decision off until penalties for failing to buy health insurance take effect in 2014.

The polarizing law, dubbed “Obamacare” by many, is the signature legislation of Obama’s time in office.

After a lengthy and heated debate marked by intense opposition from the health insurance industry and conservative groups, the law passed Congress along strictly partisan lines in March 2010.

When Obama signed the legislation later that month, he called it historic said it marked a “new season in America.”

While it was not the comprehensive national health care system liberals initially sought, supporters said the law would reduce health care costs, expand coverage and protect consumers.

The law establishes a staged series of reforms over several years, including banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, forbidding insurers from setting a dollar limit on health coverage payouts, and requiring them to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers.

It also required individuals to buy health insurance, either through their employers or a state-sponsored exchange, or face a fine beginning in 2014.

Supporters argue the individual mandate is critical to the success of the legislation, because it expands the pool of people paying for insurance and ensures that healthy people do not opt out of buying insurance until they needed it.

Critics said the provision gave the government too much power over what they said should be a personal economic decision.

Twenty-six states led by Florida say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a “product” they may neither want nor need. And they argue that if that provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go.

The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not “choose” whether to participate in the health care market.

The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed almost every traditional hot-button topic: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy.

And, regarding Attorney General Eric Holder…

Republican leaders plan to bring the issue to the floor on Thursday, meaning lawmakers likely will vote on contempt charges on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care reform law.

The timing likely deprives advocates for contempt charges of the big headlines they might have received if the vote were held another day this week.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)said Sunday that the vote could still be postponed or scrapped if Holder and Justice Department officials present congressional investigators with documents related to a probe intoOperation “Fast and Furious,” the botched gun-running operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives out of its Phoenix offices between 2009 and 2011.

If the House votes to hold him in contempt, Holder would be the first U.S. attorney general in history held in contempt of Congress. The matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — a Justice Department employee and Obama administration appointee — who would have to decide whether to bring criminal charges against the attorney general, his boss.

It should be an exciting Thursday to say the least, Bat-fans.

What has me puzzled is the rampant pessimism which I’ve seen so far in the posts of those identifying themselves as Conservatives. If you’ve read some of these Eeyore-ish missives on Conservative Websites, you would think that the justices have already ruled 9 – 0 in favor of Obamacare and the House had voted not to hold the shady Attorney General in contempt.

What in the name of Dow Jones and all his little averages is a’goin’ on here?

In the words of a memorable speech given by the late Sen. John Blutarsky:

Bluto: Hey! What’s all this laying around stuff? Why are you all still laying around here for?

Stork: What the hell are we supposed to do, ya moron? We’re all expelled. There’s nothing to fight for anymore.

D-Day: [to Bluto] Let it go. War’s over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter: [to Boon] Germans?

Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

Bluto: And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough…

[thinks hard of something to say]

Bluto: The tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go!

[Bluto runs out, alone; then returns]

Bluto: What the !@#$ happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst. “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my !@# from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Wormer, he’s a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer…

Otter: Dead! Bluto’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right. We gotta take these b!@#$%^s. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.

D-Day: [stands up] Yeah, I agree. Let’s go get ’em.

Boon: Let’s do it.

Bluto: [shouting] “Let’s do it”!

This is no time for Eeyore-ism. This is no time for squishiness. This is not a time for “reaching across the aisle”. This is not a time for defeatism.

This is a time for Americans to stand up on their hind legs, and to show the world what makes us the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Walk tall. Talk loud. Be Proud. BE AMERICANS.

And, if that doesn’t fire you up, remember this:

Anticipation…It’s Makin’ Me Wait…

On June 25, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Sitting here on a Sunday night, wondering what to write about, I realized that this is the week that could provide a double “death blow” to Obama’s sorry excuse of a presidency. And now, I probably won’t sleep a lick tonight.

The Washington Post reports that

The Supreme Court this week will conclude its term by handing down much-anticipated rulings on health careand immigration, President Obama’s remaining priorities before the justices. It is a finale that cannot come quickly enough for the administration, which has had a long year at the high court.

