Lincoln Republican abolishes slavery, Obama Democrat brings it back

Original Post: ABC News

"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”

There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.

Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.

There are death panels in Obamacare? I can't *****ing belive it!

Barack Obama Fully Embraces Death Panels
Orignial Post: Red State

Posted by Erick Erickson

While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.

According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels “will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”

We already know what they’ll recommend as “the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending”. Barack Obama’s own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they’re going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: “protecting access to the services seniors need.” Dying people, according to Obama’s advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.

“We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. . . . If we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare,” Obama said. At a time Democrats are saying Republicans want to starve old people to death, Democrats are intent on embracing a cost savings model for Medicare that incentivizes doctors to encourage people to die and, when all else fails, gives a death panel “the authority to make additional savings by” ensuring the dying elderly die quickly.

“Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself,” Obama said. Really? The only way that will happen is by rationing. You may not like the use of the phrase “death panel,” but make no mistake about it — at the end of your life, in Barack Obama’s America, his death panel will throw you under the bus in a way much closer to reality than metaphor.

Communists, socialists rallying support behind Madison protests

Original Post: Yahoo

John Rossomando - The Daily Caller John Rossomando - The Daily Caller – Fri Feb 25, 1:27 pm ET

Communist and socialist groups — including the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Party USA, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and the Democratic Socialists of America — are voicing their support for the public-sector unions protesting Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s plans to curtail their collective bargaining abilities.

The communist and socialist groups have parroted many of the union talking points being used by the unions on their websites and in their publications, such as those accusing the governor of trying to break their unions. They have also compared Walker to former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

“Egypt, whose revolution has been a constant source of inspiration here, reflected in signs and chants — and Walker’s new nickname, Gov. Mubarak,” an article reads from the International Socialist Organization’s webzine.

The webzine also describes the unions’ protest of Walker’s plans to force a vote on curtailing public-sector unions as “class war in Wisconsin” and as an affront to “the standard of living of working people.”

The formerly Soviet-backed Communist Party USA (CPUSA) echoed similar talking points.

“Using the deficit as a scare tactic, the right-wing corporate Republicans are on a fast track to defeat every initiative of the Obama administration, to destroy unions and public services at the federal, state and municipal level, and at the same time protect tax breaks for the richest few,” Joelle Fishman, chair of the CPUSA’s Political Action Commission, wrote in an article posted on her party’s website.

Fishman went on to call on a “broad alliance of forces for social change (labor, racially oppressed, women, youth)” to reframe the debate for the 2012 elections.

The website of the Socialist Workers Party’s newspaper, The Militant, bears a photo of a sign proclaiming “Walker is an enemy of the people.”

Over in the Workers World Party’s newspaper Workers World, the presence of the student participants in the demonstrations is described as “as one of the most urgent tasks for young people at the moment.”

This says a lot more about the unions’ political orientation than it does about these fringe groups that have thrown their support behind the union protesters, according to noted author and former communist-turned-conservative activist Ron Radosh.

Radosh doesn’t believe the communist and socialist groups have been orchestrating the protests, but their willingness to speak the same language as the unions shows how far to the left the public-sector unions have moved.

“Their positions are the same as the unions, and that’s not surprising,” Radosh said. “But if you try to prove or show the level of cooperation there, it is very difficult to show that.”

At the same time, Radosh says both the communists and the unions have resorted to trotting out the same talking points communists and other radicals used in the 1930s.

But he cautions against labeling the unions as socialist or communist because they largely do not advocate overthrowing the current system.

For some reason Venezuala is allowed to nationalize American companies

Original Post: Reuters

By Deisy Buitrago

CARACAS | Thu Mar 5, 2009 6:04pm EST

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela on Thursday said it has no plans to take over any additional holdings of U.S. food giant Cargill after leftist President Hugo Chavez ordered the seizure of the rice plant, renewing his nationalization drive.

Chavez's clash with the food companies, demanding they produce cheaper rice, came less than three weeks after he won a referendum on allowing him to run for reelection and marked his first nationalization in seven months.

The move shows he is likely to continue his combative style as the OPEC nation, faced with tumbling oil revenues that form the backbone of its economy, slowly begins to feel the effects of the global economic crisis.

"The measure only includes the rice plant," said Agriculture Minister Elias Jaua, adding the government has taken control of the mill and would seek an amicable agreement in its nationalization.

