Archive for the Barack Obama Category

Let Obama’s “Healthcare Reform” Whitewashing Begin!

Posted in Barack Obama, Bulletproof Diction, Congress, Healthcare, Sarah Palin, Spending on August 10, 2009 by mb007bpd

(UPDATE 8/18:  New posts up soon…follow us on Twitter to find out when!)

From the official White House Twitter:

Get a healthy dose of reality about #healthcare insurance reform: http://bit.ly/thBOH #hcr #hir-rc

Look at that…they even made a funny pun! And yet still managed to come off as arrogant as possible. Dare I say…mission accomplished?  (If you want an actual reality check, take a look at Sweetness & Light’s brilliant dissection of the bill)

Notice that this is coming out on the day after Pelosi & Hoyer’s USA Today op-Ed saying “[d]rowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”  Isn’t the President attempting to do just that?

Notice this also is coming out soon after Sarah Palin’s fiery editorial which succintly described the massive shortcomings of this plan.  (NOTE:

And, notice the stunningly simple fact that the Democrats have a majority in both houses, yet can’t quite seem to obtain the votes for this bill.  Support for it is falling by the day.

Doesn’t this all just smack of desperation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE:

The desperation thickens, with Obama himself holding a smoothly manufactured completely spontaneous townhall today.

Michelle Malkin has the analysis, including the kicker:

Oh, crikey. Obama calls on a 13-year-old girl to lament the “mean signs” about health care reform. “How do kids know what’s true.”

Of course.  Those “signs with swastikas on them,” remember?

Someone gets an A-plus for using Democratic talking points out of the classroom!

PLANT UPDATE: Via Michelle Malkin: So apparently this “completely random” little girl was a plant.  Her mother and her mother’s law firm are huge Obama supporters, have donated money, met the family, etc.

Of course, this girl joins a long list lineup of plants at “spontaneous” townhall meetings, which Michelle has explained in: The Illustrated Guide to ObamaCare Human Props

Move along folks, nothing to see here…

UPDATE 8/12: Another day, another plant?  (via HotAir Headlines, Patterico)

Who is “Dr.” Roxana Mayer?

UPDATE II 8/12: Roxana Mayer: Not a doctor, but an Obama delegate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Updates…

UPDATE II:

Hillary Clinton may not be channeling her husband, but is Obama channeling Biden?

[on how his healthcare plan will not hurt the private healthcare industry]  If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine.  No, they are!  It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.

Is he seriously saying the line for operations will be like the line for stamps?

Imagine those $50 end-it-all pills at only 44 cents.

UPDATE III: Thanks for the link, Frugal Cafe Blog Zone!

UPDATE IV: Via Hot Air’s Quote of the Day–Camille Paglia nails it.

A must-read.  So many quotables, so here’s a little taste:

Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn’t conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it’s the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan — it’s the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

UPDATE V: I’ve received some feedback about exactly how all this qualifies as desperation.

Let’s approach this mathematically.

Delaying the bill + refusing to read it + verbally degrading constituents + stonewalling + hobbling together a “reality check” website when all else fails = desperation.

If the bill was so important and so necessary, then why couldn’t it have been broken down into bite-size pieces to reassure the public and highlight the good aspects of the plan? Why is obfuscation and smoke-and-mirrors the modus operandi here?

UPDATE VI (8/12):  Sarah Palin’s follow-up on “death panels” comment…worth a full read!

UPDATE VII (8/13): “End of life” consultations have been DROPPED from the bill…I think we should thank Sarah for bringing attention to this in the most high-profile way!

UPDATE VIII (8/13): Sarah Palin’s response to the dropping of “end of life” provisions from the bill and what else needs to be dropped…another excellent read!

UPDATE IX (8/13): A great big THANK YOU to the Michelle Malkin & Hot Air readers who have visited the site! You folks made yesterday one of the biggest days in Bulletproof Diction history, and this post has become the MOST popular post on the site.

PLEASE tell your friends (and enemies) about Bulletproof Diction…the more that we spread the truth about this bill…the more that we exercise our First Amendment rights…the more that we remind our government that they serve We the People…the greater ability we have to ensure the American Dream of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for posterity!

Geithner’s Gotta Go

Posted in Barack Obama, Bulletproof Diction, Spending, Taxation on August 3, 2009 by mb007bpd

With Tim Geithner “not ruling out” raising taxes on the middle-class, a flagrant backtrack of Obama’s “no tax increases if you make less than $250,000 a year,” it’s clear that Geithner’s gotta go. (Not to mention the fact that he’s a tax cheat, hasn’t managed anything properly in the past 6 months, etc.)

So, as a service to our President, I would like to offer a replacement. How about financial maven Suze Orman?

Not only is she incredibly smart and popular, she has a git-r-done attitude second to none. Not to mention the fact that a president with a penchant for “diversity appointments” and whose freefalling popularity in the GLBT community needs all the help it can get.

Instead of choosing a Harvard egghead who can’t even sell his house after almost a half a year on the market, why doesn’t Obama choose a woman who shattered the glass ceiling of the financial industry with the American values of hard work and perseverance?

Oh, and while we’re at it, why doesn’t Obama rescind Sotomayor’s nomination and choose Judge Judy instead? If we want someone with some vivacity on the bench, let’s get serious!

