Tag: Bill Clinton

UPDATED: This is a textbook reason why I stopped voting Democratic Party for good

Back before I ran my old blog, which was called “Political Byline”; I used to run a blog called “The Populist.” Well, that blog was hacked, either by some people, who call themselves Conservatives or by foreign entities. I suspect the former, but I tend to think it was the latter. Either way, by the time all that happened; I had become totally disillusioned with the Democratic Party. To be fair to myself; I never much did care for the Democratic Party establishment, this especially after the idiotic Clinton Administration’s nonsense. especially during his second term. Plus, as a Christian; I had not forgotten about the Waco incident.

Anyhow, one of reasons for this disillusionment was the Democrat Party’s treatment of our Military. It has been tepid at best. Proof of this, can be seen right here: (H/T NewsBusters)

Quoting this tool:

CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that’ll be happening tomorrow.  Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible].  Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”?  I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that. 

I don’t write this to trash Chris Hayes, but to pose a question to the Conservative Democrats that actually read this blog and yes, I happen to know that a few of you that do, in fact, read here. Could you imagine a Democrat President giving a speech like this here?:

Not only can I not see a Democratic Party President giving a speech like this; but I would tend to believe that FDR would be chased out of the Democratic Party as a warmonger today! This is my issue with the modern-day Democratic Party; it is as if they are “Brothers-in-arms” with those who crashed those planes into the trade center buildings in 2001. The Liberal Democrats in this country have the attitude that the United States of America is the “great capitalist Satan” of the world and somehow or another deserved the attacks on 9/11. Who else has this attitude about America? oh yes! It is the Islāmic terrorists!

This is the reason Chris Hayes cannot call our Military dead Heroic men and women. Because it goes against his entire leftist DNA. Because the left hates our Military, hates the values that our Military stands for and quite frankly hates this Country for what it truly is.

That is the Democratic Party of the 21 century and I want zero to do with it, at all. 😡

The really sad thing is; is that Ron Paul and most, if not all, of the Paleo-Conservative right agree with this guy and his furry Progressive friends.  Which is why Ron Paul never, ever be President of the United States.  Ron Paul and the Paleoconservatives want to take us back to prior to World War 2 and leave the Jews to Hitler and put the WASP’s back in charge. Sorry guys, we lost that battle. We have to come to the 21 century. The quicker the better, I say.

Others Covering: Wizbang, Right Wing News, Booman Tribune, The Right Scoop, The Daily Caller, American Power, Examiner, The Gateway Pundit and Fire Andrea Mitchell! — via memeorandum

Update: This liberal blogger comes right out and says it. Hey, at least he is honest about it. Although, I tend to suspect that the irony of what he wrote is lost on him. It is because of the deaths of soldiers past; on battlefields domestic and abroad, he is free to even write that sort of tripe. Again, just another perfect example of why I told the Democratic Party to piss off and voted my principles — and no, I do not mean Republican either. Hell, the Republican Party has not been a true, small Government Conservative Party since Reagan left office and the Neoconservatives took power. Even Reagan was not truly a small Government Conservative either. He believed in small Government; when it was convenient.

Update #2: Chris Hayes has given a half-assed, non-apology apology.

Did the Barack Obama Campaign threaten Chelsea Clinton’s life to keep Bill Clinton quiet on Obama’s Eligibility?

This is wild.

Check out the video:

The Story:

Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.

Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.

During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.

She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.

Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof.

via Did Barack Obama Campaign Threaten Life of Chelsea Clinton to Keep Parents Silent on Obama’s Ineligibility? – Godfather Politics.

Normally, I would not give a story like this the time of day; but I put nothing and I mean nothing past Barack Obama. I remember that murder story and at the time, I sort of thought about what was said above, but I figured maybe it was explainable. But, I have to say; no motive? Something stinks here and I believe this might be actually true or at least partially true.  I believe an Congressional Investigation into this is warranted, however, I will not hold my breath, least I turn blue and croak.