But he admonished Cargill, which has 2,000 employees and 13 manufacturing plants around the country, for failing to comply with government regulations that foreign investors have often found onerous.

"The state will not accept a violation of the law, it will now accept disobedience," he told reporters. "We did what the law requires us to do."

The government this week temporarily occupied rice mills owned by Venezuela's top food company Empresas Polar, which on Thursday called for dialogue and increased cooperation after Chavez said he could nationalize the entire company.

"We have maintained that the best way to increase Venezuela's food (production) is through dialogue and close collaboration between the government, agricultural producers ... and consumers," Polar said on Thursday in response to Chavez's threat.

Chavez has often followed through on his nationalization threats, taking over oil, electricity, steel, cement and telecommunications companies. Sometimes, however, threatened companies have averted seizures by bowing to Chavez's demands.

The anti-U.S. president is popular among the poor for pressuring companies to produce cheap goods and for government programs that provide subsidized food in city slums.

But Polar, the producer of Venezuela's top beer brand and key staple products such as corn flour, is also highly regarded among the OPEC nation's poor.

Chavez, an ally of Communist Cuba, said the seizure of rice mills belonging to Polar this week was temporary but warned he could take over the whole company permanently if it kept defying him.

He accuses the food industry of skirting price controls and failing to produce enough cheap rice.

The recent moves to tighten the government's grip over food supplies are criticized by the private sector and many economists who say it could contribute to food shortages.

One of the United States' largest privately-owned companies, Cargill employs 2,000 people at a dozen plants in Venezuela. It was not clear if Chavez intends to expropriate Cargill's local operations or just its one rice plant.

Cargill said on Wednesday night it was "respectful" of Venezuela's decision but seeks talks to resolve the situation.

(Writing by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel and Kieran Murray)

Castro says Cuban model doesn't work

Original Post: Yahoo News

By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 8, 3:18 pm ET

HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

He said Castro made the comment casually over lunch following a long talk about the Middle East, and did not elaborate. The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg's account.

Since stepping down from power in 2006, the ex-president has focused almost entirely on international affairs and said very little about Cuba and its politics, perhaps to limit the perception he is stepping on his brother's toes.

Goldberg, who traveled to Cuba at Castro's invitation last week to discuss a recent Atlantic article he wrote about Iran's nuclear program, also reported on Tuesday that Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, including his recommendation to Soviet leaders that they use nuclear weapons against the United States.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.

The state controls well over 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in return for free health care and education, and nearly free transportation and housing. At least a portion of every citizen's food needs are sold to them through ration books at heavily subsidized prices.

President Raul Castro and others have instituted a series of limited economic reforms, and have warned Cubans that they need to start working harder and expecting less from the government. But the president has also made it clear he has no desire to depart from Cuba's socialist system or embrace capitalism.

Fidel Castro stepped down temporarily in July 2006 due to a serious illness that nearly killed him.

He resigned permanently two years later, but remains head of the Communist Party. After staying almost entirely out of the spotlight for four years, he re-emerged in July and now speaks frequently about international affairs. He has been warning for weeks of the threat of a nuclear war over Iran.

Castro's interview with Goldberg is the only one he has given to an American journalist since he left office.

The left wants us to invade England?

AND

Seize BP

I'm not sure if they know this or not but BP stands for "Beyond Petroleum" which was formerly "British Petroleum". It still is a BRITISH BASED COMPANY!

So the same liberals who claimed we were illegally invading
Iraq now want us to nationalize a private, foreign company, under the preview of our Allies? What world do we live in?

We're already causing economic harm to our British Ally now we're supposed to seize their property too? Can't we limit our authoritarian theft of private property to our own county? Apparently not.

Russia privatizes health care as America socializes it

Original Post: NCBI
by: M Ryan

In the Russian Federation privatisation is affecting the health care sector as much as it is industry and commerce. That the general public support the transfer of state clinics to the private sector is a mark of their dissatisfaction with the old state run system. Doctors too see better opportunities to practise good medicine and be paid better for doing so. In Moscow the health department has set up a commission to license all clinics providing treatment, which should ensure standards of safety, training, and equipment. The Russian Federation is also trying to establish a medical insurance system to cover its citizens for health care, but in Moscow and elsewhere its implementation has been delayed by arguments and bureaucracy. In the meantime the health of Muscovites remains poor, with a high incidence of birth defects, and illnesses among the young.

You've Made Enough Money

Another socialist comment from Dear Leader? I'm shocked.