In a string of cases — as obscure as the federal government’s relationships with Indian tribes and as significant as enforcement of the Clean Water Act — the court rejected the administration’s legal arguments with lopsided votes and sometimes biting commentary.

The administration’s win-loss record will sting a lot less, of course, if the court upholds the constitutionality of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act. That decision on health care, which will define the term, could come as early as Monday and almost certainly will be announced by Thursday.

The court also will decide the fate of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, which the Obama administration challenged in court before it could take effect. The government’s argument that the law conflicts with the federal authority to decide immigration policy got a sour reception from the justices, but the government hopes for at least a split decision on other aspects of the measure.

The administration’s ungainly portfolio at the Supreme Court this term has drawn attention from all points on the ideological spectrum.

Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the government is to blame for “outlandish claims of federal power” that the court was correct to reject.

Adam Winkler, a liberal law professor at UCLA, recently wrote that the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been “unusually hostile to the Obama administration.”

His conclusion: “This is the year of the Supreme Court’s Obama smack down.”

It might also have something to do with the (bad) luck of the draw. It is the job of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. to defend the actions of Congress and the executive. In some of the government’s high-profile losses in Verrilli’s inaugural term, the administration was defending decisions made long before Obama took office.

But whatever the reasons, the losses so far cannot be blamed on the conflict between an increasingly conservative court and a progressive administration. For instance, the authors of the Indian cases that went against the government last week were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama’s choices for the court.

At least so far, 5-to-4 decisions that have divided the court along ideological lines have split fairly evenly between wins for liberals and for conservatives. And there has been a string of high-profile losses in which the government has failed to win the vote of a single justice — liberal or conservative.

The New York Times has their own Liberal Spin on the fate of Obamacare…and it appears to this humble blooger that these Yankees are proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Late on Tuesday, March 27, halfway around the world, President Obama began one of the most suspenseful waits in recent presidential history.

After a blur of nuclear security meetings in South Korea, Mr. Obama settled into the Air Force One conference room to read a summary aides had written of that day’s arguments before the Supreme Court back in Washington. The justices had asked deeply skeptical questions about his health care law.

Mr. Obama’s most profound policy achievement was at much higher risk of defeat than his aides had expected, vulnerable to being erased by the margin of a single justice’s vote.

Since then, Mr. Obama and the White House have put on brave faces, insisting that the law and the mandate at its center will be upheld when the court rules this month. In private conversations, they predict that the bulk of the law will survive even if the mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance does not.

But even if the White House is a fortress of message discipline, it cannot disguise the potential heartbreak for Mr. Obama, who managed to achieve a decades-old Democratic dream despite long odds and at steep cost.

If he loses both his law and re-election, many will conclude “that he bet on his major reform, and the Supreme Court defeated it, and he lost his hold on the presidency,” Robert Dallek, the presidential historian, said in an interview.

On the day the ruling comes out, one Obama adviser joked, “I might have to clean out my sock drawer.”

In grappling with what the court may do, Mr. Obama and his advisers now appear to be far past the denial stage (when they dismissed constitutional challenges) but nowhere near acceptance (they still believe the law will be upheld.) Instead, they have quietly entered a surprising new state that might be called Learning to Live Without Universal Coverage.

Former advisers are emphasizing the many aspects of the bill that are not connected to the mandate, like the subsidies to buy insurance. Some aides even argue privately that losing the mandate could be a political boon, because it would rob Republicans of their core complaint against the law.

But that position is uncomfortable for a deeper reason, one that goes to the core of who Mr. Obama wanted to be as president. Earlier in his term, he refused every chance to settle for the more limited health care overhaul that the Supreme Court may now effectively deliver, making epic sacrifices to win something far broader.

Or, geniuses, they could toss out the whole cotton-pickin’ abomination…if we’re lucky.