Sotomayor and the American Identity

Posted in Barack Obama, Bulletproof Diction, The Supreme Court on July 14, 2009 by mb007bpd

Two thoughts after hearing Judge Sotomayor’s questioning today.

I had a wise Latina preschool teacher, one of the most memorable ones of my life.  And you know what?  She treated each of us equally, teaching us the same basics, and applying the rules the same way. Imagine a scenario where playground rules were divvied by race in our multi-ethnic class.  The parents would be outraged, and she would be immediately fired.

If we were to structure the Supreme Court in Sotomayor’s ideal fashion, we would have 4 men and 4 women from each race: White/Caucasian, Black/African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino.  And the ninth justice would be a hermaphroditic Native American.  And then one would have to be lesbian and one would have to be gay.  What about religions?  See how complicated this gets when we try to structure the Supreme Court based on social justice instead of blind justice?  And when you reference the Ricci case, and “Newyorkrican” Judge Sotomayor’s takeaway opinions from that, that is the type of justice system she envisions.  One where race, background, and ethnic origin are a determining factor before the law.  The law is supposed to be blind.  It is supposed to be equally applied to every man, woman, and child, whether that man is from Ghana, that woman is a lesbian, or that child is Buddhist.  Or if the family is a combination of all three.  Because that is what America is.  Equal justice before the law.  And when people are separated into neat little racial/religious/background boxes, and are expected to act as if they came from those boxes, then you undermine American values.  For once someone becomes an American, they shed those ethnic and racial prejudices which have plagued every other country and civilization since the genesis of man.  Once someone becomes an American, they gain a new identity, where they can stand side-by-side, hand-in-hand in brotherhood with different people of different backgrounds to share one common identity: the American identity.  It is with faith in the American identity that we must go forth into the 21st century, to remain the “shining city on a hill” in which all of God’s people can live together without prejudice as equals.

George W. Bush, Realist

Posted in Barack Obama, Bulletproof Diction, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Nuclear Weapons on July 2, 2009 by mb007bpd

In a move that validates the opinion of some in International Relations circles, FBI FOIA requests were revealed today showing that Saddam Hussein claimed that his weapons programs were a bluff to keep from looking weak to Iran.  This theory has been floated before, quite frequently, in fact, so it comes as less of a surprise and more of an affirmation.  However, some questions remain.

What did Saddam know about Iran’s nuclear program back in 2003?

Ostensibly, this would explain what level he was willing to take his plans, and whether it was in-development or all a bluff.

Of course, the information today doesn’t explain something equally important, this time from the liberal perspective.

Why didn’t Saddam come quietly to the US, explain his situation, and either seek our help or ask us to give him cover?  We gave him solid ultimatums, so he can’t play the “poor me” role in the Middle East without appearing as if he exhausted all of his options.  This question is lent more credence by the quote at the end of the Washington Post article:

Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies.

Well then, if he felt so buddy-buddy with the US, then why didn’t he engage in some implicit or tacit coordination with us?  After all, he had everything to lose if he took the route that he did, which was to rebuff the US, UN and the world until it reached a breaking point.  And especially since one Bush came so close to having him eliminated, did he not think his son would attempt to take it to the next level?

However, Saddam’s explanation seems to fit too neatly in with the IR theories of academia.  If the argument can be made that Saddam was engaged in a problem of credible commitments, then let’s examine this from a perspective that academia would probably be uncomfortable with.

From the American perspective, you have Saddam Hussein, who is running roughshod over US treaties, bragging about weapons capabilities, and basically being the largest belligerent on the world stage.  For a second, let us indulge in a reality in which President Bush did not authorize the invasion of Iraq and left it as-is, just as AP at HotAir proposed.

Fast-forward, 2005.  Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Iraq is either claiming it already has or is currently developing nuclear weapons.  Does anyone think that the rational actors at the head of either of these countries is going to behave rationally with nuclear weapons?  And what about beforehand?  Imagine the race to nuclear strength that would have ensued between Iran and Iraq.  Wouldn’t the neighbors be worried?  Already the UAE and Saudi Arabia are pining for nuclear weapons.  Could the world stand an even more unstable India-Pakistan-esque standoff, just 15 years after the Iran-Iraq War?  Mind you, with a cabinet, DoD, and DoS steeped in Sovietology, the prospect of a Middle Eastern Cold War was likely, with two almost-equally-unlovable characters.  So, what choice did President Bush have to make?

Take out the worst of the two.

And that’s the decision that was made.

So perhaps the whole conflict can be deduced to a lack of communication.  Of course, according to James Fearon, that’s the main way that wars begin.

And the institution that’s supposed to prevent these wars from beginning, that’s supposed to facilitate communication, utterly failed.  The UN was as guilty as Saddam in this situation, as well as the war’s main detractors: France, Germany, and Russia. Had these institutions not been so corrupt, perhaps they could have prevented what happened.

And now, one day after US soldiers have withdrawn from Iraqi cities, it’s clear that the right decision was made.  In alternate 2009, there would not be a free Iraq, there would not be democratic uprisings in Iran, there would just be one country left barely standing, the other in smithereens, and a Middle East scarred by nuclear war.  But in actual 2009, we are in the current situation, a situation much-derided but starkly better in comparison.

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.