It’s rather interesting that Obama constantly insists that it’s improper to meddle in other nation’s affairs. It become even more ironic when, in his… and his TOTUS twins… address to the UN, he touts America’s committment to nations’ populations who fight for the basic freedoms we enjoy.
And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights, for the student who seeks to learn, the voter who demands to be heard, the innocent who longs to be free, the oppressed who yearns to be equal.
I’d say the Iranians and the Hondurans had to be rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter at that one…
So in Obama’s “just words”, he doesn’t meddles … or maybe he does… if is politically expedient. And proof in the pudding is a White House, now exercising the backroom bully pulpit over Massachussetts laws, and New York gubernatorial races.
As FA reader, Leo Shishmanian, pointed out in his August 21st Reader Post, even prior to his passing, Kennedy was busy trying to overturn MA law for Congressional appointees that the Lion, himself, put into place to thwart any attempt by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney to seat a Republican for any vacated seat. When the shoe was on the left foot, however, and Kennedy was facing his own inevitable mortality, that law didn’t look so good.
As AP writer, Glenn Johnson, points out today in the SeattlePI, the liberal dominated MA state legislature passed a controversial law… with many dissenting Democrats… that enabled Dem Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for Kennedy’s Senate seat.
Since MA law requires 90 days to take effect, Patrick usurped the Constitutional waiting period, and made the appointment by signing a letter that declared the bill emergency legislation. Emergency for the Democrat Congress, perhaps… they sure need that 60th supermajority vote.
But of course the GOP cried foul, and filed a law suit… which was promptly rejected by Massachussetts Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly. Additionally, he granted the State’s defense motion to dismiss the suit entirely.
“The (Republican) Party has not shown that it has a chance to succeed on the merits and, therefore, any risk of harm to the party will not outweigh the risk of harm to the governor and the commonwealth,” Connolly wrote in his decision.
The GOP did not immediately say if it would appeal. Instead, it issued a statement saying the governor’s action – and its fight – should convince voters of the need to restore partisan balance in the state. Only 21 Republicans are in the 200-member Legislature.
“It is up to the voters of Massachusetts to finally decide enough is enough and to refuse to re-elect the entrenched incumbents responsible for raising our taxes in the middle of a recession, turning a blind eye to public corruption and manipulating the law to keep their grip on power,” said GOP Chairwoman Jennifer Nassour.
~~~Legislative Republicans, as well as a host of Democrats, objected to the change, and after it was approved, they defeated a separate request to attach an emergency preamble to the bill. Patrick added the emergency preamble to the bill just moments before he named Kirk, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to succeed Kennedy.
“The governor’s power to declare an emergency is not absolute,” attorney James O’Brien argued on behalf of the Republicans. “By granting the governor the power to appoint by way of an unconstitutional maneuver, this establishes a dangerous precedent.”
Connolly sounded a skeptical note, foreshadowing his eventual decision, by asking O’Brien to define the irreparable harm the party would suffer – one requirement for granting an injunction.
“The net effect of the motion is that the commonwealth would not have two senators in Washington for 90 days?” Connolly asked O’Brien.
“That is correct,” the attorney replied.
“How does that affect the Massachusetts Republican Party?” the judge asked.
O’Brien said the irreparable harm was the abuse of the constitutional process by allowing one person – the governor – to supersede the authority of the Legislature.
Internal battle, we would assume, yes? Wrong. Apparently the White House was pressuring the Massachusetts lawmakers to get this bill thru, and a Democrat into the halls of Congress forthwith. In an offhand sentence in the third paragraph was this…
President Barack Obama and his staff lobbied for the change as they try to win approval this year for their top legislative priority, overhauling the nation’s health care system.
But the quest for power by the Obama WH isn’t confined only to influencing state legislation, crafted to enable his party’s rigor mortis hold on absolute power. This POTUS is actively engaged in dissing not only one of his own Democrat Governors, but one of the few minority Governors in power…. New York Governor David Paterson.
Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.
Appearing tired and agitated at a parade in Harlem on Sunday, the governor told a crowd of reporters that he would not abandon his campaign to seek a full term.
“I have said time and time again that I am running for governor next year,” he said at the 40th annual African-American Day Parade.
Mr. Paterson would not characterize what he was told by the White House, saying that he would not “discuss confidential conversations.”
“I’m not talking about any specific conversations,” he said. “As I said, I am running for office.”
President Obama had sent a request to Mr. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.
The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.
Realizing this type of intrapolitical bully tactics doesn’t look good, the WH started their dance of denial within 24 hours.