Obama and Romney Vie for Illegals’ Votes

On June 15, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics13 Comments

I knew a fellow named Jose several years ago. Jose’s family had immigrated from Puerto Rico to Milwaukee when he was 6 years old. When we met, he lived in Northeastern Mississippi with his wife and 3 children. Jose had a good job at Fed Ex. Then, he got laid off.

After he lost his job, Jose became a handy man to make ends meet. He mowed yards and painted houses. He wound up with a solid business.

One time, when he was painting a room for me, I asked Jose about illegal immigration. A grimace came over his usually smiling face. He said that he resented these people sneaking into this country, while he and so many others, came in the right way.

Then there’s George. George is a 3rd generation Hispanic American. George served in Vietnam, and now lives outside of Detroit, after retiring from GM. George can’t speak a word of Spanish. A few summers ago, George was riding his Harley all the way to Arizona to visit a buddy whom he served with. My bride and I were dating at the time. Since George is married to her cousin, he spent the night at my place.

We talked all afternoon. While we were talking, I asked George what he thought about the “newcomers”. He said they needed to become citizens, period.

He was right.

However, I don’t think that he meant the way President Barack Hussein Obama wants to git-r-done.

The Obama Administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age.

The politically charged decision comes as Obama faces a tough reelection fight against Republican Mitt Romney, and Hispanic voters in swing states will play a crucial role in the contest.

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday.

In a Rose Garden statement, President Obama said the measure would “lift the shadow of deportation” from immigrants, some of who have made “extraordinary contributions” by “serving in our military and protecting our freedom.”

“That we would treat them as expendable makes no sense,” Obama said.

“They study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods … they pledge allegiance to our flag, they are Americans in their hearts and minds … and in every single way but one: on paper.”

Obama was briefly interrupted by a reporter during his statement, a rare breach of protocol that caused the president to lose his temper.

“Excuse me sir, it’s not time for questions, sir, not while I’m speaking,” Obama said.

Later in his statement, Obama, pointing his finger at the reporter in front of the live TV cameras, said: “And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I prefer you to let me finish by statements before you ask a question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people. I didn’t ask for an argument, I’m answering your question.”

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

A memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordering the “prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children” argued that those covered by the order “only know this country as home.” It said these people “lacked the intent to violate the law.”

The new policy will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.

The policy change will accomplish portions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress amid Republican opposition.

Never fear, Americans. Mitt Romney will save us from this unconstitutional abuse of power!

Err…ahhh…never mind:

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney suggested Friday that he was open to helping young illegal immigrants but said the new policy announced Friday by the Obama administration to suspend their deportations complicates efforts to find a permanent solution.

“I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country,” Romney told reporters after a rally in New Hampshire. “I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution,” noting the new policy “could be reversed by subsequent presidents. I’d like to see legislation that deals with this issue.

His comments represented a sharp change in rhetoric from the Republican primaries, when Romney repeatedly sought to outflank his rivals with a hard line on illegal immigration.

I have a question for Scooter and Mittens…

What part of the word “illegal” do you not understand? What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural born or naturalized American citizens. In fact, their entry into this sacred land is no better than that of someone who breaks into someone’s home, does their dishes, cuts their yard, cleans their house, and then helps themselves to their food and drives their car without asking. This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given. And with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way. Illegal immigration reminds me of the amorous boyfriend who wants everything a young woman will give him, but will leave her at the first mention of marriage. This is not a civil rights issue. Illegals do not have the same rights as American citizens. With our rights, come the responsibilities of being an American citizen.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, expect for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

But, hey…I guess that’s just me.

Back on the Choom Gang

On June 14, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, veteran presidential biographer David Maraniss, whose book about “Bubba” Clinton, First In His Class, is considered the finest recount of the life of young Bubba, published his new book about the mysterious young life of the 44th President of the United States titled Barack Obama: The Story.

According to Maraniss:

A self-selected group of boys at Punahou School who loved basketball and good times called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning “to smoke marijuana.”

…As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends. The first was called “TA,” short for “total absorption.” To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled.

