Commentary from WorldNetDaily
By David Limbaugh
Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Watching President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.
Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda – even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let's see how some of his statements match up with reality.
On health care, he taunted congressmen to "let me know" if any of them have "a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses," as if his own plan would do those things.
Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can't reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.
Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.
A candid Obama would have said, "If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government's role in the health care industry, I'll at least pretend to look at it." "Make no mistake," neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can't abide that. Period.
READ FULL STORY >
Commentary from WorldNetDaily
By David Limbaugh
Posted: January 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
The more we read about Obama's health-care scheme and his handling of it the more obvious his arrogance and contempt for the people become.
This is stunning behavior, really, for any administration (and his party), but especially one that holds itself out as a servant of the people and a model of transparency.
Just consider headlines from the past few days: "Obama reneges on health-care transparency: As a candidate, President Obama promised to put health-care reform negotiations on C-Span," "White House REFUSES to discuss broken C-Span promise," "Dems will bypass conference committee to get health care passed," "Sources: Obama, Dems to sidestep GOP on health care," "Hatch: Health-care bill 'rich' for challenges on constitutionality," "AP sources: Obama OKs taxing high-end health plans," "Obama pushes for quick health-care deal," "Conference committee bypassed," "House will vote on pro-abortion Senate bill" and – get this one – "Pelosi: 'There has never been a more open process.'"
Seriously, who do these people think they are? No wonder they always assumed the worst of former President George W. Bush and then accused him of sinister motives he never had and actions he never committed. As I've noted before, they were projecting. They knew how they would behave if in power. Now, once again, they're proving it.
Think about it. Obama promised at least eight times – memorialized in video recordings – that he would air health-care debates and negotiations on C-SPAN for all to see. If you watch the videos, you'll notice that he was even wearing that smug, self-righteous look as he made his deceitful pledge, as if to say: "When I take over, we are finally going to return power to the people. We'll be open and transparent. We won't behave as Washington politicians are used to behaving. We're better than that. We're morally superior."
But now, his highness is not only not going to air the negotiations on television; he and his party are making sure to negotiate behind closed doors, period. Even the Republicans – you know, that other political party – will not be invited or permitted to participate in the discussions.
It gets worse. When pressed to respond to the open-and-shut claim that he deceived the people in promising a transparent process, he simply says – through his disgraceful surrogates – that he isn't going to be bothered to discuss it. He doesn't have to explain himself. He's the messiah. Who are we to doubt – much less question – him?
READ FULL STORY >
From WorldNetDaily
By Pat Boone
Posted: November 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Let's see. I seem to remember a declarative, emphatic promise from candidate Barack Obama, something about "a new transparency in government."
Yes, and a resounding, fervent promise by the newly elected President Obama: "My administration will bring a new transparency in our governance."
That sounded so good, didn't it?
Over the last several decades, the American people have become very angry about the many ways elected representatives have created to feather their own nests, curry favor with special-interest groups and, worst of all, enact legislation that restricts traditional freedoms – without consulting with the people who elected them.
Candidate Obama, and the people who were composing his speeches, showed sensitivity to the simmering furor over "earmarks," giant slabs of "pork" added to appropriations and other bills in Congress. Elected politicians have used this sneaky, rotten process for many years; into a multi-billion-dollar bill these scoundrels salt their own local, self-serving, pet projects – often without their names attached – correctly assuming that a few million dollars here or there won't be noticed, and they'll be heroes to their constituents back home. All at the expense of unsuspecting, unknowing taxpayers. You and me.
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens sneaks in an appropriation of $140 million for a "bridge to nowhere." Pennsylvania's Rep. Jack Murtha saddles us with a new airport facility in his district, costing millions, to accommodate two or three flights a day – between Washington and his district. Candidate Obama swore that he'd veto any of these porky earmarks that found their way into any bill that crossed his desk.
His promise of accountability – of transparency – of responsibility to the voting taxpayers sounded so great. He was elected by voters who believed his words.
But the first appropriations bill that hit his presidential desk contained $7.7 billion in nearly 9,000 earmarks. And he signed it. When questioned about it, he lamely explained that all this pork had been buried in the bill before and during his election – as if that validated it and excused him from his vow.
Then he and his advisers quickly devised an $847 billion "stimulus plan" that would "bail out" our lending institutions and auto manufacturers, saving and creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating our crippled, struggling economy. This gigantic, frightening plan was put into play without any consultation with the voters, the taxpayers who would have to fund the whole thing.
Right on the heels of that mind-numbing exercise, a new mandate for a gigantic government-run health-care plan was announced – one that the majority of Americans say they don't really want – one that would cost an estimated one and a quarter trillion dollars. The Democrat-controlled House and Senate appeared ready to roll over and rubber-stamp the administration's wishes, again without giving the voting public any say in it whatsoever.
In fact, one House bill was over a thousand pages, and was delivered to our cowed representatives the night before they were expected to pass it – without even reading it! What kind of "transparency" was this?
Well, the general public, aroused voters by the millions, began to assemble in the offices of their representatives, in town meetings and demonstrations – astounding the administration in a show of anger and militant resistance to these heavy-handed methods that would saddle us all with massive debt and unwanted programs. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Herman Cain
Posted: October 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
House Resolution 554 was introduced on June 17 by Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash. It would require a 72-hour reading period for all non-emergency legislation before a vote by the House of Representatives. It is stuck in committee.
A motion, or discharge petition to force a House floor vote on the resolution was initiated by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., on Sept. 23. It needs a simple majority of member signatures (218) to force a vote.
As of this writing, the petition has only 182 signatures.
We should not even have to petition Congress to read legislation before it takes a vote, nor should the public have to beg to see it for 72 hours. This is doubly insulting to the intelligence of the citizens of this country, and brazenly irresponsible on the part of the Democratic leaders in Congress.
But here's why the resolution is needed. The "stimulus bill" of 1,073 pages was voted on within 12 hours after it was made available to members of Congress. The 1,420-page "Cap & Trade & Tax & Kill" bill was passed in 16.5 hours. One version of the health-care deform legislation was passed out of committee in 14 hours.
The next huge legislation will be the backroom consolidation of the five health-care Trojan horses voted out of committees, and Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats do not want us to know what's in the bill before they vote on it. Why? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
TRANSPARENCY: an open letter to Barack Hussein Obama: You Promised. We Believed you!
read more |
digg story, submitted by
eRenee
Posts