The Obama administration on Sunday flatly denied that the president intervened in New York state politics and urged Gov. David Paterson to withdraw from the 2010 governor’s race.
“President Obama is not involved in any way,” a senior administration official told FOX News.
The pushback came after The New York Times reported that Obama asked Paterson, a Democrat, to drop out over concern that he is damaged goods, politically, and could drag down other Democrats in the state. The Times quoted administration officials as saying the president’s request was conveyed to Paterson by Queens Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks.
But while the administration denied any presidential interference Sunday, the senior official confirmed that White House officials are, at the least, concerned about Paterson’s ability to survive in office — suggesting high-level conversations with Paterson have taken place.
~~~“Nobody asked him to get out of the race — it is Governor Paterson’s decision to make. We’re confident he’ll make the decision based on the best interests of the state,” the official said.
According to two senior New York Democratic advisers who spoke to The Associated Press, national Democratic Party leaders were the ones who urged Paterson to contemplate dropping out.
Really? Again with this “it’s not my fault” POTUS legacy, the scapegoats vie for the honor of their heads on the chopping block. The only problem is, three days later, it turns out that even Governor Paterson’s wife, is pretty incensed at Obama’s political treachery…. with NY’s First Lady, Michelle Paige Paterson, telling Obama to butt out.
Today, in a series of interview with the Big Apple’s panting news media, New York’s First Lady Michelle Paige Paterson said it was wrong for the White House to get involved.
“David’s the first African American governor in the state of New York and he’s being asked to get out of the race. It’s very unusual and it seems very unfair,” she told the New York Post. “I never heard of a president asking a governor not to run … I don’t think it’s right.”During a trip to upstate New York on Monday, President Obama told Paterson, according to Michelle Paterson, that he was “a little chagrined about how the White House handled the message.”
I see… so Obama’s not upset about the message and meddling… just the method of delivery.
The overt actions by this sitting President for absolute, unmitigated power… even over the State’s, which he seeks to further usurp and castrate with a healthcare public option… is nothing short of breathtaking.
And perhaps the only thing more jaw dropping than watching this happen with little fanfare is the casual acceptance of these back to back power grabs by a complacent media and prozac-riddled nation of citizens.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Welcome world to the Obama shuck and jive act. Just remember, words, just words, you can’t believe a thing Obama says … Right Poland?
Obama has a real talent for meddling with things. Fooling with things that are beyond the scope of his employment. Banking, Private Industry, Health Care to name a few. He is in way over his head and sadly China, Russia and Iran know it. He gets into trouble when he can’t remember the last lie he told. That will be his undoing.
If the ACORN investigation is pursued with diligence he will not last his full term.
So Opie is “a little chagrined at how the White House handled the message.” It seems he’s indulging in a little personification of an inanimate object. Bad old racist Whitey House. Doesn’t it know better than to treat the first African-American governor of New York with disrespect?
There’s just one problem here — Opie is the White House and the White House is Opie. The half-Arab in chief is just letting the slave know who the master is and that he must be obeyed.
Note to Michelle Paterson: Maybe if you used the word “unprecedented” instead of “unusual” you might have gotten Opie’s attention. It seems to be his favorite adjective, and he uses it regularly to glowingly refer to his administration and his policies. If you had co-opted it for your argument, you might have brought him to a heel position long enough to get a real apology.
I have been hearing a chorus of conservatives saying that the FEDERAL government should regulate the insurance industry instead of the state… you know that whole argument “let people buy health care insurance across state lines” – yeah, another way for the federal government to circumvent the states control.
Yes, Blast… that is exactly what I was addressing. Portability. But you still don’t get it. If the feds seize control for “universal” healthcare, they violate the 14th Amendment.
I agree that competition is the answer for lower prices…provided it is competition between private insurers and not a public option that overrules the states’ laws. The private insurers would therefore start with a basic state to state portable coverage, and individual state residents would then have to add riders to cover their state’s individual coverage mandates. i.e. I’m quite sure it’s illegal in California to have a visible pimple on your ass if you’re under 29. LOL Not really, but you get the drift.
For the feds to dictate the coverage infringes on states’ right. There is no way to be completely uniform from state to state without the states’ yielding their rights to health mandates.
If done via the private industry, they can do add on packages and perhaps offer travel packages that cover multiple states for those that have employment that keeps them on the move with travel. Voila… states’ rights intact, and nanny feds not dictating rules to the states. It will, however, still be more expensive to live in one state (ala MA, NY, NJ, etc) over others. So it will not cure that complaint. It may, however, lower a base coverage which may make the individual state riders more affordable.