…Along with TA, Barry popularized the concept of “roof hits”: when they were chooming in the car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.

…When you were with Barry and his pals, if you exhaled precious pakalolo (Hawaiian slang for marijuana, meaning “numbing tobacco”) instead of absorbing it fully into your lungs, you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around. “Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated,” explained one member of the Choom Gang, Tom Topolinski, the Chinese-looking kid with a Polish name who answered to Topo.

…[Choom Gang member] Mark Bendix’s Volkswagen bus, also known as the Choomwagon. … The other members considered Mark Bendix the glue, he was funny, creative, and uninhibited, with a penchant for Marvel Comics. He also had that VW bus and a house with a pool, a bong, and a Nerf basketball, all enticements for them to slip off midday for a few unauthorized hours of recreation…

…Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

Fast Forward to 2012. Could the former Barry Soetoro be plotting another “interception”? Because if he tries to do what this writer is surreptitiously suggesting he might, ol’ Scooter must still be chooming:

Elspeth Reeve reports for theatlanticwire.com that

In 2004 George W. Bush’s re-election campaign worked to put anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives up for vote in several swing states in order to turn out more hard-core conservatives to the polls. This year the question is whether marijuana legalization measures will turn out young voters for Obama.

Bush’s plan to use gay marriage bans — in states that did not actually allow gay marriage — as a turnout booster led to signs featuring icky public restroom symbols proliferated and liberal panic that the Christian right had taken over. The press obsessed over “values voters.” One of Bush’s aides, Ken Mehlman, who later came out as gay himself, has apologized for the strategy, two others say it didn’t work.

This year there’s another incumbent president with modest approval ratings who could turn out his base with controversial ballot measures. But this time, the issue features no biblical or scatological imagery. In 2012, voters in swing states will decide whether they’ll allow their fellow citizens to bear joints. Unlike the gay marriage votes, there’s no indication that Obama’s re-election team is behind any of the pot legalization initiatives, but there are Democrats who are hoping that it will boost turnout among weed’s biggest fans: young people.

Getting more young people to vote has long been a Democratic fantasy, since they tend to vote so heavily Democratic. But past attempts to bong the vote have been disappointing, in part because stoners aren’t the group anyone would most count on to bother filling out a ballot. Ahead of the 2010 midterms, The Wall Street Journal ran the story, “Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012,” noting that California’s pot-legalizing Proposition 19 was being studied to see if similar measures “could energize young, liberal voters in swing states for the 2012 presidential election.” But exit polls that year showed no spike in young voter turnout, and marijuana legalization was the top issue for just 1 in 10 voters, the Los Angeles Times reported. (Also: Californians ended up voting down Prop. 19.) Still, there were hopeful signs: 64 percent of voters 18-to-24 supported it, and 52 percent of voters 25-to-29 did. In March, the pro-legalization site Just Say Now suggested that the presidential election will draw more young people to the polls, and they’ll vote for pot legalization while they’re there.

That being said, several have argued that this could be the year for pro-marijuana turnout. After all, 2011 was the first year more young people smoked pot than cigarettes, the CDC says. There is a marijuana initiative on the ballot in Washington, and there might be one in Nebraska and Massachusetts, but those states are pretty solid for one party or the other.

I wouldn’t put it past Obama to support legalization in a last ditch effort to avoid a political massacre.

Why do you think they call it DOPE?

Obama: Data Mining for Fun and Profit

On June 10, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

In this technology-driven age, where you can remotely view the lives of other Americans, through the magic of Web 2.0, the art of data mining has become more and more valuable.

What is data mining? Is there a little tiny prospector living in my computer?

According to theatlantic.com:

Discovering information from data takes two major forms: description and prediction. At the scale we are talking about, it is hard to know what the data shows. Data mining is used to simplify and summarize the data in a manner that we can understand, and then allow us to infer things about specific cases based on the patterns we have observed. Of course, specific applications of data mining methods are limited by the data and computing power available, and are tailored for specific needs and goals. However, there are several main types of pattern detection that are commonly used. These general forms illustrate what data mining can do.

