Am I the only person that thinks this is absolutely Hilarious?

It seems that the guys from the Washington Post decided to have a little fun with the whole beer porch thing.

Here’s the Video:

Well, because Dana Milbank used the phrase “Mad Bitch Beer” in a scant reference to Shillary. The Liberal Blogosphere is having a meltdown over it. So is one Conservative Blogger too. Sorry if I sound a bit crass and heartless over it. But just where the hell were these concern trolls; when the Liberal Media was tearing Sarah Palin apart? But, of course, most of them, if not all of them, where partaking in the slug fest against her. Do not misunderstand me here, I am not a Sarah Palin devotee; not by a long shot. But I find it most amusing that the same one’s who were slandering Sarah Palin are now getting their dander up over a rather funny video, that takes a slight poke at Hillary Clinton.

The Irony is amazing.

Update: The Video was pulled from the website. But thanks to the site Media Matters for America, we can still watch it and laugh! 😀

Cross-Posted at my new posting gig at Democrat = Socialist

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.

Secretary Clinton: Iran's Pursuit of Nukes 'Futile'

If you would have told me, a year ago, that I would be praising Hillary Clinton for something she said; I would have asked you what kind drugs you were on and to share some of it with me! (I kid about the drugs, but this still is a very good story.)

First the Video:

Quote:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: “Your pursuit is futile.”

“What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.

“First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.

Clinton said the Obama administration might still engage with Iran’s regime, even though she thinks the people there “deserve better than what they’re getting.”

via Hillary Clinton: Iran’s pursuit of nukes ‘futile’ – Mike Allen and Daniel Libit – POLITICO.com.

The only question that I might have is this; Does President Obama agree with this position? Another concern that I have is that this could be a signal of War drums beating. I am sure that the Secretary knows, that our forces are still fighting in Afghanistan and that we do still have forces in Iraq and that the job there is still not entirely done yet.

However, I do commend Secretary Clinton for her tough stance towards Iran’s terrible President and Islamic Oligarchy.

I just hope that President Obama agrees with Secretary Clinton and does not try and back-peddle that stance and play the role of terrorist appeaser. If he does, it would mean the total discrediting of Secretary Clinton and further more of America’s leadership role in the World.

Update: No Quarter, who is a Pro-Hillary liberal Blogger; links in. Hey, we might not agree on politics. But I’ll any kind of linkie love that I can get! 😛 😀

Update #2: John over at Powerline disagrees:

In other words, negotiating with Iran at this time would indeed betray the protesters, but we’ve done this before and want to do it again now.

Fair enough, perhaps. Our experiences with the Soviet Union and China do establish that we have at times negotiated with repressive regimes. But it doesn’t follow that we should negotiate with Iran at this time.

In any event, this much is certain: our negotiations with the Soviet Union and China did not cause either power to eschew nuclear weapons. Indeed, to my knowledge negotiations have never induced any nation that was aggressively pursuing nukes to change its mind. That kind of persuasion takes a massive show of force (Libya and arguably Iraq) or regime change.

Thus, while the administration may have its own motives for negotiating with Iran, there is no reason for Israel to believe that such negotiations will protect Israel’s interest (potentially a life-and-death one) in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Clinton’s case that Israel should rely on U.S. attempts to pursuade Iran not to go nuclear, rather than taking matters into its own hands by attacking Iran, is not a powerful one.

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

Next time someone tells you that Islam is a Religion of peace; Show them this video

The Synopsis of this video:

This is a video of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi asking questions at Arabfest, Dearborn. The date is June 21st, 2009. There was a booth at the festival which had a banner titled “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” From their table, we picked up a pamphlet claiming that Islam promotes peace. We noticed that it was full of poor logic and errors, so we decided to make a video refuting it. We went to the booth that gave us the pamphlet to give them the opportunity to defend their claims. Security, however, stepped in and forced us to turn off our camera.

We left the booth, received advice from police, and found out that the actions of the security guards were illegal. We went back to the booth to record a potential answer again. Realizing that the Muslims present had no answer, we left.

When we came outside, we were asked some questions by two young men, who had been sent by security to entrap us. While we responded to them, festival security started assaulting us, as you will see in this video. The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police.

We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say “No way!” when we say “This is the United States of America”?

Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?

You see Ladies and Gents, THIS is what celebrating diversity does to you. It gets you attacked by Islamic terrorist THUGS! Rick Warren and his purpose driven life, “Let’s love everyone and not judge”, kind of Christianity is just that; it celebrates diversity. Islam, a religion of peace….. What a lie! 😡 This is why, if I ever was going to film, I would go armed. Any security person who approached me and tried to hurt me, would be killed.

Enjoy this video! (Via Gateway Pundit)

WAKE UP AMERICA to the LIE OF ISLAM!

Acts 17 Apologists website.

Don't believe the hype on the Coup in Honduras

That is what Octavio Sánchez is saying, and he should know; he’s there:

Tegucigalpa, Honduras – Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d’état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

[….]

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

via A ‘coup’ in Honduras? Nonsense. | csmonitor.com.

But yet you have idiot douche bag Communist Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, Like President Obama and the U.N. trying to tell the people in Honduras; that this man was right for doing this. I guess Senator McCarthy was right after all. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the Socialists, who are basically Communist light.  So, to this writer; is no big surprise that President Obama and his right hand lady Hillary Clinton took sides with the Communists.

Video: Something to make you think

This an excellent video: (Via True Conservatives on Facebook)

Hillary Clinton is now being pimped out for a female special interest group

Seriously.

From my inbox:

...no limits...

You are receiving this message as a member of Hillaryclinton.com’s online community. Please take a look at No Limits.org’s message below from Ann Lewis about the important work they do. No Limits.org is solely responsible for the content of this message.

Join us today

Dear Chuck,
Remember Hillary’s speech in Denver last summer, when she said: "With our ingenuity, innovative spirit and creativity, there are no limits to what is possible in America"

That’s our message at NoLimits.org, a non-partisan organization that enables us to keep in touch and stay engaged on issues Hillary championed: health care reform; an economy that works for the middle class; a foreign policy that recognizes America is stronger when we have more allies, and safer in a world where women’s rights are human rights.

Some of our projects include:

  • Updates on congressional progress toward health care reform – and what we can do to make it a reality!
  • Our Equal Pay Action Kit, with a calculator that shows what the wage gap is costing your family, and news about policies that can make a difference.
  • Supporting the historic call for action against rape and violence against women in conflict zones, like the Democratic Republic of Congo, by Sen. Barbara Boxer and her new subcommittee on global women’s issues.
  • Speaking out about women’s rights as human rights and the implications for American policy. See this powerful video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, about international women’s health.

A social networking site, where you can connect with friends you made along the campaign trail. You’ll see many familiar faces!
Click here to join today.

NoLimits.org isn’t a political organization – it’s a community. We don’t raise money for candidates or political parties; we do raise our voices on issues we care about.

And with your voice, we can be even more powerful!
Click here to join today.
We are so proud to be part of this new era for our country. Let’s keep working for the values and goals we share – a better future for every child, from every family; a world in which No Limits is not just our goal, but a reality.
Sincerely,
Ann F. Lewis
Ann Lewis
P.S. We’ve come a long way together, but there is so much more to do. Please join us!

Cue the music!:

Hmmmmm… I wonder if they’re going to use any of that money to retire Hillary’s debt?

The Southern Avenger says "Partisans Make Us Less Safe"

How support for both “financial security” and “national security” reveal partisan hypocrisy and make us less safe.