I really think that it is time that the Republican Party finally grew a pair of gonads and actually started taking this whole eligibility thing seriously. Because if this President actually did this; who is to say that another President, like a Republican one could not do it. An investigation by the FBI should be conducted; unless of course, the FBI is in on it too. Which would have to be, seeing they are the ones who clear someone to be President in the first place.

Either way, it’s time for answers.

The Obligatory Bill Clinton rescues two liberals from California posting

Yes, I know about it.

The next question is; do I honestly care?

No.

Why?

Honestly, why the hell would I give two shits whether or not a Former President who should be, by rights, in jail for the murder of a group of Christians in Waco, Taxes; went and saved two leftist [removed] from North Korea?

Perhaps these two idiot liberals will now have second thoughts about the whole Liberalism idea and will become Conservatives. Seeing that they have experienced the horrors of true Communism; which is a step above Socialism.

I am quite sorry, but I just do not quite honestly give a shit.

There, I said it, I feel better.

Others: Macsmind

Update: When I wrote this last night, it was late and I was quite tired. I never should have put the words that I did in there. For those I offended, I apologize. However, my feelings about the rescue remain unchanged. The reason I say this is because; anyone that knows anything about the modern day Progressive AKA Socialist Democratic Party knows that it is one step below Communism. This is why I feel the that I do about this rescue.

The Obama White House Tries to Bully the Congressional Budget Office House

This is more of that Far-Left Liberal Politics at work:

Via CNN:

The White House has criticized the Congressional Budget Office’s findings that the Obama administration’s proposal to control Medicare costs would yield a moderate savings of $2 billion over the next decade.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said the CBO’s analysis — which it relayed to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday — could feed a perception of the office’s bias toward “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.”

“The point of the proposal … was never to generate savings over the next decade,” Orszag said in a letter posted on Saturday.

“Instead the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term.”

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s letter to Hoyer on Saturday was in response to the Senate Majority Leader’s request for analysis on “possible approaches for giving the President broad authority to make changes in the Medicare program,” Elmendorf wrote.

The Obama administration is touting a proposal to give a medical advisory council the power to help decide the scope of coverage that would be eligible for reimbursement under Medicare.

Administration officials say the proposed “Independent Medicare Advisory Council” would both improve health care quality and control costs. Some health care industry groups object to the proposal, saying such a council would not be qualified to make those judgments.

The CBO’s review of the proposal found that “the probability is high that no savings would be realized … but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized,” Elmendorf wrote.

“Looking beyond the 10-year-budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis.”

Orszag, a former director of the CBO, pointed out that “it is very rare for CBO to conclude that a specific legislative proposal would generate significant long-term savings so it is noteworthy that, with some modifications, CBO reached such a conclusion with regard to the IMAC (Independent Medicare Advisory Council concept.”

But he also criticized Elmendorf’s findings.

“As a former CBO director, I can attest that CBO is sometimes accused of a bias toward exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. Unfortunately, parts of today’s analysis from CBO could feed that perception,” Orszag said.

“In providing a quantitative estimate of long-term effects without any analytical basis for doing so, CBO seems to have overstepped.”

Just another attack from a worried White House, who wants their agenda passed, no matter the cost to the people or to our Nation.

Some Reactions from the Conservative Blogosphere:

Keith Hennessey:

With this letter CBO has killed the President’s IMAC proposal.  It almost certainly would have died even without CBO’s letter.  The proposal would have transferred an enormous amount of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.  Turf-conscious Congressional committee chairmen would have fought it to protect their power base.  Medicare provider interest groups (hospitals, doctors) were starting to lobby against it.  They prefer Congress making these decisions because they’re easier to lobby and influence.

The only chance IMAC had was if CBO had said it would save gobs of money, allowing House leaders simultaneously to make Blue Dogs happy for being fiscally responsible, and to remove from their bill other, more politically painful, spending cuts or tax increases.  IMAC was drafted so weakly that it became a budget gimmick.

[….]

Yes, the Administration could submit a fundamentally different proposal and call it a “tweak” of their existing one.  To achieve the stated goals of bending the government health cost curve down and reducing future deficits, such a proposal would need to actually cut spending in an enforcable and unavoidable way.  If they want to throw in a new council to shuffle money around within the mandated lower levels, that’s a separable question.  The President’s advisors know, however, that a proposal like this with real teeth would never get off the ground in Congress.  That’s too bad, because we desperately need the long-term deficit reduction.