Anomaly detection : in a large data set it is possible to get a picture of what the data tends to look like in a typical case. Statistics can be used to determine if something is notably different from this pattern. For instance, the IRS could model typical tax returns and use anomaly detection to identify specific returns that differ from this for review and audit.

Association learning: This is the type of data mining that drives the Amazon recommendation system. For instance, this might reveal that customers who bought a cocktail shaker and a cocktail recipe book also often buy martini glasses. These types of findings are often used for targeting coupons/deals or advertising. Similarly, this form of data mining (albeit a quite complex version) is behind Netflix movie recommendations.

Cluster detection: one type of pattern recognition that is particularly useful is recognizing distinct clusters or sub-categories within the data. Without data mining, an analyst would have to look at the data and decide on a set of categories which they believe captures the relevant distinctions between apparent groups in the data. This would risk missing important categories. With data mining it is possible to let the data itself determine the groups. This is one of the black-box type of algorithms that are hard to understand. But in a simple example – again with purchasing behavior – we can imagine that the purchasing habits of different hobbyists would look quite different from each other: gardeners, fishermen and model airplane enthusiasts would all be quite distinct. Machine learning algorithms can detect all of the different subgroups within a dataset that differ significantly from each other.

Classification: If an existing structure is already known, data mining can be used to classify new cases into these pre-determined categories. Learning from a large set of pre-classified examples, algorithms can detect persistent systemic differences between items in each group and apply these rules to new classification problems. Spam filters are a great example of this – large sets of emails that have been identified as spam have enabled filters to notice differences in word usage between legitimate and spam messages, and classify incoming messages according to these rules with a high degree of accuracy.

Regression: Data mining can be used to construct predictive models based on many variables. Facebook, for example, might be interested in predicting future engagement for a user based on past behavior. Factors like the amount of personal information shared, number of photos tagged, friend requests initiated or accepted, comments, likes etc. could all be included in such a model. Over time, this model could be honed to include or weight things differently as Facebook compares how the predictions differ from observed behavior. Ultimately these findings could be used to guide design in order to encourage more of the behaviors that seem to lead to increased engagement over time.

Predictive behavior. Hmmm. Like, which presidential candidate an American is going to vote for?

The Obama Administration is betting the house that they can predict the mood of the country through data mining.

Per politico.com:

The depth and breadth of the Obama campaign’s 2012 digital operation — from data mining to online organizing — reaches so far beyond anything politics has ever seen, experts maintain, that it could impact the outcome of a close presidential election. It makes the president’s much-heralded 2008 social media juggernaut — which raised half billion dollars and revolutionized politics — look like cavemen with stone tablets.

The article goes on to say that the difference between 2008’s campaign and 2012’s is the fact that Obama’s Campaign Staff have:

• Created a holistic, totally in-house digital operation that is the largest department at campaign headquarters. In 2008, much of the social media and video was generated organically from supporters. As one campaign official put it, “digital is no longer a part of the campaign. It is the campaign.”

• Hired a number of nonpolitical tech innovators, software engineers and statisticians. “It has been incredibly freeing, because all election campaigns are a slave to history, and the history here is just nonexistent,” says Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “So, we’ve been able to kind of reinvent it.”

• Invested mightily in cutting-edge technology that scales the website to fit the screen of any device. With nearly half of the U.S. population using smart phones, “responsive design” allows a user to give money and volunteer without bifocals. “More than 40 percent of all our donors are new, and a lot of them are coming in because of things like this,” says Messina. “Call up our website and try to donate on your phone and then do Romney’s. … Those things are important, because people are busy and people want to help us and they think about — ‘Oh, yeah, I saw the president on TV. I want to give them money. How hard is it?’ ”

• Developed a more complex symbiosis between the campaign and Facebook, which is 10 times bigger than it was four years go, and has far more personal information available to mine. “Facebook was just a site to see friends four year ago now it is part of people’s DNA,” notes a senior campaign adviser. Obama invites supporters to log on to the campaign through their Facebook accounts, which gives the campaign one more avenue for data.