Lots of ifs. if this if that. and btw “portability” has more to do with keeping your insurance if you leave a job, not cross state lines. We have seen how well the insurance companies have done. We are not talking about them adding any value… Right now health care insurance companies are total monopolies. If you decide to go to a doctor and you have no insurance, it costs a ton. More than what the insurance companies pay for the same services. That is not competition or fair. Insurance should cover costs incurred by the person covered, not create a system of unfair pricing… depending on if you self insure or now are forced to be insured. If it costs $100 bucks to fix a cut, it should be $100 bucks. Right now the insurance companies pay a fraction of the costs and the general public are forced into “insurance” because the companies are big monopolies buying services with other people’s money. That is why the whole system is corrupt, there is no competition. You speak of competing for insurance premiums, that misses the point. How about COMPETITION IN THE ACTUAL SERVICE BEING PERFORMED! I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I don’t see either side really stepping up to the plate.
Found this on Wikipedia under Big Lie:
Big Lie is a propaganda technique in which the lie is so complex that the public will either dismiss it as impossible or choose not to believe it out of willful ignorance. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.
Used in Hitler’s psychological profile
The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile:[2]
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[3]
Wonder who fits the pyschological profile and is mastering(or has mastered) the art of the Big Lie (perfected by Nazi Germany during the war). Your guess is as good as mine.
He (guess who?) makes the Bush-Cheney tandem looks like patzers in comparison.
Are you suggesting Bush-Cheney were big liars, but just not as big as he (guess who)?
Blast
What Lemonv is probably saying is that Obama is in a class of his own on lying.
Re buying insurance across state lines. Presently, insurance companies are the ones deciding how to expand their businesses. If they were forced to insure across state lines, then the government would be the ones deciding how large their companies become. They would be forced to buy licenses in all states on the theory that even one person would want to buy insurance in that state. I doubt the insurance companies want to get that bulky. Not only that but they would be forced to have the expense of offices in all states. A money losing operation.
The ideal for this case is for the insurance companies to have an agreement to cover employees who move or change jobs with no lapse of coverage. Also for them to agree to cover random people with pre-existing condition on the same basis that groups are now covered i.e. after 255 days. To not be able to turn down any one but to have exceptions with time limits. All this is really all we need other than show proof of citizenship. The government could also mandate that emergency rooms not cover illegals exept for life threatening illnesses. Maybe some of these illegals would go home to be treated then. The government could also give a tax credit for insurance premiums instead of a tax deduction. That would put individual insurors on par with groups. This, of course, will never happen. Better and cheaper healthcare is not the objective of Obama and the democrats. Nationalizing healthcare and controlling the elctorate is their goal. And even if that was not their goal, government is not into common sense.
Yes,Blast. Bush-Cheneys’ justification for Iraq war 2 in which they “were misled” by the Al Qaida link to Saddam, “misled” by the uranium yellow cake from Nigeria and this could go on and on.
And, by the way, how could they get “misled” when they have at their disposal the powerful and smart CIA and FBI men and women in uniforms? So that “misled” explanation does not even faze me.
But at least, their tandem tried to enlist (“fool?”) the CIA and the FBI into accepting the lies that they want so as to attack Iraq (which was a sovereign State before the invasion no matter how bad Saddam is.)
As to guess who?
Guess who has been saying one thing and then doing the opposite which makes guess who a much more dangerous one.
Here are 5 examples of really good ones: (with apologies to buuuuuurning hot.)
1. I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 – LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
2. I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill – LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation – mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
3. I Don’t Take PAC Money – LIAR, you take loads of it.
4. I don’t Have Lobbysists – LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
5. I Have Always Been Against Iraq – LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date – AGAIN.
6. I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate – LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate – for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
7. I Am Tough On Terrorism – LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .
8. I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year – LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
9. I Want Americans To Decide – LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
10. No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA – LIAR, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
So does that make guess who a liar or what? The Bush-Cheney tandem at least “misled” us only in 1 aspect: the war on terror.(Not that their actions are condonable).
Guess who? has “misled” us on many occasions that he has become the epitome of the boy who cried “wolf”. Remember the fable? If you do not, here is a refresher:
It is about a boy who always yells “the wolves are here!” just so he has a good laugh. After several attempts of this in which the villagers always go to his aid, there comes a time when the wolves were really there and so his yells were not heeded anymore because the villagers did not believe him anymore. Guess who has become one of the villagers? Me.
I mean 10 examples of really good ones. My apologies.