The death of IMAC is a black eye for the Administration and another step backward for the pending health care reform bills.  This result was both predictable and avoidable.

Ed Morrissey:

In a Hot Air exclusive, I contacted Chuck Blahous of the Hudson Institute, formerly the deputy director of George Bush’s National Economic Council about the open and aggressive attack on the CBO from Orszag and the White House.  Blahous finds it unseemly:


“It’s routine for OMB and CBO to have scoring differences. It’s also routine for the two agencies to separately acknowledge, explain and quantify them. What’s not routine is for each to overtly criticize the other. This is a bad road to go down in any case, but even more so because OMB probably has the glass house here. Institutionally, they’re just different; CBO is purely a referee, while OMB is part referee, part player because they’re part of the President’s policy development team. Moreover, OMB’s February budget presentation attracted a lot of justified criticism for its economic assumptions and for moving various deficit-expanding policies into the budget baseline. Furthermore, most of the claims about long-term cost savings from health care reform have been purely speculative, with no data from the actuaries to back them up. Still, I don’t expect CBO to hit back and to criticize OMB scoring, nor should they. Hopefully folks will walk back and cooler heads will prevail.”

Orszag has been an embarrassment as OMB director, and now he’s becoming dangerous to the separation of powers between the branches of government. Either Obama should put Orszag on a leash, or get rid of him immediately — and find a real budget director, not just a liberal-agenda hack.

Steve Gilbert over at Sweetness and Light:

It’s hard to puzzle it out from this article, but this is an extension of Obama’s efforts to wrest control of Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements away from Congress so that he can call the shots.

And, despite what Mr. Orszag now claims, that was and is touted as a way to bring about tremendous savings.

Congress asked the CBO’s opinion, since they want to keep this power for themselves.

Needless to say, it should be nigh unto impossible for the CBO to predict whether the Obama people would raise or lower the reimbursement levels.

So naturally they tried to have it both ways:

[….]

And still the White House slammed them.

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

What a pathetic joke the Democratic legislative effort has become. Loss of freedom and no meaningful cost savings. The opposite of “you get what you pay for.”

As Rahm Emanuel and Henry Waxman push to have a vote next week, it is clear that neither the Congress nor the White House has any clue as to the consequences of what they are proposing (if they even have read it). All the more reason we need to see the bill, debate it, and let our representatives know how we feel before they vote.

So give double thanks this weekend. First, for the CBO not giving in to political pressure. And second, for the fact that the CBO works on Saturdays.

I cannot say that I honestly disagree with that. This whole thing is a page right out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. It also could be a page out of the old Clinton playbook as well. What you cannot change or control; you contain it by discrediting it. If you cannot do that, then kill it. Just ask Vice Foster‘s family about that. Come to think of it, there are quite a few families that could be asked about that.  Conspiracy theories?  You decide.

Hope! Change! Intimadation! Discrediting of your Enemies! All just another day in the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

CBO Says Obamacare will save no money over 10 years

Do you think that maybe NOW Obama will understand why the blue dogs revolted?

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat’s health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan “probably the most important piece that can be added” to the House’s health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill’s $1 trillion price tag.

“In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized … but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

via CBO deals new blow to health plan – Chris Frates – POLITICO.com.

The Blue Dog Democrats revolted on this stupid plan, because they know; what the majority of clear-thinking Americans know. That the Nation’s Economy is in the Toilet and is not expected not to get any better anytime soon. The passing of this Health-care Bill and the Nationalization of our Health-care system is going to sooner or later drive America into Bankruptcy.  The Blue Dog Democrats know this, they are not under the spell of hope and change, like Obama wants them to be. In other words, they are not drinking the Kool-Aid on the Obamassiah.

One trillion dollars and The economy is at it worst since the 1980’s? Is this President serious?