• Opened the first all-volunteer. all-digital office in San Francisco where knowledgeable techies drop in for a few hours and strive to develop new software for the campaign under the supervision of paid staff.

• Staffed a full-time digital director in each of about a dozen battleground states to effectively run mini-general election campaigns in those states.

Now, it seems to me, that, analyzing results gleaned from a data base, is a poor substitute for actually listening to the American people.

But, hey, I guess that’s just my opinion.

Overcoming Obama’s Economy

On June 9, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics15 Comments

Have you ever said something really ig’nant and had to back off from it?

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) had to deal with that embarrassing situation yesterday.

He did some moondancing that the late Michael Jackson would be envious of:

President Obama on Friday afternoon backed away from his earlier comments that the “private sector is doing fine,” telling reporters that he does not believe the economy is doing fine.

“That’s precisely why I asked Congress to start taking some steps that can make a difference,” Mr. Obama said in brief remarks to reporters during a meeting with the visiting Philippines president.

Republicans had seized on comments Mr. Obama made during an earlier news conference, in which he repeatedly made the point that hiring at private businesses is doing well, while hiring by state and local government is not.

“The private sector is doing fine,” Mr. Obama said at the news conference.

But by later in the day, Mr. Obama had decided to emphasize that he does not believe that the overall economy is doing fine, as Republicans were trying to suggest.

“Listen, it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine,” he said. He suggested that Republicans had misstated his words from earlier in the day.

“I think if you look at what I said this morning, what I’ve been saying consistently over the last year, we’ve actually seen some good momentum in the private sector,” he said. “There’s been 4.3 million jobs created, 800,000 this year alone, record corporate profits.”

He added: “And so that has not been the biggest drag on the economy.”

Mr. Obama said the economy “needs to be strengthened,” adding that “I believe that there are a lot of Americans who are hurting right now, which is what I’ve been saying for the last year, two years, three years, what I’ve been saying since I came into office.”

Obama’s feckless Economic Plan has done about as much good for our country as a screen door on a submarine.

I know. I was one of those affected by it.

Beginning in January of 2009, I attempted to sell Health Insurance, first with AFLAC, then as an agent with an Independent Broker.

I gave it my best shot, battling against Obama’s war on the American Healthcare System. However, as I soon found out, creditors don’t take promises as collateral.

Desperate to try to bring some money into the household, a good friend of mine told me about an opportunity for a technology internship, working with a quasi-governmental non-profit agency that came in from Canada to work with the schools after Hurricane Katrina.

At the age of 52, I became the world’s oldest intern.

I began with them in January of 2011, working at a local school for 30 hours a week and the local branch of the state Employment Office for the remaining 10 hours each week.

It was a good experience. The Lord taught me humility, while allowing me to catch up with technology, such as Skype and interactive whiteboards. I also had the opportunity to work with some great professionals, and some great young interns.

While at the Employment Office, I was able to observe folks down on their luck, struggling to find work and survive in this economy.

I also saw American families whose existance living on the Government Dole, had become generational.

It is these people whom Obama and the Democrats have hypnotized into believing that Uncle Sugar loves them, and is their only solution to surviving a stifling existence.

They are so, so wrong.

The strength and vitality of America does not come from the benevolence of a Nanny-state Federal Government.

As the greatest American President of our lifetime, Ronald Reagan said:

The nine words you never want to hear are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.

Being enslaved to the Government Dole steals one’s ambition. It takes away any impetus or desire to create a better life for yourself and your family, to challenge yourself to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pursue the American Dream. It makes you reliant on a politically-motivated spider’s web full of government bureaucrats who view you and your family as job security.

I watched American citizens trapped in this web of government bureaucracy, so numbed of any initiative that they once had, that they seemed offended that they actually had to prove that they inquired about three jobs that week in order to keep their “benefits”. Others seemed puzzled that they had to search through the state data base and pick out a job that they wanted to talk to an interviewer about receiving a referral to, and weren’t just simply handed a job when they walked through the door.