Howard Dean says the Health Care bill is designed to redistribute wealth

How much more proof do we need that this current administration is at least socialist. He doesn't say it's going to make our country healthier or reduce costs, he says it's going to redistribute wealth.

NYT/CBS Poll: 52% Say Obama Moving America Towards Socialism

Original Post: CNS News
By: Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – A New York Times/CBS News poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, think the policies of President Barack Obama are moving the United States toward socialism

Published April 14, the poll surveyed the political, racial, and social opinions of both the general pubic and self-described members of the tea party movement. It found that while tea party participants are generally more conservative than the broader population, they are also better educated and slightly more successful.

The poll found that almost the entirety of the tea party movement – 92 percent – shared the views of most Americans that Obama was turning the United States into a socialist country.

The poll asked respondents specifically whether the president’s policies “are moving the country more toward socialism.” Fifty-two percent answered “toward socialism” while only 38 percent answered “not toward socialism.”

A mere six percent of self-described tea party Americans answered “not toward socialism.”

The poll also found that while tea party members generally shared the economic concerns of the broader population, this did not motivate their strong opposition to Obama. That opposition was based on the president’s policies, not on the poor economy or on other factors, such as the president’s race.

In fact, the racial attitudes of tea party members fell in line with those of the rest of the country, with 73 percent of tea party members saying that blacks and whites had an equal chance of success – a view held by 60 percent of Americans.

Tea party activists are strongly motivated by traditional conservative issues, such as the size of government and federal spending, according to the poll. Ninety-two percent of tea party members said they would prefer a smaller, less intrusive federal government to a larger one – a view they shared with 52 percent of Americans.

Eighty-nine percent of tea partiers thought that Obama has expanded government too much in trying to deal with the recession, an opinion which fell in line with the views of 50 percent of the country.

Tea party activists also agreed with the rest of the country – though in higher proportions – on the issue of federal bank bailouts. Seventy-four percent of tea partiers said the economy would have improved without the bailouts -- a view shared by 51 percent of Americans generally.

When it came to questions of who are tea party members, the poll found that 50 percent described themselves as “middle class” and 26 percent described themselves as “working class.” Only 29 percent of tea partiers do not have at least some college education, a figure that far outpaces the rest of the country, of which 47 percent have no college education.

Perhaps the most important statistic in this election year found that tea party activists were more likely than other Americans to favor the current two-party electoral system 52-48 percent.

The finding that should most worry incumbents who do not share tea party members’ views was that 97 percent of the activists are registered voters.

According to The New York Times, "(t)he nationwide telephone poll was conducted April 5-12 with 1,580 adults. For the purposes of analysis, Tea Party supporters were oversampled, for a total of 881, and then weighted back to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for both all adults and Tea Party supporters, and it is higher for subgroups."

Alexander: Obama's 'Soviet-Style' Takeover of Student Loans

Original Post: National Review
By: Robert Costa

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the U.S. secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, tells National Review Online that President Obama’s revamping of the federal student-loan program is “truly brazen” and the “most underreported big-Washington takeover in history.”

“As Americans find out what it really does, they’ll be really unhappy,” Alexander predicts. “The first really unhappy people will be the 19 million students who, after July 1, will have no choice but to go to federal call centers to get their student loans. They’ll become even unhappier when they find out that the government is charging 2.8 percent to borrow the money and 6.8 percent to lend it to the students, and spending the difference on the new health-care bill and other programs. In other words, the government will be overcharging 19 million students.” The overcharge is “significant,” Alexander adds, because “on a $25,000 student loan, which is an average loan, the amount the government will overcharge will average between $1,700 and $1,800.”

“Up to now, 15 out of 19 million student loans were private loans, backed by the government,” Alexander says. “Now we’re going to borrow half-a-trillion from China to pay for billions in new loans. Not only will this add to the debt, but in the middle of a recession, this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work.”

Alexander, a former University of Tennessee president, says the effects of Obama’s policy could be felt for decades. “When I was education secretary, one of my major objections to turning it all over to the government was that I didn’t think the government could manage it,” he says. “This is going to be too big and too congested, and makes getting your student loan about as attractive as lining up to get your driver’s license in some states.”