I think the President and the Democratic Party need to seriously reconsider what they are attempting to do here. Because if they do not, this country may just end with a one party system after the damage is all done. Some Republicans might be thrilled at the prospect of the total and complete destruction of the Democratic Party; but I would not be thrilled at all. Why?

I will tell you why, because, like Bill O’Reilly; believe that a two-party system in this Country is important. I believe, personally, that neither of these parties; Republican Party or The Democratic Party have all of the answers. There is good and bad in both of them, and because of this, I believe that the Democratic Party is about to do one of the stupidest an horrific overreaches in many years. It was attempted in Clinton Administration and it failed, and now it is about to be attempted again.  This time, it will be a disaster.

Somebody up there on Capital Hill needs have some clear thinking and really seriously consider what might become of the Democratic Party, should this blow up in their faces. Because I have a feeling that this all is going to get much uglier, before it gets any better.

Others: RedState, Weekly Standard, theblogprof, Betsy’s Page, Cold Fury, Economix, PrairiePundit, Hot Air and The Hill

Looks like Eliot Spitzer's ex-hoe for hire had other clients

Hmmmmmmm….:

Another gubernatorial sex scandal may be looming. Even as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford waits to see whether his wife, Jenny, forgives his romp in the pampas, a New York call girl could plunge one of America’s most prominent governors into a fresh hell.

In March, we told you about a high-end escort who claimed that former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer had gotten overly aggressive during some kinky role-play (a charge Spitzer’s lawyer called “outrageous and defamatory”).

Now the elegant blond courtesan, whom we’ll continue to call “Annie,” is talking about three “dates” she allegedly had with another state’s chief executive, who we’ll call Gov. X.

Though Annie’s former boss, ex-madam Kristin Davis, corroborates that Gov. X was a client, his spokesman flatly denies that the married politician has ever hired hookers.

Still, it’s hard not to be intrigued by Annie’s detailed story. She contends that, in the spring of 2006, Davis’ agency booked her for an out-of-state date with a man identified as “Michael.”

“He picked me up in an Italian sports car,” says Annie. “He was in his 30s, handsome enough to be an actor, an impeccable dresser. I wouldn’t think he’d have a problem getting girls.

“We went to a restaurant where the governor was dining at another table with two or three other men. Michael said the governor was a client of his. He introduced me to him. I thought it was odd that he’d introduce someone he’d hired, but the governor was very gracious. It was a brief meeting. Later, Michael and I went to an apartment our agency kept. We had sex.

“A couple of days later, Michael booked another appointment. He was supposed to come to the same apartment. I buzzed him in. When I opened the door, it wasn’t Michael. It was the governor. He was smiling. I knew what was happening. I was okay with it.

“He was a very standard client. He didn’t take the full hour. There was no exchange of money. Michael handled the payment.

“I had two more dates with the governor. Never in public. Always for just an hour, around dinner time. He’d arrive at the apartment in a suit. I never had a problem with him, like I did with Spitzer. He was always nice. There wasn’t a lot of conversation. It wasn’t a girlfriend experience, but he was relaxed. He was very appreciative, like I was giving him a sort of affection he wasn’t getting elsewhere. Later I found out he was married. His wife is quite prominent in her own right.” (Annie and Davis say Gov. X is free to say he didn’t pay for sex, since “Michael” took care of the bills.)

via Eliot Spitzer not my only governor – hooker who worked for Kristin Davis.

Egad, Only Governor that I know; who’s wife is of prominence, in her own right; is Bill Clinton. 😮 He does have an office in Harlem!

Others: theblogprof, Macsmind, Anne Schroeder’s Blog, Moe Lane and JammieWearingFool

Rationing Healthcare? They already do! It's called Health Insurance.

I saw this today on the Meme tracker and I wanted to really avoid it. Because I just do not feel that I cannot speak on Healthcare in a objective form, because it is quite the personal issue with me.

I have no healthcare insurance at all. :-((

Anyone this is in the New York Times Magazine:

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline “Obama Will Ration Your Health Care,” Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, “Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.” And the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, “There is no rationing of health care at all” in the proposed reform.