My last day as an intern was yesterday. This Monday, I begin an new adventure. Thanks to another very good friend, I was given the opportunity to interview for a position at a 100 person, 5-company corporation.

Last Saturday, my friend called me with the good news: I got the job!

The title: Vice-President of Marketing.

I’ll be doing some Internet Marketing, including Blogging and Tweeting, writing press releases and newsletters, attending Chamber of Commerce Meetings, and, of course, other duties as assigned.

It wasn’t Uncle Sugar/the Obama Administration that gave me this job.

It was a God thing and I hope you understand.

May his days be few; may another take his office!

Conservatism Rules! My 800th Blog

On June 8, 2012June 8, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

Today, I am writing my 800th blog. It seems like just the other day that my good friend, Col. Manly Rash, Gene Hoyas, now known as the Bulldog Pundit (genehoyas.com), was asking me to contribute my thoughts to his website. Thank you, Gene, for all of your advice and unflinching support.

I began my own blog in April of 2010. Since then, I’ve had the opportunity to share my thoughts with 113, 504 readers, and have been quoted on such websites as Texas Conservatives for Palin, OpenCongress,The Top Ten Conservatives to Follow on Twitter, and, of course, genehoyas.com.

So, my Conservative friends…are we making a difference?

You betcha!

Mark Halperin is singing a Democratic Dirge on time.com:

With five months until Election Day, Barack Obama faces a grim new reality: Republicans now believe Mitt Romney can win, and Democrats believe Obama can lose … Last week’s anemic job-creation and economic-growth data was sandwiched between two Bill Clinton specials: in one television interview, the 42nd President lauded Romney’s business record as “sterling”; in another, he veered from the Obama line on the extension of Bush-era tax cuts … The failure to unseat Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker in a recall election was another bad sign for Democrats since it will rev up conservatives nationwide, including the kind of millionaires who gave big bucks to Walker’s effort … Veteran Democratic strategists from previous presidential bids and on Capitol Hill now wonder if the Obama re-election crew is working with the right message … The White House remains on a rough political trajectory, with a potentially adverse Supreme Court decision on the Obama health care law looming, additional bad economic news from Europe coming and more worrisome polling pending … Another danger for the President: the media freak show. Stalking that circus’ center ring is Matt Drudge, whose caustic website continues to help drive the news cycle with an emphasis on negative, mocking items about Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and their wives. The latest sign of Drudge’s potency: Ed Klein, the author of the virulently anti-Obama book The Amateur, was barred from major TV appearances and mostly ignored by the mainstream media, but the book’s prominence on Drudge’s website propelled it to the No. 1 slot on the New York Times nonfiction list.

Cry me a river, Mark. You guys have been supporting a socialist, anti-American, pompous jackwagon and a poor excuse for a president since the Great Pretender somehow got his amaciated hindquarters elected to the most important job in the Free World.

Well, about now, some of you “Fiscal Conservatives”, up in the Northeastern Corridor, otherwise known as Liberals, are saying:

Wait a second, you Mississippi Hick! You can’t call Obama a SOCIALIST! He’s just a “good guy who’s in over his head”.

Yeah, right. And I’m a 22 year old, blonde Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader named Buffy.

Stanley Kurtz writes on nationalreview.com that

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

So…where was the Main Stream Media, back in 2008, when this Marxist was running for president?

Why, they were proclaiming him as their messiah. He was going to make the oceans rise and fall with the wave of his majestic hand.

Sho’ ’nuff, he’s made a lot of things fall in this nation:

the number of Americans that have a job, our financial rating, our international prestige, our world academic standing, and the inherent class and decorum of the office of the American President.

On the other hand, he did make one thing rise: Americans’ blood pressure.

Fear not. Better days are ahead.

The past is a memory. The future is a promise. Today is a gift. That’s why it is called the present.

Thank you for putting up with me. God Bless You All!

Kingsjester's Blog

Tag: Obama