“It changes the kind of country we live in more than it changes American education,” Alexander concludes. “The American system of higher education has become the best in the world because of choice and competition. Unlike K-12, we give money to students and let them choose among schools, having the choice of private lenders or government lenders. That’s been the case for 20 years. Having no choice, and the government running it all, looks more like a Soviet-style, European, and even Asian higher-education model where the government manages everything. In most of those countries, they’ve been falling over themselves to reject their state-controlled authoritarian universities, which are much worse than ours, and move toward the American model which emphasizes choice, competition, and peer-reviewed research. In that sense, we’re now stepping back from our choice-competition culture, which has given us not just some of the best universities in the world, but almost all of them.”

Che Guevara was a racist terrorist murdering thug

I'm sick of people walking around with his image on his shirt when you know they have no idea who this sick individual really is. You don't see Hitler shirts worn around campuses do you? Yes, that is a fair comparison. Both were narcissistic megalomaniac sociopaths with delusions of grandeur one was just a bit more successful in his pursuits.

Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill

Original Post: Yahoo News
By: Paul Haven

HAVANA (AP) -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."

But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.

"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote.

The longtime Cuban leader -- who ceded power to his brother Raul in 2008 -- has continued to pronounce his thoughts on world issues though frequent essays, titled "Reflections," which are published in state newspapers.

Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise. The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba's ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.

In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.

While Fidel Castro was initially positive about Obama, his essays have become increasingly hostile in recent months as relations between Cuba and the United States have soured. Washington has been increasingly alarmed by Cuba's treatment of political dissidents -- one of whom died in February after a long hunger strike.

Cuba was irate over the island's inclusion earlier this year on a list of countries Washington considers to be state sponsors of terrorism. Tensions have also risen following the arrest in December of a U.S. government contractor that Havana accuses of spying.

In Thursday's essay, Castro called Obama a "fanatic believer in capitalist imperialism" but also praised him as "unquestionably intelligent."

"I hope that the stupid things he sometimes says about Cuba don't cloud over that intelligence," he said.

My Comments: It seems that Obama always finds himself in good company. From his Nobel Prize for "the hope he might bring" with illustrious company such as Arafat to Fidel Castro praising him for finally catching up to Cuba. Because that's a country we wish to imitate. But why not, that appears to be the current president's agenda. To follow in Cuba's foot steps. So we can live in a wonderful Utopia like Cuba is. You know, I can't even type that with a straight face.

Ed Schultz supports communism and restriction of free speech

I'd like to submit a bit of information I think Ed Schultz may be unaware of.

"First Amendment - Religion and Expression

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. " The first amendment. Source

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I missed the part where it says Congress is supposed to "even out the audience". I was blinded by the part about not abridging freedom of speech. Crazy me.



"If we're going to be socialists, let's be socialists across the board." - Ed Schultz.

How is this not nationalized health care?

MSNBC interview
"The drug companies will have their profits reduced by 90 billion dollars" - Katherine Sebelius
"We will have brand new authority over the drug companies." - Katherine Sebilius

So the government can dictate how much a person or company is allowed to make and massively expand their authority over them functionally giving them control over the entire business but some how this is a free market solution? Is she saying the same thing I'm hearing, or does she not understand the meaning of words?

Al Sharpton says Obama is a Socialist

So apparently Al Sharpton is either racist against blacks (insert eye roll here) or he is a right wing extremist spreading lies about Obama (bigger eye roll here).

We're Going To Control The Insurance Companies

There we have it. We (the Federal Government) are going to control the insurance companies. Let's recap. To date the Government has nationalized: GM, their lending company, health care, is working on student loans, and air. It would almost seem as though they're trying to control the means of production. But let's not call them socialist or communists even though their rhetoric and actions clearly reflect a socialist ruling style.

Anita Dunn looks to Mao for political inspiration

Wow another government adviser to the president that's looks to major communist dictators for inspiration on how to run the country I'm shocked, shocked. Does the president have any advisers that aren't communists or terrorists? Perhaps Hillary Clinton, too bad he neutered her position with the advent of the Czars.

Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries

Why is it, that everyone says that Obama is a socialist and surrounds himself with socialists? Oh, yeah, because he does. The state controlling the means of production (sometimes directly in the case of GM and Chrysler) sometimes indirectly by controlling the banks and energy. Money and energy, that's pretty much the lifeblood of...everything. Obama wishes the state to control everything.

If only we could look to some other model and see if such a policy would work. If only this had been tried somewhere else so we could see if it will work. What amazing and innovative ideas our president brings to us.

Obama's Mao Christmas ornament.

No, Obama isn't a socialist. He only spews socialist rhetoric, puts into place socialist policies, and reveres communist dictators.