Remember the joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars? She reflects for a few moments and then answers that she would. “So,” he says, “would you have sex with me for $50?” Indignantly, she exclaims, “What kind of a woman do you think I am?” He replies: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.” The man’s response implies that if a woman will sell herself at any price, she is a prostitute. The way we regard rationing in health care seems to rest on a similar assumption, that it’s immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives — but is that stance tenable?

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for. But our current system of employer-financed health insurance exists only because the federal government encouraged it by making the premiums tax deductible. That is, in effect, a more than $200 billion government subsidy for health care. In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.

The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicare’s trustees warned that the program’s biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035.

Now the Right Wing Blogs are doing some seriously loud howling about this right here. I guess that I break away from that pack. I tend to be a bit more clearer thinking about it. Hence my Moderate label. For some better perspective, Riverdaughter over at The Confluence, who is a Moderate Democrat; puts some of this in perspective:

Peter Singer is an ethicist who espouses a utilitarian view of ethics, meaning that his interpretation of general welfare extends to an economic calculation of costs versus benefits. For example, he proposes that it is acceptable to identify specific measures of when a treatment is effective enough to warrant the cost of providing such treatment.

[….]

First, it is critical to note that healthcare is already “rationed” in our country. It is “rationed” each and every day when the uninsured or under-insured are denied the same high quality treatments afforded to those without financial constraints. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” saw through this film the soulless rationing of treatment in our country such as how the poor and indigent were treated by a for-profit hospital that dumped them on a street corner after providing only minimal care. I will never forget the morning I broke down in tears after reading about a man in our community who had cancer, lost his job and with it his health insurance. His statement “I’m just waiting to die because I cannot afford the chemotherapy drugs” exposed the unimaginable truth that our society is willing to allow people to die with little protest from its citizens.  If this is already unacceptable, why would we want to factor such a strategy into any plan we devise?

Now, I have a great deal of respect for Peter Singer and his general view of the world, but his utilitarian ethical approach to healthcare reform in our country is one I cannot embrace; and the reason I cannot embrace it is because our political leaders do not use a utilitarian view when dealing with banks, Wall Street barons, and corporations. How does a society continue to exist when those who have little are turned away from life saving treatments while the wealthy live in a world where money is no object? There is something inherently wrong with standing before a nation and acting as though there is no limit to the funds our country should expend so that banks and Wall Street traders are allowed to continue to feed at the trough of excess, yet a discussion over saving the lives of our fellow citizens erodes into debate over cutting costs. Yet this is exactly what our legislators and president are doing to us on a daily basis — on both sides of the political aisle.

I agree with on all point, except when it comes to Michael Moore. Michael Moore, In my humble opinion; is a socialist Propaganda maker. Who yowls about the evils of a capitalistic society —- All the whole driving around in a limousine himself.  Moore is the perfect example of a Limousine Liberal; kind of like John Kerry.  However, she is correct about the whole Health-care issue. If you have good insurance, you get good care, if you have none. You get treated and released most usually.

Like I said; I do not have any sort of health insurance at all. But I just cannot get up and cheer madly about something ran by our Federal Government. I just cannot. Because this is same Government that allowed the Siege at the Waco Compound to happen; of which I have never forgiven Bill Clinton for, nor will I ever.  Also Ruby Ridge and the list goes on and on. Not to mention the Medicare and Medicaid systems, how screwed up they are.

However, the Compassionate side of me, that sees the suffering and poor getting stiffed; wants to see a better system. So far, from what I have read. Obama’s plan is STILL going to leave many people uninsured. So, what is the big change? There is not really going to be any change, of great importance anyhow. The far left and special interest people are figuring this out.

So, anyhow, hopefully I did not lose any Conservative credo in this posting. 😀 :-/

Others: Don Surber, Tammy Bruce, Say Anything, The Strata-Sphere, Winds of Change.NET, PoliGazette, Sweetness & Light and The Rhetorican

Video: The Southern Avenger on "High Infidelity"

Jack tries to sell this one, but based on the comments over at facebook; it is going to be a tough sell.

—–

Synopsis:

In the wake of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s infidelity scandal, it is worth noting that rampant adultery amongst politicians still poses less danger than their politics.